The Instigator
Zarroette
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Con (against)
Winning
38 Points

Any argument for the existence of an infinitely-intelligent, creator god, is illogical

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 18 votes the winner is...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/26/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,910 times Debate No: 46837
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (171)
Votes (18)

 

Zarroette

Pro

God: A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe

Omnipotence: Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.

4 rounds, 2 week voting period, 48 hours to respond and 10k max. word rounds.

First round is for acceptance
Second and third rounds are for arguments and counter-arguments as we see fit
Final round is for counter-arguments and concluding (no new arguments)

I will accept burden of proof; I intend to demonstrate that not only theists argue illogically for intelligent design, but that they can do nothing but.

Let's do this.
Wylted

Con

Thank you pro for hosting this debate.

Semantics

1. Self Refuting Arguments


Semantics, are important to keep the debate on topic. I ask my opponent to avoid any argumentation using self refuting arguments against me. These things are easy to get around and would unfairly cause me to waste space with rebuttals against something easily refuted. Not to mention that it would be unfair to ask me to defend an argument which refutes it's self.

2. Intelligent Design

When my opponent mentions intelligent design in her last sentence, she is in no way trying to have a debate on the scientific theory on Intelligent Design. Instead she is trying to debate the resolution that any argument for an infinitely intelligent creator god is illogical.

3. Meaning of the Resolution

I'm assuming my opponent is saying the contents of any argument for an itelligent creator god is illogical, and not that the act of arguing for one is illogical. She's free to correct me, but that is my interpretation of the meaning.

4. Definition of God

My opponent went through a lot of trouble defining God. I will presume that it's to avoid any abusive interpretations of the word. Just as she is taking efforts to avoid her opponent using unfair semantics, of the word god, I would also ask that she doesn't use her provided definition of God in an abusive way (example: ridiculous self refuting arguments against).

5.Logic

Logic is a system for determining the truth about something. It is in no way perfect. Something being logical has nothing to do with something being true. This debate isn't about discovering the truth about anything. It is about determining if a logical argument can be made for an infinitely intelligent creator god. It doesn't matter if the argument is true. It only matters if the argument is Logical.

It would be unfair for my opponent to expect my argument to stand up to every single logic system. For the purposes of this debate, I will use Modal Logic.
Debate Round No. 1
Zarroette

Pro

I thank Wyled for accepting this debate.


Any argument for the existence of an infinitely-intelligent, creator god, is illogical

I’m going to make simple arguments to begin.

Any justification for the existence of an infinitely-intelligent, creator god must have the following two components:

1) He is infinitely-intelligent

2) He is omnipotent

To say that such a god does not have any of these, or even to say that he only has one, is to suggest that this god is not a god, but rather some kind of restricted or limited entity.


Something cannot be so complicated that it had to be designed


Complexity, as a product of understanding, arises when something needs to be complex. For example, a television set is not complicated for any other reason than because it has to be. If that particular television set was not as complicated, then it would either work sub-optimally or not at all. Hence, the television set is as complicated as it has to be – it does not make sense to say that something is so complex that it had to be designed.


Things that are unnecessarily complex show a lack of understanding


Comparatively, a television set can be more complicated than it needs to be, but this would indicate a product that lacks understanding. If the television set were to have extra wires that did not impede nor benefit the system, then you could say that the designer of the television set did not fully understand what was required. The goal of intelligence is to strive for simplicity, and making things unnecessarily complex does the exact opposite.

To say that the universe is ‘finely tuned’ is to say that the creator god is not omnipotent


If the universe is finely tuned, then it would imply that god doesn’t have any control over aspects of our reality, otherwise he wouldn’t have to tune in the first place. The fact that he can ‘play the universe out of tune’ suggests that he can create a flawed universe, of which he does not want (hence the tuning). This is not to mention how silly it is that god has to make up for his mistakes when he sets the rules in the first place. To say that the universe is finely tuned is to contradict the nature of the creator god.

Something cannot be conscious without demonstrating intelligence


I think this is fairly self-evident, but I will address any objections should my opponent make them.

It is not possible to demonstrate infinite intelligence and infinite power at the same time


In order for god to demonstrate infinite intelligence, he would have to limit himself to a test of some kind. When no limits are available and no goals are known, unintelligent actions are indistinguishable from intelligent ones. So, god must limit himself and set knowable goals in order to show that he is infinitely-intelligent (or else give us some kind of alternative way of measuring intelligence, of which he has yet to give us). However, in limiting himself to testing conditions, he, at the very least, hides his omnipotence – you cannot play a game of chess in order to show how smart you are, without first limiting yourself to the rules.


And thus, it can be written as so:

Demonstrations of omnipotence require the absence of limitations

Demonstrations of consciousness require demonstrations of intelligence

Demonstrations of intelligence require the presence of limitations


Conclusion

Evidence for god, via complexity, indicates nothing. Intelligence (limited) and Omnipotence (unlimited) are mutually exclusive, and such a creator god could only ever appear be contradictory in nature. Thus, any attempt at arguing for an infinitely-intelligent, creator god is illogical.

References

Arguments taken from the Youtube channel, 'TrenchantAtheist'. http://www(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=_nNy-xPbKas&list=PL47F8B6C872DB6AC1

(Take the two (dot)s out)

(For all those that are ready to give me a jump for giving this as a reference, this is a reference, not a source. The difference is that I am not referring to this as researched evidence, rather I am referring to this because I have used the arguments from here, and thus I am giving credit where credit is due).


Wylted

Con

Introduction

I just want to reiterate. My argument doesn't have to be convincing. My argument need only be logical. If my opponent can't show any logical fallacies, than I have proven that a logical argument exists for an infinitely intelligent creator God. I also would like to request voters attribute no source points to either me or my opponent. We will both use a lot of philosophical arguments that won't require sourcing.

Crash Course in Modal Logic

Since my argument relies on modal logic, it is important that voters have at the least a very basic understanding of what modal logic is.

Modal logic consists of 4 propositions.

Possible

Possibility deals with what is logically possible, not physically possible.

If something isn't logically impossible, than it is logically possible.

For example the Flying Spaghetti Monster is logically possible (as far as I can tell). So, it is possibly true.

Impossible

Something is impossible, if it can't logically exist. A triangle with 4 sides would be logically impossible and therefore couldn't exist.

Necessary

Necessary propositions are ones that must be true and can't be false. For example 2 2=4 and can't be false.

Contingent

Contingent possibilities are ones that could be true but could also be false. For example Obama is president of the United State is true, but it could have been false. So it is contingently true. Al Gore was not president of the United States is false, but it could have been true so it is contingently false.

Possible Worlds

Possible worlds is just another way of representing what is possible. If I say the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists in some possible worlds and not in others, than all I'm saying is that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is possible.

Ontological Argument for the Existence of God. (Borrowed from Alvin Plantiga and various other people)

Premise 1

It is possible a greatest possible being exists. There are no logical absurdities here or contradictions. If my opponent can prove this premise wrong then the whole argument falls apart. So far in the history of mankind this has yet to be done so good luck.

Premise 2

Necessarily, if a greatest possible being exists he must be omnipotent and omniscient. If it wasn't omnipotent and omniscient then a greater possible being could exist in some possible worlds.

Premise 3

If the concept of the greatest possible being is coherent it exists in some possible worlds.

Premise 4

If a greatest possible being exists in some possible worlds it exists in all possible worlds. It exists in all possible worlds because it is a necessary truth and not a contingent truth.

Premise 5

If the greatest possible being exists in all possible worlds, he exists in the actual world.

Premise 6

The greatest possible being exists and by definition is God. It is omniscient and omnipotent.

Logically Valid

The argument is logically valid. Here is the mathematical proof here: http://jwwartick.com...

"Ax=df x is maximally great
Bx=df x is maximally excellent
W (Y) =df Y is a universal property
Ox = df x is omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect

1) `74; (W07;x)Ax pr
2) `33;(x)(Ax iff `33;Bx) pr
3) `33;(x)(BxX35;Ox) pr
4) (Y)[W(Y) iff (`33;(W07;x)Yx W44; (`33;~(W07;x)Yx)] pr
5) (Y)[(W07;Z)`33;(x)(Yx iff `33;Zx)X35; W(Y)] pr
6) (W07;Z)`33;(x)(Ax iff `33;Zx) 2, Existential Generalization
7) [(W07;Z)`33;(x)(Ax iff `33;Zx)X35;W(A)] 5, Universal Instantiation
8 ) W(A) iff (`33;(W07;x)Ax W44; (`33;~(W07;x)Ax) 4, Universal Instantiation
9) W (A) 6, 7 Modus Ponens
10) W(A)X35; (`33;(W07;x)Ax W44; (`33;~(W07;x)Ax) 8, Equivalence, Simplification
11) `33;(W07;x)Ax (`33;~(W07;x)Ax) 9, 10 Modus Ponens
12) ~`74;~~(W07;x)Ax W44; (`33;(W07;x)Ax) 11, Communication, Modal Equivalence
13) `74;(W07;x)Ax X35; `33;(W07;x)Ax Double Negation, Impl
14) `33;(W07;x)Ax 1, 13 Modus Ponens
15) `33;(x)(Ax iff `33;Bx) X35; (`33;(W07;x)Ax X35; `33;(W07;x)`33;Bx) theorem
16) `33;(W07;x)`33;Bx 14, 15 Modus Ponens (twice)
17) `33;(x)(Bx X35; Ox) X35; (`33;(W07;x)`33;Bx X35; `33;(W07;x)`33;Ox theorem
18) `33;(W07;x)`33;Bx 16, 17 Modus Ponens (twice)
19) (W07;x)`33;Bx 18, Necessity Elimination"

Pro can't argue that this is not logically valid, only that it isn't logically sound. I will focus on rebuttals in the next round.
Debate Round No. 2
Zarroette

Pro

I thank Wylted for his arguments.



My opponent’s argument via Modal Logic


My opponent argues that because his argument is logically valid, not even logically sound (necessarily), that this is a sufficient counter-response. Let us have a look at what these terms mean:

Logical validity: an argument is logically valid if it is in principle impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false at the same time [1].

Logically sound: is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. [2].

Logical validity pertains to structure, whereas soundness deals with the content.

.

.

.


Why being logically valid isn’t enough


All my opponent is arguing, is that his argument is structurally okay. But structure is NOT the only component of an argument of a logical argument. The soundness of an argument also counts towards the logic of an argument. Can an argument be logical if it is not sound? No, it cannot. It can only be structurally sound, in regards to logical validity. But no-one will believe an argument if they think it is not logically sound.

If I made this argument:

1) All ducks are pink

2) Therefore, my duck is pink

This is logically valid, in the sense that if the premise is true, then the conclusion is definitely true. But clearly, this is a logically defunct argument, is it not? I mean, the premise is clearly not true, so there is illogic in reaching that stage. Would anyone classify this as a logical argument? No, because structural validity does not equate to being logical.

.

.

.


The missing component: Creator God


My opponent then makes an argument, which claims via symbolic logic, that “an omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect God exists”. However, notice that there is no mention of a creator god, in this conclusion. In fact, notice how this attribute is left out of the mathematical permutations? Sure, an omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect God may exist, but where is this creation aspect?

It’s not that my opponent’s argument isn’t logical; it’s that it isn’t relevant to the resolution! One half of the problem is that God is supposed to be a creator (the other being that he is omnipotent). The resolution calls for both, not just one.

.

.

.


Why a god cannot be both omnipotent and the creator

Let’s have a look at this via Modal Logic:

Premise 1: God is the creator

Premise 2: God is omnipotent

Premise 3: God is both omnipotent and the creator

Argument: This has been demonstrated through the creation of everything

Conclusion: Therefore, an omnipotent, creator god exists

The third premise is internally defunct, as for a god to be omnipotent, that god would have to be without limits. Yet, for a god to be the creator, he would be demonstrating limiting via the creation of everything.

Clearly, this is logically unsound, as one of its premises cannot be true.

This is, arguably, a logically valid argument, seeing that if the premises are true, then the conclusion cannot be false. All my opponent is arguing is that the premises are logically followed by the conclusion. He is NOT arguing any substance in his theory (although he does provide an argument, which I’ve already addressed).

.

.

.



Conclusion

Structural validity does not mean that an argument is logical. Logical validity is only a component of a logical argument.

I argue not that a god of some kind cannot exist, rather, that a specific type of god cannot. On the surface, my opponent’s argument seems reasonable, yet it does not factor one of the most important parts: the creator part; hence, it does not argue in regards to the resolution.

.

.



References/Sources

[1] http://rationalwiki.org...

[2] http://www.iep.utm.edu...




Wylted

Con

Introduction

I've refrained from addressing the soundness of the Modal Ontological argument until this round. I've done so, because I already know that the Ontological argument is irrefutably logically valid. I wanted to give my opponent a chance to attack the soundness, instead of trying to anticipate her arguments and write a bunch of uneccesary stuff.

The Missing Component

Yes, the creator God is missing from the Modal Ontological argument. I thought it was a given that, if a being is omnipotent and omniscient, that it would also be the creator. I suspect my opponent attacking that missing piece is just a desperation Hail Mary, to try and discredit my whole argument.

A similar line of reasoning in the ontological argument can be used to show, that a rational argument for the ontological God can be made via modal logic. The only thing that can reasonably be attacked, would be the soundness of the first premise. The first premise is (It is possible the ontological God is the creator). Really, that's uneccesary. If the ontological argument is shown to be logical then obviously so will the creator part.

Omnipotence Paradox

My opponent brings up, the classic omnipotence paradox.

"The third premise is internally defunct, as for a god to be omnipotent, that god would have to be without limits. Yet, for a god to be the creator, he would be demonstrating limiting via the creation of everything."

I think it's clear, you can be without limits while creating limits. The creation of a world with limits is not the same as having limits. I can create a model train set and limit the path the train goes. This in no way implies that my path is limited. To suggest otherwise is just plain silly.

Let me just address omnipotence parodoxes in general, before my opponent gets carried away. Pro implies that omnipotence is, the ability to do the logically impossible. Nobody that believes in an omnipotent being, believes he can do anything. Asking some of the stuff my opponent asks is like asking:

1. "Can an omnipotent being, create a square with 3 sides ?"

2. "Can an omnipotent being, tell you the shape of purple?"

3. "Can an omnipotent being, toad an 11?"


(Questions taken from InspiringPhilosophy YouTube channel)

It's just, scenarios and questions that make no sense. They are gibberish. An omnipotent God can't commit logical absurdities. Nothing about the definition of omnipotent would mean that an omnipotent God can commit logical absurdities.

Conclusion

My opponent has failed miserably, at showing the modal ontological argument to be unsound. Seeing as how she agreed to no new arguments in the final round, than I see no way for her to show the ontological argument to be unsound.
Debate Round No. 3
Zarroette

Pro

The Missing Component

“Yes, the creator God is missing from the Modal Ontological argument.”


My opponent essentially concedes that his Modal Ontological argument is not relevant to this debate. Again, the resolution calls for arguments involving a creator god, yet my opponent willingly admits that his argument does not have the creator god aspect.


“I thought it was a given that, if a being is omnipotent and omniscient, that it would also be the creator.”


Why? You’ve even admitted in the previous sentence that your argument doesn’t involve the component, yet now you’re saying it’s a given? Besides, it does not follow that:

1) If a god is omnipotent and omniscient

2) The god must be the creator

It is entirely possible that an omnipotent, omniscient god, could not be the creator.

Again, the Modal Ontological argument is not relevant to this debate, as it does not address the creator aspect, which is required in this debate.



Omnipotence Paradox

“I think it's clear, you can be without limits while creating limits.”


This doesn’t counter the argument I made. This is my argument: when you’re demonstrating intelligence, in order to prove your existence, you must be limiting yourself to the task’s rules, otherwise intelligence cannot be determined. Yet at the same time, this would mean that you haven’t shown you’re omnipotent, because you are limiting yourself to the task’s rules.

The problem is that a god cannot demonstrate omnipotence and infinite-intelligence via creating. The problem is not that god can be without limits while creating limits. My opponent’s argument misses the fact that in order to demonstrate intelligence, god must limit himself to rules. With the resolution’s context requiring demonstration of (infinite-) intelligence, my opponent’s argument is rendered a slight straw-man.


“Let me just address omnipotence parodoxes in general”


My opponent then continues to argue that omnipotence paradoxes are silly, without taking into account the demonstration of infinite-intelligence component that I argued. If he had addressed the specifics of my argument, instead of arguing in generalised terms (and in doing so, missing the point), then, maybe, he would have addressed my argument. I did not argue those apparent paradoxes, and I clearly outlined my argument in the 2nd round. My arguments do not revolve around the internal problems with omnipotence, rather, my arguments suggest that demonstrating both omnipotence and infinite-intelligence, is inherently contradictory.





Concluding remarks


My opponent doesn’t quite understand the specific argument I’m making, hence, he hasn’t addressed it properly. His arguments don’t address the resolution, because he’s left out the creator part of god.

I thank Wylted for his arguments, and I thank you for reading both his and mine :)

Wylted

Con

Introduction

I will rehash my positions, so everyone understands, I've already shot down every point made in my opponent's closing remarks.

The Missing Component

I made it clear to my opponent, that a similar argument for a creator God could be used as the one I used for the Modal Ontological argument. The creator attribute is part of the ontological argument. My opponent, just didn't understand what I was saying.

That's what I meant, when I said its a given. God is a necessary truth. This means he doesn't depend on anything for his existence. An omnipotent, omniscient God by definition is the creator of the universe. He is the Alpha and Omega. He is the beginning and End. The Creator attribute is part of the ontological argument, despite not being explicitly stated.

Omnipotence Paradox

My opponent states for God to demonstrate an omnipotence and omniscience would be impossible. She gives some hypothetical tests for God. I already pointed out the logical absurdities of that argument. Even if the logical absurdities didn't exist, her argument still falls short. The omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe, doesn't need to demonstrate anything. I made a logical argument for the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, creator God. He can be omniscient and omnipotent without ever demonstrating it to himself or certainly to any lesser beings.

Concluding Remarks

I have made a logical argument, precisely for a God my opponent said a logical argument can't be made for. Is that proof of a God? No, but that's not the point. My opponent didn't prove a logical argument couldn't be made for the God she specified. I went above and beyond. Not only did I undermine every single one of my opponent's arguments, but I proved that a logical argument could be made for the God she specified.

Thank you Zarroette, for having this debate and most of all thank you voters for reading this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
171 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
I hope so,
Posted by Zarroette 1 year ago
Zarroette
This is the last time that you'll ever beat me.
Posted by ECWGaming 2 years ago
ECWGaming
I can't vote yet, but I definitely say that the contender wins this one. He gave her a logically valid argument for an omnipotent, omniscient, creator God. Even though his Modal Logic did not include the creator part, the instigator claims that it is logical for an omnipotent and omniscient being to not have created the universe. That being said, it is also logical for an omnipotent and omniscient God to have created the universe. So the creator part sort of it a given. Overall, the contender gave the instigator everything she wanted. A logically valid argument for an omnipotent, omniscient, creator God. Does it prove his existence? No. But it is definitely a logical argument.
Posted by digitalbeachbum 2 years ago
digitalbeachbum
Even Godel's proof is flawed.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
She defined god as omnipotent.

American football is better.

You're still stuck on the early Christian ontological argument and have failed to realize it is different than the MOA.
Posted by digitalbeachbum 2 years ago
digitalbeachbum
I can't debate because this website is bugged. I can't even get past the verification process.

Debating gods or god is a failure in itself. It's silly and a complete waste of time. If I wanted to debate something I'd rather debate what is better, American Football or World Futbol?

The failure of the argument, of a god(s), is that every thing is assumed.
Example: Appeal to Probability.
I can think of something (premise).
Therefore, something is real (invalid conclusion).

Of course the multiple god thing does work because the argument is designed for only one god. So we exclude any thing that isn't a monotheistic religion. This is the failure of the argument. It is a custom designed argument for only monotheism.

Also, her claim is "Any argument for the existence of an infinitely-intelligent, creator god, is illogical".
So why are you forcing this "omnipotent powers" thing?
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Thank you for the detailed RFD. I always appreciate those even when they're not in my favor.
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
RFD:

Zarro fails to refute the ontological argument. Wylted might have had a problem proving the "creator" part of the argument. Even if God necessarily exists, that doesn't prove that God created anything *else*. It just means God has always existed. But Wylted also argues that we should run the "Creator" aspect through the ontological argument again, which proves the existence of a creator God [pretty much because if you run anything through the ontological argument, it proves its existence - even an omninefarious (all evil) God or even God's non-existence]. But Zarro doesn't refute this, so it proves what Wylted needed to prove - that there is a logical proof of God.

Zarro attacks the logical soundness of the argument by saying that it *might* not be logically sound, but never establishes her burden to prove one of the premises false. Her analogy to pink ducks is good, but doesn't prove anything about the premises of the ontological argument.

The only other thing Zarro argues is the "intelligence" of God. Zarro says, "In order for god to demonstrate infinite intelligence, he would have to limit himself to a test of some kind." However, Wylted responded to this by saying that there is no reason that God has to prove his intelligence to us. For this reason, I don't buy that intelligence necessarily requires proof of intelligence.

I also thought Zarro's argument was interesting that God should be able to do the logically impossible, specifically create a Universe that does not obey the laws of physics. But there is no proof that God couldn't. He just simply happened to create the Universe we live in. Also, Wylted doesn't endorse maximal omnipotence, so the God he argues for cannot do the logically impossible. Whether this is actually "God" could have been debated, but it wasn't here. So I vote Con.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
The multiple God's thing, doesn't work. You can't have multiple omnipotent gods, because if they ever wanted something the other didn't.

2 omnipotent Gods would create a logical absurdity.

The MOA isn't something, I invented. So yes the MOA and the mathmatical proof are copy and pasted. None of my argument is anything unique.

If you think you stand any better of a chance of proving the MOA illogical or unsound, than I welcome you to debate it with me.

Something else you should know. I'm an atheist.

I just happen to be an atheist that knows the MOA is logically valid and sound.

All my arguments for MOA will sound parroted in spots that don't include the actual argument and the mathmatical proof. The reason they sound similar is because I have no original or new thoughts to add to the subject.
Posted by digitalbeachbum 2 years ago
digitalbeachbum
Kinda pointless when your debate is basically a "cut and paste" from another website(s). Yeah, some of your stuff is original, but as I searched around to see where you got your stuff from I became disturbed that a lot of it is verbatim from a blog (and did you pull it from that book he referenced?).

I don't know much about debating rules but there must be one covering this sort of strategy. Maybe a "parroting rule"? How much of a debate needs to be your own words?

As for your source and as well, the entire original argument and all subsequent revisions, I won't bother pointing out the fallacies because you have already parroted their defense of what some else has said and quite literally word for word.

What bugs me about all these "is there a god debate" is how "christian's" always seem to have this "holier than thou" opinion of their view points. Yeah, I know you never mention that you are a christian, but because you basically copied a debate and argument from another source I believe you are so; because they were so.

So where does all the other "gods" from the other religions fit in to this logic?
It doesn't.
They can't let them in the equation because it gums up the works. How about trying this? Substitute the singular noun in the first premise with the plural. Now how does that shoe fit?

If you claim that one god exists, then why not multiple gods? Oh, wait... that's right. Christians have their good book which says so. Wow. A self supporting claim for a self centered god? How original.

"ooh, look at me.. I'm the only god! all other gods are false!"
"What? Hindu? Pbbbt!! Ignore those gods! Just worship me!"

You just might win this debate, but you shouldn't. Did "PRO" do a perfect job on defending their claim? No, but they certainly did a better job than you.
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by frozen_eclipse 2 years ago
frozen_eclipse
ZarroetteWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: cons summary hit the nail on the head...he wins due to pointing out logical flaws in the formulas pro created....though imus t say omnipotence and omniscienced oes not equal the creater.....there could exist a limit to infinity, there may also be more than one being who can reach this all powerfull and all knowing limit...just a thought. So one could contingiently speaking being a creator whom is all knowing and all powerfull while not being a creator, because there may be another similar being who created instead.
Vote Placed by Hematite12 2 years ago
Hematite12
ZarroetteWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's MOA did not satisfy the requirement of the god being a creator god. Pro pointed this out but Con never really responded or constructed another argument to include the creative element.
Vote Placed by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
ZarroetteWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by Ozzyhead 2 years ago
Ozzyhead
ZarroetteWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Strong arguments from both sides
Vote Placed by Iamaconfederate 2 years ago
Iamaconfederate
ZarroetteWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were weak.
Vote Placed by Le.Doctor 2 years ago
Le.Doctor
ZarroetteWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Good job both of you; Con in general you defended yourself and attacked Pro's arguments very well!
Vote Placed by AdamKG 2 years ago
AdamKG
ZarroetteWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made the true point that nobody in the history of mankind has ever refuted the existence of an ontological god, but pro made a good effort. Her arguments made me think about it. Con ultimately wins the debate, but both of them made truly logical arguments. I noticed con tended to overuse commas making comma splices so I gave that score to pro.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 2 years ago
ConservativePolitico
ZarroetteWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO failed to uphold the claim that ANY argument for... god is illogical. CON clearly showed that there are a handful of logical propositions in argument for such a god are indeed logical. PRO's point about how being omnipotent means that you cannot create the universe made no sense .Just because god has no limits does not mean he cannot place limits on other things. Furthermore, CON showed some really good logic, his points were well made and clear. PRO's points, as the one I used as an example, were a bit more muddled. Therefore CON wins this debate via the fact that PRO did not adequately uphold the BOP.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
ZarroetteWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by Pfalcon1318 2 years ago
Pfalcon1318
ZarroetteWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling and Grammar- Equal mistakes Pro did not refute the argument by Con, Con using Modal logic. The premises of the syllogism are true (based upon the word "possible" as it relates to Modal Logic) and Pro did not argue against the truth of the premises, but rather presupposed that a Creator God does not exists, and therefore concludes that the premises are not true, and thus that the syllogism is unsound. However, the word possible is, considering the nature of this debate, the only allowable phrase. It is POSSIBLE that a Creator God exists, though not necessarily true. Pro does not refute the possibility of existence, but rather the truth of existence. Sources- not provided, not needed in this instance. Conduct- Equal.