The Instigator
MilitaryAtheist
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
CriticalThinkingMachine
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Atheism is more probable then Theism

Do you like this debate?NoYes-4
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 2 votes the winner is...
CriticalThinkingMachine
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/17/2012 Category: Education
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,707 times Debate No: 25654
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (20)
Votes (2)

 

MilitaryAtheist

Pro

Resolved: Atheism is more probable than Theism.

For purposes of this debate, the term "God" will be defined as to include the general attributes of the Judeo-Christian God (i.e.: omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence etc.) That is to say, we are not referring to anyspecific deity.
"More probable" is to be defined as more likely than not (in other words, atheism is more likely than Theism).

Rules:

(1) Debater must have typing experience and internet access.
(2) Place your arguments and sources inside the debate
(3) Structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion.
(4) No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.
(5) Forfeiting any round will result in a 7 point loss.

Rounds:

(1) Acceptance
(2) Opening Statement
(3) Rebuttal
(4) Rebuttal

Other notes:

(1) 72 hours to argue;
(2) If special circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time.
(3) If one side explicitly concedes or violates any terms, then all seven points will be awarded to the other;
(4) By accepting this challenge, you agree to these terms.
CriticalThinkingMachine

Con

Thank you, MilitaryAtheist, for instigating this debate. It would be my pleasure to debate
you on this classic topic. Give me your best shot.

Debate Round No. 1
MilitaryAtheist

Pro

Problem of Evil

1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. (As defined by Christian theologians and philosophers.)
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God does not have the power to eliminate all evil, or does not know when evil exists, or does not have the desire to eliminate all evil.
Conclusion: Therefore, God doesn't exist.


There are a few out-comes for the PE (Problem of Evil)


1: God is not Omnipotent
2: God is not Omniscient
3: God is not morally perfect.
4:Evil doesn't exist
5:God is not really a Tri-Omni god.

Not the best argument but time to move on the the Kalam.

Kalam Cosmological Argument

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe had a cause.


The issue with this is because we only can witness ex materia creation, not ex nihilo. We can't take the rules for "ex materia" and then sic them to "ex nihilo".


One other thing. God is a problem for the KCA. WHERE did God come from? HOW (like how the big bang was created the universe?) did God come to be? No doubt by "argument from design" logic it had to be quite the anomaly. Thus by this logic the KCA and God are self refuting.
CriticalThinkingMachine

Con

INTRODUCTION

In round two, Pro presented one positive argument against God (the problem of evil) and one two negative arguments (criticism of the Kalam cosmological argument) in support of his resolution that atheism is more probable than theism. I will demonstrate why both of his arguments fail.

I do not have to show that theism is more probable than atheism. I only have to show that atheism is not more probable than theism. I could defend agnosticism if I wish, and cast doubt on atheism. But I’ll give a defense of one kind of cosmological argument for the existence of God.

CONDUCT

I would first like to point out that Pro plagiarized his post for round one. He took it from this debate

http://www.debate.org...;
Our debate is five rounds, yet Pro refers to four rounds in this post. That is because the debate round he plagiarized was from a four-round debate. Fortunately, Pro did not plagiarize an argument round but only an acceptance round so it's not so serious. But still, plagiarism is plagiarism.

THE ARGUMENTS

1- The Problem of Evil

Pro did not elaborate on the problem of evil but only presented it in its syllogistic form. The key premise is #6 but Pro did not flesh this out. But as I am aware of the elaborations it tends to take, I will present my argument against it.

The problem with the problem of evil is that it assumes that knowledge of evil plus the ability to eliminate evil plus the desire to eliminate evil equals the elimination of evil, but there is simply no reason to believe this. But why should God eliminate evil if evil is going to be eliminated anyway once we die?
Wouldn’t that seem impractical and pointless?

It makes sense for humans to try to eliminate evil on the earth. We are living with it day to day. It’s all around us. We are compelled to eliminate evil because it affects us so deeply. But from God’s perspective, in Heaven, this life is temporary and overwhelmingly short compared to eternity. A supernatural being who intervenes left and right into our affairs to prevent evil sounds more like a magic genie than a respectable god.

Many atheists say that God must have a purpose for evil in order for him to be justified in allowing it. But they mistakenly equate having a reason for doing something with having a purpose. A purpose implies that something is done in order to achieve some end, but not all actions are done in order to achieve an end and can still be justified. For example, suppose you are a college student who notices that your
friend has not been studying for his physics exam coming up. When you ask him why he is not studying, he tells you that he does not need to because he already knows the information flawlessly. His action of not studying is not done with a purpose (he is not neglecting to study in order to achieve an end) but that does not mean it is not done without a reason. Similarly, even if many evils that God allows do not serve a greater purpose, lead to a greater good, or build character, God could still have a reason for allowing them, the aforementioned one.

2- Criticism of the KCA — “The issue with this is because we only can witness ex materia creation, not ex nihilo. We can't take the rules for ‘ex materia’ and then sic them to ‘ex nihilo’. “

Pro seems to be saying here that just because the things we experience everyday have a cause of their existence, it does not mean that the universe has a cause of its existence. Well, that’s true, but we need not rely on experience to form the conclusion that the universe has a cause of its existence. We know the universe has cause of its existence because it is contingent. It could have been any other way. The universe’s existence is not entailed by any aspect of the universe. There is no reason why it could have been something else, or not existed at all. Something outside of the universe is required to explain why it exists.

3- Criticism of the KCA — “One other thing. God is a problem for the KCA. WHERE did God come from? HOW (like how the big bang was created the universe?) did God come to be? No doubt by "argument from design" logic it had to be quite the anomaly. Thus by this logic the KCA and God are self refuting.”

God is not a problem for the KCA. Pro asks where did God come from? But most people who believe in God (and certainly the Judeo-Christian version of God) believe that God always existed. Therefore, God
did not come to be. He always was. The KCA only says that things which begin to exist need a cause of their existence. Since God did not begin to exist, this rule does not apply to God, so the KCA is not a problem for God and is not self-refuting.

I have a lot of issues with the Kalam cosmological argument, so I won’t defend it here, but I’ll defend something similar. I’ll call it the modal cosmological argument.

Allowing for the possibility of an infinite series of causes prior to the universe, the universe is still contingent and still requires a cause of its existence even if it does not have a godly cause of its coming into existence. The existence of the universe would have to be dependent on something which does not depend on anything else for its existence. Now we all know that logical relations of ideas do not depend on anything else for their existence. For example, 2 + 2 = 4 is tautologically true and so does not depend on anything else outside itself for it to be true, so logic is not dependent on God. But logical relations cannot cause material to exist. They only regular what exists. So if a logically necessary relation cannot be the ground of being and if postulating another arbitrary non-necessary cause simply backs the problem up another step, the only solution is something in between the two: Something which does not have a logically necessary existence but also is not dependent on anything else for its existence. What better than an single, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being. It’s the most non arbitrary, most comprehensive, and most economical solution to the problem.

And from the conclusion of God being the cause of the existence of the universe, we can then (and only then) inductively infer that God is also the cause of the coming into existence of the universe, for it would seem inconsistent that God would be the fist but not the second.

GRAMMATICAL ERRORS

1- debate title — “Atheism is more probable then theism”

The word “then” is supposed to be “than” in the debate title.

2- round one — “We are not referring to anyspecific deity”.

There is supposed to be a space between “any” and “specific”.

3- round two — “The issue with this is because we only can witness ex materia creation, not ex nihilo.”

It should read either “The issue with this is that we can only witness…” or perhaps “This is problematic
because we only can witness…”

4- round two — Not the best argument but time to move on the the Kalam.

It should read “…time to move on to the kalam.”

CONCLUSION

I have demonstrated why the problem of evil fails as an argument for atheism, and why the basic form behind the cosmological argument still stands. I have shown that the three arguments Pro presented for his resolution fail.

Sources

cosmological argument
Adler, Mortimer J. How To Think About God: A Guide For the 20th Century Pagan (1980)

the problem of evil
Adams, Marylyn McCord “Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Vol. 63 (1989) pages 297-310
Debate Round No. 2
MilitaryAtheist

Pro


http://www.debate.org......;
Our debate is five rounds, yet Pro refers to four rounds in this post. That is because the debate round he plagiarized was from a four-round debate. Fortunately, Pro did not plagiarize an argument round but only an acceptance round so it's not so serious. But still, plagiarism is plagiarism.


lol.


It makes sense for humans to try to eliminate evil on the earth. We are living with it day to day. It’s all around us. We are compelled to eliminate evil because it affects us so deeply. But from God’s perspective, in Heaven, this life is temporary and overwhelmingly short compared to eternity.

Ok.

A supernatural being who intervenes left and right into our affairs to prevent evil sounds more like a magic genie than a respectable god.

So? God can't find time to, oh , cure AIDS? Does God not have traits of a genie?


...lead to a greater good, or build character, God could still have a reason for allowing them, the aforementioned one.

And what is that reason? God is all-powerful. There is nothing he could logically do. So why evil?


...rely on experience to form the conclusion that the universe has a cause of its existence. We know the universe has cause of its existence because it is contingent.

So? And you are wrong. I don't judge based on experience in the creation of the Universe.

It could have been any other way. The universe’s existence is not entailed by any aspect of the universe. There is no reason why it could have been something else, or not existed at all. Something outside of the universe is required to explain why it exists.

What? You just repeated the KCA. And there is many theories for the Universe. Ever heard of Virtual particles?

The KCA only says that things which begin to exist need a cause of their existence. Since God did not begin to exist, this rule does not apply to God, so the KCA is not a problem for God and is not self-refuting.

Because the Universe didn't have a cause the KCA doesn't apply to it. It is foolish to think God was around forever and not supply proof. Stop making assertions and then we talk.


It’s the most non arbitrary, most comprehensive, and most economical solution to the problem.


lol. It is not. What created the creator? God was just floating around in nothing, doing nothing before he wanted to create the Universe. Which, is more logically then a Universe that was always around.


I have demonstrated why the problem of evil fails as an argument for atheism, and why the basic form behind the cosmological argument still stands. I have shown that the three arguments Pro presented for his resolution fail.

Okay.


Attacks


The paradox of all-power/all-knowing


"Can A all-knowing God with find the power to change his future mind? his future mind?"

In short, God can't change his mind in a decision.

.God is looking into the future to see the outlook.
He changes his mind to something else, which he sees and changes his mind to change his mind, ad infinity.


So far Con has not given his BOP.

Vote MA.



GRAMMATICAL ERRORS

1- debate title — “Atheism is more probable then theism”

The word “then” is supposed to be “than” in the debate title.

2- round one — “We are not referring to anyspecific deity”.

There is supposed to be a space between “any” and “specific”.

3- round two — “The issue with this is because we only can witness ex materia creation, not ex nihilo.”

It should read either “The issue with this is that we can only witness…” or perhaps “This isproblematic
because we only can witness…”

4- round two — Not the best argument but time to move on the the Kalam.

It should read “…time to move on to the kalam.”

kfc
CriticalThinkingMachine

Con

INTRODUCTION

I thank Pro for his posting for round three. In this round, I will explain how Pro explicitly conceded to some of my points, implicitly conceded to the rest of them by not actually addressing what I was saying, and violated the rules laid out in round one. As will be made clear in post for this round, Pro’s points are so short and undeveloped as to have no significance.

ARGUMENTS

1) The Problem of Evil

1a) So? God can't find time to, oh , cure AIDS? Does God not have traits of a genie?

I never said that God can’t find time to do something. That’s a straw man. I said that in the grand scheme of things, it is irrational for God to intervene to do things like cure aids. What I meant by the genie comment was that asking God to fix everything that’s wrong with the world does not seem mature. My point still stands.

1b) And what is that reason? God is all-powerful. There is nothing he could logically do. So why evil?

I already explained the reason, which is that it would not make sense for God to intervene to stop something that will be stopped eventually. My point still stands.

2) The Kalam Cosmological Argument

2a) So? And you are wrong. I don't judge based on experience in the creation of the Universe

“So?” is not a rebuttal. Pro implicitly concedes my point about the universe needing a cause
outside of itself. My point still stands.

And Pro claims that he does not judge based on experience in the creation of the universe. Okay, I never said that he did. And how does that have any relevance to my point? My point still stands.

2b) “What? You just repeated the KCA. And there is many theories for the Universe. Ever heard of Virtual particles?”

I did not repeat the KCA. The KCA affirms a first initiating cause due to the impossibility of an infinite regress. I’m using modal logic to move from the contingency of the universe to a non-contingent cause outside of it. They are related points, but they are not the same. My point still stands.

And no, I’ve never heard of virtual particles. I have no idea why Pro did not bring them up in round two, and I have no idea why he did not argue for them in this round, but that does not matter anyway. I never denied scientific explanations for the beginning of the universe. I denied scientific explanations for the
existence
of the universe, because it has nothing to do with science, it’s a purely logical issue.

2c) “Because the Universe didn't have a cause the KCA doesn't apply to it. It is foolish to think God was around forever and not supply proof. Stop making assertions and then we talk.”

If Pro wants to believe that the universe did not have a cause (and so the KCA does not apply to it) he can, but he has to argue it, not simply assert it. Hypocritically, Pro now tells me to not make assertions (I assume he means un-argued assertions). Anyway, in response to Pro’s second objection concerning the KCA, I only had to defend the compatibility of the KCA and (an uncaused) God, because Pro’s claim was that the two conflict. I did not have to present an argument for God being uncaused. I thought this was clear. Anyway, my argument about God not having a cause is in my defense of the modal cosmological argument. My point about God and the KCA not conflicting still stands.

2d) “lol. It is not. What created the creator? God was just floating around in nothing, doing nothing before he wanted to create the Universe. Which, is more logically then a Universe that
was always around.”

This question does not address my point about the non-arbitrary, comprehensive, and economical nature of God, but I’ll address it anyway.

As I explained, I am initially open to the idea of an eternally existing universe, or a universe that was caused to come into existence by an infinite series of causes and effects. My point is about the modality of the universe, the bare logical existence. As I explained, there must be a cause that at least sustains, if not initiates, the existence of the universe. This cause would not have cause itself if it had a radically different nature from everything else in existence, everything else that it caused. Pro seems to be still stuck on the idea of material cause and effect and he is not addressing what I am actually saying in my argument.

Pro also says that God floating around doing nothing is “more logically then [sic] a universe that was always around”. Huh? Why does Pro think God is more logical than an eternally existing universe? He probably meant to say “less logical”. Anyway, as I explained, a “universe that was always around” does not conflict with God. Pro did not address the crux of my cosmological argument, so it still stands.

3) Attacks (the paradox of all-power/all-knowing) New Argument

The debate rules that were laid out in round one included the rule that the first round is for acceptance, the second is for opening statements, and the following rounds are for rebuttals only. Pro has violated this rule by introducing a new argument in round three, instead of simply forming rebuttals to me as he is supposed to. If Pro had wanted to allow for new arguments to come later in the debate, then he should have allowed for it. But he did not, so this argument does not count.

Pro forgot the first rule about plagiarizing: Make sure that you actually read and support whosever words you are passing off as your own!

But for the fun of it, I’ll address it anyway, though I would appreciate it if Pro did not bring it up again in the next round. Pro’s formulation of this attack is incoherent (violating another debate rule laid out in round one), but as I am familiar with many atheistic arguments, I think I know what he is trying to say. I’ll apply the principle of charity to him and assume that he meant something like this: If God knows what the future holds, how can be make a free decision that could alter that future. Or, if God has free will over the future, how can he really know what the future will hold?” The solution to this is very simple. I don’t believe that omniscience extends to include knowledge of the future. After all, the future by definition does not exist, so how could God know a proposition to be true or false in the future when there is no future for it to be true or false in? So there is no contradiction.

“So far Con has not given his BOP.”

Pro must mean that I have not met my BOP. First of all, the BOP is shared. We are both making positive claims. Secondly, anyone who reads this debate can clearly see that I have met my burden of proof, while Pro has failed to meet his. I refuted his arguments, and his responses to my refutations had no meat on them.

CONDUCT

I pointed out Pro’s plagiarism. His response to this was only the following: “lol”. Well, maybe Pro is laughing out loud, but my guess is that Microsuck (the guy who wrote round one) is not laughing out loud, or laughing at all.

CONCLUSION

In my conclusion I recapped that I refuted all of Pro’s arguments and defended the implications behind the KCA. Pro’s only response to this was “Okay.” (For whatever reason, Pro posted his comments out of order and put his response to my conclusion before the grammar). So I take it that he
concedes to all of my points.


NOTE:
When I put my post for round two in the box, it said at the bottom that I had 313 characters remaining, yet when I tried to enter it, it would not allow me, saying “Your argument cannot be more than 8000 characters in length.” TBut it wasn't more than 8000 characters! There must have been some technological glitch. Well, I cut the section that I entitled "Grammatical Errors" so that the post for round three would fit, though I may post it in the comment section instead to compensate.
Debate Round No. 3
MilitaryAtheist

Pro

I feel like I can rebut all of the theist in this rant.

You have avoided the Higgs Boson. This alone rebuts the KCA. You now have no clear agrument for God therefore you lose. The Problem of evil is sound. You gave me confusing riddles with no value. I could sto here but my opponent thinks I cheated. I did not. Conduct to me and arguments to me abuse he had none. I am busy with life and I think by my opponent giving sloppy rounds lead to confusion os both sides. I will allow a better rematch in the future if you want to.

Peace.
CriticalThinkingMachine

Con

“You have avoided the Higgs Boson. This alone rebuts the KCA. You now have no clear argument for God therefore you lose.”

I have no idea what the Higgs Boson is. I have never heard of it. Why Pro did not defend
it from the beginning is a mystery to me.

And even if the “Higgs Boson” refutes the KCA, a debater does not get any credit for simply mentioning an argument that refutes his opponent. He must actually argue it, so that his opponent has a chance to respond to it. Would it be fair if I said “There are tons of books which refute atheism. Done. I win.”? Of course not. I have to actually present the arguments in the books which I believe refute atheism, not merely mention them. So Pro’s point means nothing.

Even if the Higgs Boson refuted the KCA, what does that matter to this debate? I did not defend the KCA. I defended the MCA. Pro is off point.

And Pro once again violated the rules laid out in round one and brought up a fresh argument when he is only supposed to form rebuttals.

"
The problem of evil is sound. You gave me confusing riddles with no value."

I refuted the problem of evil with my arguments. Pro offered half-hearted responses to me that did not even begin to address what I said. My arguments still stand.

Pro says I gave him confusing riddles with no value. I’m sorry if he felt confused. Debates like this can become pretty intricate. If Pro gets confused by these kinds of arguments, then maybe he should choose different debate topics, or narrow his challenge from an “open challenge” to one that must be met by someone matching his age, for example, in which case less intricate arguments might be put
forth. But I certainly did not present any riddles. If Pro believes I presented riddles, then he should have given examples.

“I could sto [sic] here but my opponent thinks I cheated. I did not. Conduct to me and arguments to me abuse he had none.”

In response to charges of plagiarism, Pro responded with “lol”. Then I explained how Pro violated the rules for debate rounds laid out in round one. Now Pro simply says, without defense, that he did not cheat. I explained how he did. Conduct to me.

“I am busy with life and I think my opponent giving sloppy rounds lead to confusion os [sic] both sides. I will allow a better rematch in the future if you want."

We’re all busy with life. That’s not an excuse to neglect to argue one’s beliefs. If Pro feels that he was too busy to debate, then he should not be instigating or accepting debates.

I did not give any sloppy rounds in this debate. My postings were very well-organized, and were divided into sections of introduction, arguments, conduct, grammar, and a conclusion. I numbered the arguments so as to disambiguate between separate points and to give an analytical breakdown of what arguments and sub-arguments were being dealt with at a particular point. I do this not only because it makes it easier on me, but it also makes it easier on my opponent as well as those who read and/or vote on the debate. I always ensure that my debate postings are clear, consistent, and highly readable. If anyone gave any sloppy rounds, it was Pro. His postings for round one and two were pretty organized, but round three was not so organized but instead consisted of random comments to my points. And round four was just a paragraph of multiple points that did not address my previous post.

Pro says that my “sloppy rounds” lead to confusion on both sides. Well, Pro should not
speak for me; I’m not confused, but I’m sorry if he is.

MilitaryAtheist, you said you would allow for a better rematch in the future if you want. I would love to debate you again sometime. If the debate resolution is the same as this, and if your opening statements are the same as the ones in this debate, then I will obviously give the same rebuttals. If you want the debate to be “better”, that will be entirely dependent on you.

Peace.

Pro’s closing words sound like a concession. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
MilitaryAtheist

Pro



I have no idea what the Higgs Boson is. I have never heard of it. Why Pro did not defend
it from the beginning is a mystery to me.


I DID. Remeber vitural particles?

And even if the “Higgs Boson” refutes the KCA, a debater does not get any credit for simplymentioning an argument that refutes his opponent. He must actually argue it, so that his opponent has a chance to respond to it. Would it be fair if I said “There are tons of books which refute atheism. Done. I win.”?

No. The Higgs Boson doesn't need a past cause. It then rebuts the KCA. There is no need to go past that.


Of course not. I have to actually present the arguments in the books which I believe refute atheism, not merely mention them. So Pro’s point means nothing.


I don't 'mention' agruments. The HB is evidence.

Even if the Higgs Boson refuted the KCA, what does that matter to this debate? I did not defend the KCA. I defended the MCA. Pro is off point.


You still didn't make any agruments for god.
And Pro once again violated the rules laid out in round one and brought up a fresh argument when he is only supposed to form rebuttals.


You may have misunderstood but whatever.


I refuted the problem of evil with my arguments. Pro offered half-hearted responses to me that did not even begin to address what I said. My arguments still stand.


You did not. Your 'rebuttals' skirted the question and then made red herrings.

Pro says I gave him confusing riddles with no value. I’m sorry if he felt confused. Debates like this can become pretty intricate. If Pro gets confused by these kinds of arguments, then maybe he should choose different debate topics, or narrow his challenge from an “open challenge” to one that must be met by someone matching his age, for example, in which case less intricate arguments might be put

forth.

lol? Is that a personal atack I see? I was confused because you made a wall of text and did not organize it. It made me read though pointless babble

But I certainly did not present any riddles. If Pro believes I presented riddles, then he should have given examples.

It was a figure of speech. You made claims, but not proof.


In response to charges of plagiarism, Pro responded with “lol”. Then I explained how Pro violated the rules for debate rounds laid out in round one. Now Pro simply says, without defense, that he did not cheat. I explained how he did. Conduct to me.

Do I have to prove my innocent? Bring proof, I know that can be hard, but if you dont, I am innocent.



We’re all busy with life. That’s not an excuse to neglect to argue one’s beliefs. If Pro feels that he was too busy to debate, then he should not be instigating or accepting debates.


This taken longer then I had thought but I am not neglecting anything. Red Herring.

I did not give any sloppy rounds in this debate. My postings were very well-organized

No they did not. you gave me a wall of text and did not organize that.
, and were divided into sections of introduction, arguments, conduct, grammar, and a conclusion. I numbered the arguments so as to disambiguate between separate points and to give an analytical breakdown of what arguments and sub-arguments were being dealt with at a particular point.


You had often 'run-on' your agruments. Posting walls of text and expecting me to read it is dumb. Add spaces.

I do this not only because it makes it easier on me, but it also makes it easier on my opponent as well as those who read and/or vote on the debate.

It doesn't.

I always ensure that my debate postings are clear, consistent, and highly readable.

Again, no.

If anyone gave any sloppy rounds, it was Pro. His postings for round one and two were pretty organized, but round three was not so organized but instead consisted of random comments to my points. And round four was just a paragraph of multiple points that did not address my previous post.

My agrumenst were clear and did not have worthless babble.
Pro says that my “sloppy rounds” lead to confusion on both sides. Well, Pro should not
speak for me; I’m not confused, but I’m sorry if he is.

AHHHHHH! THE INSULT IT BUURRRRNNNS.

MilitaryAtheist, you said you would allow for a better rematch in the future if you want. I would love to debate you again sometime. If the debate resolution is the same as this, and if your opening statements are the same as the ones in this debate, then I will obviously give the same rebuttals. If you want the debate to be “better”, that will be entirely dependent on you.

Same to you. However don't think this crashed because of me. Part of it was you. Conduct to me because Con had rude behavoir.

Peace.

Pro’s closing words sound like a concession. Vote Con.

They are not.
CriticalThinkingMachine

Con

INTRODUCTION

There was no need for this debate to be five rounds. The actual debate ended after round three; Pro derailed the debate with his posting for round four. But as I have one more posting left, I might as well respond to his last remarks.

ARGUMENTS

“I DID. Remember virtual particles.”

How am I supposed to know they are the same thing? Pro didn’t identify them with each other, he didn’t defend either of them but simply mentioned them, and he only brought Them up later in the debate.

“No. The Higgs Boson doesn't need a past cause. It then rebuts the KCA. There is no need to go past that.”

This posting did not address my point, which was that a debater must argue a point, not simply mention it. There is a need to go past merely mentioning an argument That you think supports your case

"
I don't 'mention' agruments. The HB Is evidence.”

Pro’s assertion that the HB is evidence does not change the fact that he merely mentioned it instead of arguing. He has to argue the evidence, not mention it.

"
You still didn't make any agruments [sic] for god.”

Yes I did. If you don’t understand the argument, then say that don’t understand it, but don’t pretend that I did not present an argument for God. And remember, my task in this debate was not necessarily to argue for God, but to show that atheism is not more probable than theism

"
You may have misunderstood but whatever.”

When a debater says something such as “You misunderstood me” or “You were arguing against a straw man version of my argument” or “That wasn’t what I was saying”, he has an obligation to tell his opponent what it was he actually was saying. Pro did not explain how I may have misunderstood.

I explained how Pro violated the debate rules laid out in round one. Pro simply asserted that he did not, but he did not explain himself.

“You did not. Your 'rebuttals' skirted the question and then made red herrings.”

Pro needs to stop making baseless assertions. If he feels that my argument skirted around the question (what question? by the way) and that I made red herrings, then he should back it up by providing examples and addressing my arguments.

“lol? Is that a personal atack [sic] I see? I was confused because you made a wall of text and did not organize it. It made me read though pointless babble

No, it wasn’t a personal attack, but I’m sorry if you felt attacked. And I did not make a wall of text. Please do not lie about what I did or did not do. I organized my postings ver well. What you posted for round four was a wall of text. Don’t accuse me of doing something that I did not do while you yourself
did do it.

“It was a figure of speech. You made claims, but not proof.”

I’ve never heard the term “riddle” used as a figure of speech for unsupported claims before, so Pro seem to be making up his own rules here.

I did not merely make claims. I argued my points. Again, please refrain from accusing me of something that I did not do but that you yourself did.

“Do I have to prove my innocent [sic]? Bring proof, I know that can be hard, but if you dont [sic] , I am innocent.”

This Statement sound incoherent, but Pro seems to be saying that he is innocent until proven guilty. But I proved him guilty of violating debate rules. He did not address my argument, so it still stands.

“This taken [sic] longer then I had Thought but I am not neglecting anything. Red Herring.”

I
n his posting for round four, Pro typed one very short paragraph —He entered it when he had about two hours left in his 72 hour time limit—, and yet he expects us to believe that he did not have enough time to argue. Give me a break.

"
No they did not. you [sic] gave me a wall of text and did not organize that.”

Again, this Is simply false. Stop lying.

“You had often 'run-on' your arguments [sic]. Posting walls of text and expecting me to read it is dumb. Add spaces.”

If you feel that I had runs in my argument, then you should back this up with examples, instead of simply asserting it. Again, I did not post a wall of text. This is the fourth time you have stated this lie.

And even if I had posted a wall of text, Pro still could have responded to it. It does not change any of arguments.

“It doesn't.”

Pro’s words “It doesn’t” were in response to my claim that breaking a post down into an organized format is more helpful for the debaters and those who read/vote on the debate. Why he thinks this is not helpful is a mystery to me.

“Again, no."

Pro’s words here were a response to my claim that I ensure an organized format to my debate postings. Pro just asserts this without arguing it. I’ll let my debate postings speak for themselves.

“My agrumenst [sic] were clear and did not have worthless babble.”

Why does Pro keep spelling the word “argument” wrong?

Pro again asserts something without giving examples. I’ll let his postings speak for themselves.

“AHHHHHH! THE INSULT IT BUURRRRNNNS.”

How was that an insult? All I’m saying is do not speak for other people.

“Same to you. However don't think this crashed because of me. Part of it was you. Conduct to me because Con had rude behavoir. [sic]

Pro says that part of the reason why this debate crashed was because of my rude behavior. Once again he did not give any examples of this, but if he feels I was rude, then I’m sorry. That was not my intention.

And even if was rude, that hardly had anything to do with the crashing of the debate. Pro caused the entire crash himself in round four when he posted his irrelevant self-called “rant”. He should have just addressed my arguments and continued the debate to round five.

“They are not.”

Pro’s words here are in response to me saying that his closing words sound like a concession. Well okay, I never said they were a concession, I said they sounded like a concession, and indeed they do.

CONDUCT

As I pointed out before, Pro plagiarized his post for round one, and then laughed it off when I accused him of it.

He also brought up new arguments in later rounds, which breaks the rules laid out in round one. When I brought this up, he, without argument, simply denied it.

GRAMMAR/SPELLING

Pro had numerous grammatical and spelling errors throughout the entire debate. Anyone who reads the debate can clearly see them.

ORGANIZATION

Pro’s postings for round four was an irrelevant wall of text which derailed the debate.

CONCLUSION

Pro seemed frustrated that I presented him with arguments that he could not counter. He should have just said “I concede.” Instead, he looked for any excuse he could find to avoid addressing my arguments. His main excuse was that my postings were sloppy. He did not support this contention with any examples. Voters can read my postings and decide for themselves if they were sloppy or not.

Vote Con.

Advice to MilitaryAtheist

If you’re not serious about debating God, then please don’t start debates about God.


Debate Round No. 5
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
Ok, well, millitaryatheist really enjoyed refuting with 'lol' but i don't its withing the spirit of the debate for Con to attempt to demonstrate why he thinks he deserves the win. That's the voters job.
Posted by Clash 4 years ago
Clash
In proving his case that Atheism is more probable then Theism, Pro gave two arguments. In fact, we can say that Pro gave only one argument since giving some objections against an argument for the existence of God (the KCA) doesn't count as your own argument. The argument which Pro gave was the problem of evil argument. Con however clearly refuted this argument.

For example, Con said 'But why should God eliminate evil if evil is going to be eliminated anyway once we die?' This was a good question labeled against the problem of evil, and Pro completely failed to successfully answer this question. Con also correctly notes that this life is temporary and overwhelmingly short compared to eternity. Therefore, 'A supernatural being who intervenes left and right into our affairs to prevent evil sounds more like a magic genie than a respectable god'. Con also nicely refuted Pro's objections against the KCA. Furthermore, almost all of Pro's responses to what Con said contained only some few sentences, and sometimes just some words like 'lol' and 'Ok'.

The conduct point goes to Con because Pro brought up new arguments in later rounds, which breaks the rules laid out in round one. Pro also plagiarized his first round from another user.

The source point goes also to Con since Pro didn't give any sources whatsoever.
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 4 years ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
InVinoVeritas: Response to his "reason" for his decision.

You gave no reason or examples for why you think this is a horrible debate. The debate itself was not horrible, only Pro's postings were horrible. It's not my fault that he did not want to debate me anymore after round three. Don't blame me for his actions.

If you read the debate, you can clearly see that I won. But you're an atheist and you do not want to vote for a theist arguing for God. Show some integrity next time.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Jacob, we gave plenty... Go to the religion forum
Posted by Clash 4 years ago
Clash
Okay. I will send you the debate challenge tomorrow when I return back from college.
Posted by Clash 4 years ago
Clash
Okay. I will send you the debate challenge tomorrow when I return back from college.
Posted by MilitaryAtheist 4 years ago
MilitaryAtheist
lol I been busy. Can you do it?
Posted by Clash 4 years ago
Clash
MilitaryAtheist, I have not gotten any debate challenge yet...
Posted by MilitaryAtheist 4 years ago
MilitaryAtheist
lol Jacob
Posted by MilitaryAtheist 4 years ago
MilitaryAtheist
lol Jacob
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Clash 4 years ago
Clash
MilitaryAtheistCriticalThinkingMachineTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
InVinoVeritas
MilitaryAtheistCriticalThinkingMachineTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Horrible debate. Neither deserves to win.