The Instigator
Mikal
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points
The Contender
Tychas
Con (against)
Losing
19 Points

Atheism vs Christianity : Does God exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 9 votes the winner is...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/24/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,143 times Debate No: 35968
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (9)

 

Mikal

Pro

This is a shared burden of proof. I being pro will argue that God probably does not exist and Con will argue that he does exist.

R1: Acceptance

R2: Build cases but offer not rebuttals. This is just for building your own case

R3: Confrontation and rebuttals. This is the chance to counter and offer rebuttals while crystallizing your points and offering your closing statements.
Tychas

Con

I will start off that saying, while I am an Atheist myself, I've decided to play Devil's advocate (so to speak) and argue for the existence of a creator. According to my opponent, Round 1 is to be acceptance, so I will not go into great detail, as the next round will be the round where our arguments are presented. For this round, I will simply ask some questions to my opponent to set the record straight on exactly what we will be arguing.
I was raised in a Catholic school and a Catholic home, and I attended Mass every Sunday. While I've grown to reject the concept of a God, I've grown to understand the psyche behind those who do, and the thought process that occurs when making the choice to believe in a "God".
The first step in that process, is defining just what "God" is. This is a huge part of deciding whether or not the concept can be true. In defining God, the first thing one must ask, is "Is god tangible, or abstract?" Most, save for the more hardline Evangelicals, would define God as abstract. We cannot hear him, see him, touch him. He is a concept, not a real thing. He exists, but is so wildly beyond our comprehension, he can ONLY exist as a concept in our minds. Therefore, the routine argument is, he is abstract. On the other hand, many believe that they themselves have experienced God, and that he is real and tangible. The second question one must ask is "Is God all powerful?" Eastern Religion, along with pre-Abrahamist Western Religion, taught that God is not all powerful. God can be killed, can be wrong, can fail, etc. We can see that in Hindu Vedic texts and in the Norse Apocalypse of "Ragnarok", where all of the Gods died. Christians, Jews, and Muslims, on the other hand, define God as someone who cannot be wrong, cannot be killed. He is all powerful, and his will is the final word. We cannot understand how he is right, but he is. The third and final question is, "Is God alone?" How many Gods are we talking about here? One, like in Judaism and Islam? Many in one synthesis, like in Hinduism (Shiva, Brahma and Vishnu) and Christianity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). Many, like in Roman paganism and Shintoism?
So, my challenger, before we start this debate, please define in these terms exactly what God is? Is he a concept or a real being? Is he all-powerful or prone to failure? Is he one and only, many different, or many forming into one? Whatever definition you would like to set is fine by me.
Debate Round No. 1
Mikal

Pro

Again I would like to point out that the first round was for acceptance only. This was not for building a Case. My R1 comments had the guidelines to follow but I will disregard the fact you did not skim over this and keep going. I will ask Con to note the title of this debate. It clearly states this is Christianity, referring to the God of the Christian bible. So he will have to argue from this perspective as noted. So any argument that God is a state of mind would be off topic because the God of the Christian bible refers to him as an omnipotent all knowing being.

So as I stated in R1 this is a shared BOP and I will argue from the perspective that God probably does not exist. I normally break my debate into main points but the main focus of this debate will probably center around the origins of the universe. I will try to stay in that direction and also throw in some other key factors that often come up within apologetics. I will also keep this as simple as possible for people who don't reguarly dive into debates and lectures about quantum mechanics.

So the main argument that creationist and Christians use to prove the existence of a God often centers around the KCA or kalam cosmological argument. In essence this states that everything that exists has a cause. The Universe exists, therefore the universe must have a cause. In simple terms everything that begins must have a "beginner" or some type of origin point. This often revolves around the assumption that God cod created the universe or started what we know as the beginning of time or the first state of time. Most people will then correlate this with the big bang. I am going to assume everyone reading this acknowledges that the big bang happened, and if you don't that is for an entirely different debate. This however is also supported by a multitude of facts, one of which being cosmic background radiation which was discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in 1964 which won them the Nobel Prize.

So the next question one might ask is how does a universe come from nothing. So we first have to define nothing. Nothing is a very hard term to grasp. For example 90 percent of the mass of a proton comes from the empty space within it. We can then conclude that since 90 percent of the mass from a proton comes from empty space, and since our body is mainly made of protons and electrons 90 percent of our mass comes from empty space. Because of the laws of quantum mechanics and special relativity we now know that nothing can be something and actually have a weight. First let me break down quantum mechanics for you. When we are looking at mechanics there are two types. One of which is basic or classical mechanics which deals with problems and issues on the level of atoms, the other is quantum mechanics which goes below the level of atoms. So on extremely small scales nothing is a bubbling, boiling, brew of virtual particles popping in and out of existence in a time scale so short you can't see them. I was going to post a link to cite this but instead I think it will be more beneficial if you see it yourself

If you go to :21 seconds on that video, the jumping particles you see are present in empty space. So when someone asks can you get something from nothing, the answer is yes. The same can be said for the universe itself. Most of weight of the universe comes from empty space.

So the next stance most people will take is to argue the fact that this was after the first state of time. So the nothing that I just demonstrated has a different meaning than the nothing before the first state of time. Before I look at this point, I want to look at how our universe will end then go back to how it came from nothing. To break this down we need to look at the concept of general relativity. General relativity tells us that space is curved. Therefore we can draw one of three conclusions. The universe is open, closed, or flat. Click on this link to see a physical picture of this. http://www.futurehumanevolution.org...
So let me explain what a closed universe would essentially be. With the geometric properties that accompany it, if you were too look far enough in one direction you would see the back of your head. Both and open and a flat universe would be infinite in spatial extent. The important thing to note is what would happen in each of the universes. A closed universe would expand, stop, and then re collapse. An open universe would expand forever, and a flat universe would expand, slow down, but never quite stop expanding. So how do we figure out which one of these universe is our own? We get it by weighing the universe. Most scientist knew the universe was flat, because it was the only one that made mathematical sense when trying to weigh it. Also for the universe to be flat it was missing 1/3 of the amount of matter needed to make it flat. In a flat universe the total energy of the universe is exactly 0. Since gravity can have negative energy it balances out the positive energy of matter. So this goes back to the original question of how the universe came from nothing. What is so great about a universe with the total energy of 0? It is the only possible universe that can begin from nothing. Since there is 0 energy in that universe that allows quantum fluctuations to happen because of the fact it has 0 energy. Keep in mind this is quantum fluctuations on a deeper level than I had mentioned earlier because this is acting at total energy 0. So since this is the only universe in which 0 energy would be viable, if it isn't flat it would not make sense. That would mean there was energy at the start of time which contradicts general relativity. So the next question is how to we verify this, so how can we measure the curvature of the universe? You can do it using geometry. So to understand how this is done look at how we would measure the curvature of the earth if we didn't have a satellite. The first thing that would need to be done is to draw a triangle and find the sum of the angles in that triangle. For those who did pass geometry the answer is 180 degrees. With the earth it is very different. You can actually form a triangle with 3 right angles so the sum of the angles is 270. I'm hoping most people kept up with that, we know that because a right angle is 90 degrees. The same concept is applied to the universe. If you had a big enough triangle you could measure the curvature of space. I could keep going with how this is done but I am running out of space. Essentially we can use light in space to do this and act as a way to measure the curvature of the universe. One of the ways is the light from the cosmic background radiation that I mentioned earlier. To finish up this point, the 1/3 of the amount of matter that was needed for the universe to be flat(I mentioned this earlier) is made up of the empty space within a flat universe making the total energy 0. Which in turn makes it possible for universes to spawn because of quantum fluctuations.

The sad part is the ending to this. Because the universe is flat, it is expanding. Centuries down the road, the cosmic background radiation will not even be visible and evidence of other universes will be gone because of the rate of expansion. People will not even see proof a big bang existed.

My closing statement would be, how can there be a God. Science has shown us and keeps on showing us a multitude of theories as to how things were created since the beginning of time. It happened with evolution and now because of the string theory and quantum mechanics we can see how it is possible to get something from nothing. I don't think its logical to assume a deity made the universe, I think its sheer probability and chance. It also shows how far science has taken us.

http://www.physics.fsu.edu...
http://www.infidels.org...
Tychas

Con

Firstly, allow me to apologize for not giving some clarity to my previous post. I realize now that some of what I said could be confused. I acknowledged the first round was merely acceptance, and I didn't start formulating my argument. I was just questioning the God in which we were debating. Christians have many different ideas of "God", and rightfully so. The God I'm going to assume you're talking of is the archetypal Evangelical idea, ie the "Bearded Man in the Sky." According to my definitions, this would make him a tangible, all-powerful being thought of as being 3 different deities (The Father (Yahweh), the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit (Nameless, often represented by a dove).
I would like to first outline my argument, each part will be a different paragraph, so one could use this outline as a "Table of Contents."
1. Cleaning out the Inaccuracies of The Christian God.
a. Do Christians Believe God Created the Universe?
b. Does Evolution discount God?
c. Is the Bible literal?
2. Does God Need Proof to exist?
a. Does Proof=Existence?
b. Is there Empirical evidence to support/suggest God's existence?
c. If not, what non-empirical evidence suggest's God's existence?
3. What would be the meaning of God's existence?
a. The Universe and the Existence of "Meaning"
b. Why God is chaotic
4. Conclusion

Alright, let's begin.
1. Cleaning out inaccuracies.
The universe is brilliant. There are no words to describe how truly amazing a place the universe is. It's expansiveness and diversity boggle the human mind and entrall the imagination. But, how could such a universe get here? Did someone create it? For years, that answer has been a resounding No, in most religious teachings of creation. Christianity is no different. According to the Creation Book of Genesis, in the Christian Bible, "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth. And the Earth was without form and void, and the darkness was upon the face of deep. And the face of God moved upon the face of the waters." Before God began creation, the Earth was without form and void. If God had created the Universe, why would the Earth be formless? Why would it be void? And more importantly, why would there be waters for God to move upon? Why, if he was the creator, did the Earth not spawn, perfect and created? God did not create the universe, he merely brought order to it. With this, it makes sense that God could very well have been created by the Big Bang. According to the Christian definition, God is not the creation of the Universe, but the bringer of order to it. Therefore, one cannot use the origins of the universe as proof against God.

The second incorrect argument given against God is the argument that evolution shows that life does not need a creator, but can occur randomly. While this is true, the theory of evolution does not discount notions of a God. The Bible is very vague about how God created life on Earth, merely stating that he did "create it". Much like the origins of the universe, he did not directly create it, but brought order to it. That order? Evolution. Evolution is compatible with the Christian notion of a God, as Evolution could have very well been the vehicle God used to bring about life on Earth. God created life in 6 days, but a definition of a day is not given by the bible. A day could've been billions of years. The Bible does not discount evolution, therefore, God does not discount evolution. The two are not mutually exclusive, so it is impossible to discount the Christian God with evolution.

The third incorrect arguent given against God is that the Bible is literal, and that the events in the Bible could not have transpired, because they are unrealistic (ie, all the stars joining together in Jesus' birth). The Bible never attests to it's own literalness, and many of it's stories are written as parables, or allegories. Events that many claim prove the Bible, and by extension God, to be false are simply figurative, meant to teach a lesson through means of a story. Therefore, one cannot use the argument that the Bible is ridiculous in it's stories to disprove God.

2.The Need of Proof
Now that we have dispelled some common arguments as to why God cannot exist, let us begin to argue why he can. One common belief held by those who reject God is that for God to exist, we would need verifiable proof of his existence. This statement is simply inaccurate. Proof, in human eyes, does not equate to existence. For instance, before the Renaissance, we had no proof that atoms or particles at that level existed. Does that mean that they did not exist? No, of course not. It just means that we did not yet have the ability to prove the existence. Phenomena occur like that today, especially in the realms of the mind. People who have died and been resuscitated often have "Near Death Experiences", where they feel as though they are being lifted out of their body, and transported to a different world, one they believe to be the afterlife. There is little evidence to suggest an afterlife is true. Empirical evidence, anyway. However, millions have had these experiences, as many as 1 in 10 adults in America, and will attest to their existence. At some point, we may be able to experiment with death and resuscitation to the point where we can understand this phenomena. And, because we already have experienced it on a mental level, physically, we could prove it. Millions of people have experienced God in their lives. It is a phenomena that is, as of now, unproven. Does that mean we will never prove it? Absolutely not. Proof can, and probably will, come later. But right now, existence is probable, due to the vast numbers of people who claim to have experienced him.

Is there any empirical evidence to support the existence of God? No, there is not. We cannot see him, run any tests on him, or scientifically verify him (yet, anyway). This is absolutely true, and cannot be argued. However, there is still non-empirical evidence which hints towards the existence of a God. The experiences of millions around the world, and the experiences of people since the beginning of time, hint that there is something occurring here that we cannot understand. As I said before, we cannot yet prove it, but the meter of discovery is pushed from possibility to probability by these experiences. It is a phenomena we simply cannot ignore, and to do so is unscientific and illogical.

3. What would be the point of God?
Is there a point to God? To create the universe? Why? These questions can go on in an infinite loop and never end. The meaning of God cannot be argued, as God himself cannot be understood (yet). However, does God need meaning to exist? No, I say, he does not. "Meaning" itself is a human concept, and cannot be attributed to things currently outside of the human sphere of understanding. To argue that God has no meaning and cannot exist is illogical, and far overdone. God does not need meaning to exist.
God himself, is, as described by Christianity, chaotic. The blunder of emotions and actions he takes has no set pattern, no straight path. He goes from killing millions in a flood to sacrificing his son to save humanity. He is enraged, enlightened. He is the hope of the world and the father of Lucifer. He is everything and every aspect. Because of his chaotic nature, God is chaos. Chaos is verifiable, and occurs at points in the universe. But, so does order. It is this balance that allows the universe to exist, as too much order would result in no expansion and too much chaos would result in the complete annihilation of any form of buildup. This balance is God himself, it is the Christian conception of God. And, there is no denying that existence.
Conclusion
In conclusion, one cannot use a lack of proof or universal origin to write off God. The experience of millions around the world suggests that he is not only possible, but probable.
Debate Round No. 2
Mikal

Pro

As I stated in R1 this is a shared burden of proof. We are discussing the possibility that a God exists. Which is a more viable option. The fact that the Universe can exist without God, or the fact that it was created. Since this is a shared burden of proof, we both have to offer evidence to support this claim. I have shown how we can arrive at the conclusion that the universe does not need a God. So Con must show that God in fact does exist and argue this from a Christian perspective.

I will now offer rebuttals to some of Cons points.

(1) God was created at the big bang.

(2) Evolution does not discount there is a God

(3) The Bible is False

(4) We do not need proof to know that there is a God

(5) God exists to bring balance


(1)
My adversary claims that God could have been possibly created at the big bang. That when the Big bang occurred, he helped guide the process of life. By believing this he has already defeated himself. Since we know that all matter, space , and time was not eternal and was created at the big bang, this would get rid of the need for a God. The main staple in Apologetics is the fact that God created the universe from nothing. Science would have to show how something can come from nothing to disprove this. By stating that God was created after the big bang, which we know is the point at which matter was made, it literally rips apart the need for a God. He could state this possibly could have happened but then would have to show evidence to support this. Since we are sharing the Burden of Proof and there is no evidence to support this theory, it is merely speculation.

(2)
I agree, Evolution does not discredit the fact that there is a God. In fact many Christians believe that he guided evolution. This is called theistic evolution. This however has the same problem as the last argument, it is an assumption and nothing can prove this to be true. So this point is erroneous.

(3)
I have heard some Christians state this as well. They believe it is full of good morals and that if you follow the life of Christ the world would be a better place. Again this does not apply to this debate. It does not prove that God exists, but actually by admitting the bible is a way to command moral authority by using parables, discredits the existence of a God further.

(4)
There is no way to say this other than this statement is 100 percent wrong. He states that because of the mass number of people having personal experiences this in a way acts as evidence. If we were to simply believe people by their word, we would have to accept the fact that aliens are abducting people and anal raping them. There is a vast majority of people who are into paranormal stuff that believe they have been abducted. You can no simply state that because a lot of people believe it, that discredits the need for evidence because of faith that it happened.

(5)
This is essentially a God of the gaps argument and is not relevant to the debate. The universe has extreme conditions under which it functions and because of the vast amount of balance required to keep it functioning, there has to be a God. This is illogical and wrong. We can place any being here under that assertion. I can state santa claus brings balance to the universe, or that Barack Obama is in fact a celestial being that helps earth maintain its circular rotation around the sun. The perfect analogy was made by Bertrand Russell and Richard Hawkins used the same example in his book along with Sam Harris and a few others. Bertrand stated that if there was a teapot orbiting around the sun somewhere between the earth and mars, there is no way to discredit this. The only way to simply believe it was on faith. This got coined as "Russel's Teapot". You can see the philosophical angle he was getting at. The point he was making was that because he makes this claim, it is illogical for others to believe in this teapot simply because no one can prove him wrong.

In closing.

I have shown why most of Cons arguments are either minute or off topic. He has yet to show evidence that supports the existence of a God but simply claims that one could possibly exist. He has not demonstrated evidence to support his assertion, but has argued the teapot argument as I have just shown. WE do need evidence to see that there is a God, more than assuming one exists.

I on the other hand have shown how the universe could have came to be without a God. I have also show how life can come to be from nothing. Until Con offers some type of evidence to support his claims and refutes mine, the most logical conclusion is that a God probably does not exist.
Tychas

Con

This is a shared burden of proof, however, this is not an argument as to whether or not God created the Universe. It is an argument as to whether or not God exists. As I brought to light in my earlier argument, the Christian Bible does not define God as a Creator, but a bringer of order to an Earth that was "Without Form and Void." The Universe can very well exist without a deity, yes, but that doesn't discount possible existence.
Rebuttal To Original Argument
Because this is not an argument for or against Creationism, but an argument for or against the existence of God, my opponent makes little sense by explaining the nature and creation details of the universe. While his knowledge and depth of explanation is to be applauded, it has little application to the question at hand, especially as Christians themselves, according to their Holy Book, only look at God as the one who brought order to a Universe in Chaos. As I go on to explain, God could be the order itself personified, as many other God's were with other observational phenomena (ie, the Sun Gods, Fire Gods, Sky Gods, Sea Gods, et cetera ad infinitum). God, though modern Christians often see him as so, is not necessarily a creator. It is not specified in great detail in the Bible, as Genesis is shockingly vague on the subject of creation, but very detailed when speaking of the ordering and structuring of it. Therefore, it is erroneous to claim that explaining the process of the origins of the Universe discounts the existence of the Christian God.
Rebuttals to Opponent's Counter-Argument
I will now take a look at the points my opponent raised against my own argument. In the opening paragraph of my opponent's Counter-Argument, he states that "I have shown how we can arrive at the conclusion that the universe does not need a God. So Con must show that God in fact does exist and argue this from a Christian perspective." The argument that the Universe does not need God to exist does not discount his existence. It could change the meaning of God, but, much like my opponent has claimed about the Universe, God does not need a reason to exist.
In his first point, my opponent brings up my claim that God could have been created by the Big Bang. He calls it speculation. I would venture a bit further, and say that it is not speculation, but definite, as everything in the Universe was created by the Big Bang, and there was nothing beforehand. God is no exception to this rule, so he must have been created by the Big Bang. When I made this point, it was to illustrate the fact that Christian religion does not call for a Universe that was created by God, but one that was brought into order by him. Therefore, refuting the subclaim that God was created in the Big Bang does not discount the whole argument that God did not create the universe, and universal creation cannot discount God's existence.
In his second point, my opponent brings up another one of my subclaims, that Evolution does not discount God. This once again is only an example, an illustration, to make the point that creation does not discount God's existence. I will agree with him that this is only speculation, but it's possibility alone helps to illustrate the idea that God, in Christianity, is not a creator.
In his third point, my opponent states, "The Bible is false". While I respect his opinion, this is not relevant in terms of the argument at hand. While the morals the Bible asks followers to commit to are controversial and the subject of debate, they are not relevant to the debate at hand. When bringing up the Bible, I merely raised the point that it is not meant to be taken literally. All lessons are taught in parables and allegories, and all prophecies are taught with symbolism and metaphor. To argue that, despite all this, Genesis is the ONLY literal book in the Bible is simply absurd. The primary focus of this was the common argument that God did not create the Universe because it says he did so in 6 days, therefore, he could not have done so or have any influence in it. This is not meant to be taken literally. A day, by the Bible's definitions could be billions of years. The Bible's lack of literalness accounts for many common misconceptions of the Christian idea of God.
In his fourth point, my opponent raises a valid argument. In my own, I cite that millions of people around the world have experiences of God, and that this offers non-empirical proof for his existence. My opponent is correct in saying that this alone does not improve God. It is a logical fallacy, called the Vox Populi argument. However, because no form of empirical proof exists for or against the existence of God, the debate calls for arguments that suggest the probability and plausibility of God. As historical precedent suggests, unproven phenomena is often proven as technology advances. As it does so, we can delve into the world of the mind, and what happens upon death (especially the Near Death Experience phenomena). Because of this, we cannot discount a lack of empirical proof as a lack of God. We are just not advanced enough to find the evidence necessary. Because God is an experienced, and well documented phenomena, this non-empirical evidence does not prove God's existence, but merely points to it, as is necessary in a shared burden of proof debate where there is no empirical evidence available (as, methods for the creation of the universe cannot discount God).
In his fifth and final point against my argument, my opponent states that my defining God as order in the universe is incorrect, as anything, including a flying teapot, could bring order. This is true, however, this was not the argument. The argument was that God could be the personification of order and balance in the Universe, as Zeus is the Personification of Thunder and Thor the personification of War. This would define God as the order itself, not as a being that supports it. My argument suggests that the Bible states that God is a bringer of Order, and that, this could be a metaphor to say that God IS order in the universe. As Order and Balance definitely exist in the universe, thus,God would definitely exist in the universe.
Conclusion
In my final round argument, I have illustrated why my opponent's arguments are not relevant to the course of the debate, and why my own are. God is not, according to Christianity, the creator of the Universe, and, therefore, cannot be discredited by the explanation of an alternate form of creation. While his knowledge on the subject is extensive, and admirable, it does not apply to the discourse at hand. God is currently a phenomena, people claim to experience him all over the world in various ways. Before we had methods to do so, there was no way to prove the wind existed. People felt it, saw it act upon the observational world, but had no empirical evidence for it's existence. Once we had the ability, it's existence was swiftly proven, as it was a widely felt phenomena. God is much in the same. Once we have the ability, God will be proven, as he has been felt all throughout the world. And, it might not. Much like alien abductions, God might prove to be merely a mental phenomena, a manufactured memory that never really happened. However, currently, we cannot say that for sure, and we must take the personal experience of others into account, as no other source of information could exist. With no other evidence to suggest otherwise, the Burden of Proof is changed to the other side of the debate. As my opponent has not provided such proof, God, for the time being, exists.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Chapule 3 years ago
Chapule
MikalTychasTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources to Pro. Also arguments to Pro. I think Con got way off topic and was arguing the concept of what a god could be rather than what God is. Pro showed logical evidence as to why a God exists. Con argued what a God could be. I believe Pro met his Burden better. Also S&G to Pro because he had better sentence structure and overall had a better layout. Conduct is great on both parts
Vote Placed by TheHitchslap 3 years ago
TheHitchslap
MikalTychasTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: counter: Juan_Pablo for weak RDF He claims con was empirically right on the basis of personal experience of God, yet con's own concession is that this isn't exactly "proof" or even "evidence" in his own argument, and indeed even notes it would come later. When he fixes his RDF please msg me.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
MikalTychasTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter all inductivelogics seven point votebomb, this has already been discussed in a debate where Mikal is accused of being inductivelogic by another user, inductivelogic replys by claiming they are friends, in any case friends always voting in your favur and giving such high scoring marks when they are not justified is no different than playing unfair... although he claims to be countering sweet breeze, there are no valid RFD'S for either Mr Satan or Chapule, so I am countering that counter because Sweetbreeze ight as well countered them.
Vote Placed by Inductivelogic 3 years ago
Inductivelogic
MikalTychasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments to pro for almost all of the reasons listed below. Con argued the idea of a God rather than the Christian God itself. I cant even give him the full three points however because i am countering sweet breeze as normal. Offers not reason except you don't have to believe. /sigh
Vote Placed by sweetbreeze 3 years ago
sweetbreeze
MikalTychasTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Why this habit of believing things have to have proof to be real? That's a bad reason to not believing something is real. You might not be able to prove something, but you can claim it. I'm sick of people who keep believing that everything has to have proof to be real.
Vote Placed by Juan_Pablo 3 years ago
Juan_Pablo
MikalTychasTied
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: In fairness to Pro, I agreed with Con during and after the debate. I have to say that Con's argument is right (EMPIRICALLY RIGHT!) when he states that personal experience of God is a valid form of proof of God. Too many people claim that they have experienced God in their lives to discount it as non-sense; what people experience serves as empirical proof of what they call "God' in their lives.
Vote Placed by Shadowguynick 3 years ago
Shadowguynick
MikalTychasTied
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: I see this as them arguing two different "god" but cons argumejts made more logical sense, and I feel like they are more convincing. Pro had to argue about the christian god, yet when con provided his explanation about the christian god he simply brushed them away. You cannot argue against a christian god if you are not arguing against a different god. And i will choose to accept cons explanation as he is well versed in catholic teachings.
Vote Placed by mrsatan 3 years ago
mrsatan
MikalTychasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 did not address Pros initial argument for BoP to a meaningful degree, and thus Pro meets his BoP. However, Pros' refutation of Cons arguments does aptly show that while Gods existence is a possibility, it is no more probable than any other theory.
Vote Placed by GOP 3 years ago
GOP
MikalTychasTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used sources, and used better paragraph structure.