The Instigator
V5RED
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
FrozenLichBox
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Belief in a God is rationally justified.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
V5RED
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/14/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 615 times Debate No: 79703
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

V5RED

Con

The debate is fairly simple.

The round format is as follows:

R1: Pro: Opening argument including a specific definition of their particular god.
R2: Anything
R3: Anything
R4: Anything
R5 Anything

Time limit=24 hours/round

Pro will be making the case that there is rational justification for belief in a god, con will be making the case that there is not rational justification for such a belief. Con will not be attempting to prove that gods do not exist, only that belief in them is not rationally justified.

I will not accept atheists as pro for obvious reasons.
FrozenLichBox

Pro

First off, I'd like to thank my opponent for challenging me to this topic. This is a very passionate issue for me.

Alo, before I begin, I'd like to say that I define "God" as "The supernatural entity that created the universe and all life". Now that I have that out of the way, my argument:

Science has provided us with many explanations for phenomena in the world around us. Scientists often create physical "laws" to explain these phenomena. One such law, which has been shown time and time again to be true, is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This fundamental principle states that, in general terms, order cannot come out of disorder. So, then, to suppose that living cells (complex, orderly structres) were created by a primordial "soup", of their own accord, is absurd.

So, we (human beings) cannot possibly have "evolved" into what we are now. If we didn't create ourselves, it logically follows that we were created. Now, can we, an intelligent race, design and create life? The answer is no, we cannot, despite our best efforts, create life from its base elements. This, our Creator has clearly done, so this shows us our Creator is infinite in power.

If we have a supernatural Creator (as I've proved), and that Creator is omniscient (as I've also proved), it clearly follows that we should Believe in this God.

So, I conclude that belief in God is rational and logically justified, which I've proved using fundamental scientific principles and logic.
Debate Round No. 1
V5RED

Con

1) "Science has provided us with many explanations for phenomena in the world around us. Scientists often create physical "laws" to explain these phenomena. One such law, which has been shown time and time again to be true, is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This fundamental principle states that, in general terms, order cannot come out of disorder. So, then, to suppose that living cells (complex, orderly structres) were created by a primordial "soup", of their own accord, is absurd."

It may appear to you that this is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics, but that false appearance can be seen on most chemical reactions. The formation of water appears to violate the second law if you only look at the hydrogen and oxygen atoms, but they release energy when they combine and it is actually quite explosive, this increases entropy in the surroundings of the reaction.

The formation of the first cells was simply a large number of chemical reactions that may appear to you to be a violation of the law, but the truth is their formation increased the entropy of everything else around them. Additionally, the sun is influencing this system. It is constantly adding heat energy to the earth, but as it does this it is increasing entropy in the universe from this heat release.

I think your argument is just based on a misinterpretation of this second law. The interpretation you use would basically make every chemical process an example of a violation of the 2nd law. If that were the case, it would never have been proposed as a physical law.

2)"So, we (human beings) cannot possibly have "evolved" into what we are now. If we didn't create ourselves, it logically follows that we were created. "

Had your argument from the 2nd law stood, the logical conclusion would have been that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is flawed because it is contradicted by common natural processes. That a creator exists does not follow from the claim that life violates a law of physics. You need evidence that such a creator exists and finding a problem with a concept within physics is not evidence for a god.

4) "Now, can we, an intelligent race, design and create life? The answer is no, we cannot, despite our best efforts, create life from its base elements. This, our Creator has clearly done, so this shows us our Creator is infinite in power."

We cannot currently create life from non-life, but that does not mean we will never be able to create life from non life. If, however, you could prove that it is impossible for humans to ever create life and if you had somehow proven we had a creator, then it does not follow that the creator has infinite power. All it would have shown about the creator is that it has the power to create life. That is not infinite power, and the creation of life is in no way proof of infinite power.

5) "If we have a supernatural Creator (as I've proved), and that Creator is omniscient (as I've also proved), it clearly follows that we should Believe in this God."

You never gave an argument for omniscience, and it does not actually follow that having an omnipotent, supernatural, creator means we should believe in it. That a thing exists is not justification for belief in its existence. You need to have good reasons to justify that belief.

You did not know this until you read this exact sentence, but I have a beard. There was no way you could have known that, so it was irrational for you to believe it until you read the preceding sentence. Though if you do not believe that I am honest, I suppose you might still not believe in my beard, you might still want good evidence like a time stamped photo. That is how rationally justified beliefs are developed. It is not enough that x be true, you must have good reasons to believe that x is true.
FrozenLichBox

Pro

Okay, I'll concede on your first point, that human Evolution wouldn't violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. However, this one faulty argument doesn't, in any way, disprove the existance of God. This round I shall use three arguments to prove my claim:

1. Likelihood:

As I said above (and you agreed), humans are currently incapable of developing life on our own. So, if we, an intelligent race, cannot create life, then how can random chance? If "nature" has so much creative power, why are we not seeing this power in action, and why don't we possess it?

2. Emotion:

Why do we have emotions, such as compassion and charity? I've heard the argument of "group survival" before, but that doesn't really explain why someone would willingly lose resources for, say, a disabled person, who can't possibly aid "group survival" in any way.

3. Simple/Complex:

Much of the human body is made up of what are known as "irreducibly complex" organs, such as the ear and the skin. These are called "irreducibly complex" beacause each individual part of the organ is essential to the function of the whole, hence the name. Darwin himself acknowledged that to suggest that such an organ evolved is ludicrous.

This all ties into my former argument. Once again, if we didn't Evolve into what we are now, we must have been created. If we've been created, we must have a Creator, a supernatural being. If this entity exists, why can we not measure them physically? Simple: our Creator exists outside of time and space. He created our universe, and our physical laws, so why would He be bound by them?

As for your beard analogy, I've proved the existence of God, with good reasons. This, as you've said, justifies belief in Him.
Debate Round No. 2
V5RED

Con

"1. Likelihood:

As I said above (and you agreed), humans are currently incapable of developing life on our own. So, if we, an intelligent race, cannot create life, then how can random chance? If "nature" has so much creative power, why are we not seeing this power in action, and why don't we possess it?"
This is an argument from incredulity fallacy.
"Arguments from incredulity take the form:
P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false; therefore P must be true."[1]

Even if I had no answer to this, this does not help your argument. We do not say that magic did a thing just because we do not understand it. That said, we probably do not see life spontaneously coming into being because it occurs at the microscopic level, so even if cells or self replicating molecules did form, we would not see them and they would probably be out competed by the current microbes living in the water they form in, so they would not be around long enough to see. Additionally, self-replicating molecules are not the kind of thing a simple one step chemical reaction will form. For these to form de novo likely takes millions or billions of years, so we would never see them forming naturally in our lifetime.

"2. Emotion:

Why do we have emotions, such as compassion and charity? I've heard the argument of "group survival" before, but that doesn't really explain why someone would willingly lose resources for, say, a disabled person, who can't possibly aid "group survival" in any way."
This is an argument from ignorance. You are saying "I don't understand x therefore God". [1]

That said, I have a reasonable explanation.
You might not understand kin selection. Kin selection is the idea that a species or tribe whose members are willing to sacrifice for each other is more likely to survive than one whose members will not sacrifice for each other. Now let's assume that a disabled person could never help society(Stephen Hawking would have some words for you on that point). How can kin selection explain us helping him? Well one possible, and likely, explanation is that we evolved with the ability to care about and empathize with our fellow humans and since we are not computer programs, this caring and empathy was not restricted to able bodied humans. The general trait of empathy and caring for one's fellow species will lead to kin selection even if it also has some economically disadvantageous side effects.

"3. Simple/Complex:

Much of the human body is made up of what are known as "irreducibly complex" organs, such as the ear and the skin. These are called "irreducibly complex" beacause each individual part of the organ is essential to the function of the whole, hence the name. Darwin himself acknowledged that to suggest that such an organ evolved is ludicrous."
This is patently false and is both an argument from ignorance and an appeal to authority. You are saying that because you don't understand how a partially developed eye is useful, then it is useless and you are saying that because Darwin, who you seem to think is the be all and end all of evolution, didn't understand something, that it cannot be understood.

An eye that is not as fully developed as ours is still useful because it is still a light detection device. You start with a simple light detecting cell and you build onto it.
This video, by a professor of evolution, explains not only the evolution of the eye but also points out how you misquoted Darwin.
https://www.youtube.com...

What Darwin actually said was "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound."[3]

"This all ties into my former argument. Once again, if we didn't Evolve into what we are now, we must have been created. If we've been created, we must have a Creator, a supernatural being. If this entity exists, why can we not measure them physically? Simple: our Creator exists outside of time and space. He created our universe, and our physical laws, so why would He be bound by them?"
Even if your arguments had been successful, they would not necessarily lead to the conclusion that a creator existing outside of time and space exists. You have no reason to think that a nonphysical thing can have an effect on physical things. I suppose you could claim that logic and math affect us in that they are truths regardless of our knowledge of them and so the fact that they are true made it possible for them to be understood, but that is not the same as actually moving an object or building one as you think your god did. Existing outside of time and space makes no sense. You would need to explain how that is possible before concluding that something exists outside of time and space. Additionally, even if evolution were completely overturned, you would not be justified in saying a being created the universe. You seem to be conflating evolution with cosmology. You would need to prove the models of cosmology to be impossible and to prove that no other model but "god did it" can explain the universe. That is in the field of physics, not biology.

"As for your beard analogy, I've proved the existence of God, with good reasons. This, as you've said, justifies belief in Him."
None of your reasons worked in this round either, do you have any more? If not, I assume you will join me in atheism. :)

Sources:
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]https://www.youtube.com...
[3]http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au...
FrozenLichBox

Pro

1. "This is an argument from incredulity fallacy.
"Arguments from incredulity take the form:
P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false; therefore P must be true."[1]"

Here, you clearly misinterpereted my argument. What I said, in more direct terms, is "There is no evidence of P (Life forming through random chemical reactions), therefore P is incorrect." This, if true, does help my argument. P and Q (life formed by a supernatural being) are contradictory and have opposite truth values. Therefore, if P is false, Q must be true.

2. "This is an argument from ignorance. You are saying "I don't understand x therefore God". [1"

This is also a misinterperetation of my argument, and the fallacy of ad hominem. I said nothing about my personal understanding, yet you attacked it anyway. My argument was that charity and compassion have no evolutionary explanation.

As for your "kin selection" argument:

1. Persons useless to a society, kin or otherwise, are useless to society. Any resources given to them are a net harm on overall survival.

2. Suppose that "kin selection" is, indeed, a fact. How, then, do you explain missionaries sent to foriegn countries, to aid the local people? That runs completely counter to this idea of "kin selection", yet people still do this out of compassion and charity.

3. "An eye that is not as fully developed as ours is still useful because it is still a light detection device. You start with a simple light detecting cell and you build onto it."

Once again, another misinterpretation of my argument. "Irreducibly complex" organs are organs that require each part of said organ to function. Taking your example of the eye, to start with a "simple light detecting cell" and move to a human eye, a creature would have to develop a multitude of muscles and optic nerves, a lens made out of malleable material, millions of rods and cones, and the brain capacity to actually use the thing. How can each of these things, useless on their own, evolve from a single photon-sensitive cell? Darwinian Evolution would suggest that such things evolved over time, but why would useless mutations permeate?

"Even if your arguments had been successful, they would not necessarily lead to the conclusion that a creator existing outside of time and space exists. You have no reason to think that a nonphysical thing can have an effect on physical things. I suppose you could claim that logic and math affect us in that they are truths regardless of our knowledge of them and so the fact that they are true made it possible for them to be understood, but that is not the same as actually moving an object or building one as you think your god did. Existing outside of time and space makes no sense. You would need to explain how that is possible before concluding that something exists outside of time and space."

Actually, if my premises are true, then my conclusion soon follows. There are two, distinct possibilites as to how we came to be. We either adapted into our current forms from a single living cell created by pure chance, or we were created by a supernatural being. If I can prove that we didn't evolve into our current state from a single living cell, then it logically follows that we were created by a supernatural being.

I have plenty reason to think a nonphysical thing can affect physical phenomena. To use your example of math and logic, no, you can't use math (by itself) to move a building, but you can use it to figure out how to move one. This is an effect that math has on the real world. These things are concepts, hypothetical representations of realistic ideas. However, we can't use our physical ideas to understand a being outside of our physical world. Our Creator, with infinite complexity, is beyond our understanding altogether. So, I can't "prove" that our Creator exists outside of our physical laws, other than by deductive reasoning. If our Creator was bound by our physical laws, then He would create physically measurable phenomena. However, He doesn't, so, if we have a supernatural Creator, He would have to exist outside of time and space as we know it.

One more thing: You claimed that "Existing outside of time and space makes no sense.". Is this not the same fallacy you just accused me of commiting?

""Arguments from incredulity take the form:
P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false; therefore P must be true."[1]"
Debate Round No. 3
V5RED

Con

1; That is the definition of argument from ignorance. You are literally saying that because you don't know how something happened that it is untrue. You are not saying that you have evidence that it can't happen, which you don't have, you are saying that you lack information about something so it is not true.

2. I don't think you understand argument from ignorance. It is not saying that you are ignorant so you are wrong, that would be ad hominem. It is saying that you are saying that you lack information about a thing so it is untrue.

As to kin selection, I was very clear. There is a selective advantage to a mentality that favors helping one's fellow species or tribe. This is not done in a mechanistic way where an algorithm tells us exactly how to apply it, rather it is embodied as general empathy and caring which then gets extended by our rational minds to be expanded to people and creatures besides those for whom it gives a selective advantage. You could argue that this means the advantage is imperfect, but it is very reasonable to see how an evolved sense of empathy and caring for one's fellow creatures could lead to things like missionary work. That you do not like the explanation because it is defeats your argument does not mean it is not explained.

Your rebuttal to my explanation of the eye is another argument from ignorance. You do not understand how these things evolved, so you think it is impossible that they evolved. I do not know all of the intermediate steps in the evolution of an eye, but there are things I could imagine working. For example perhaps there was a failure to inactivate a gene that leads to production of muscle proteins in the cells by these light sensitive cells. That can provide the needed smooth muscle. You do realize that all cells have the information to produce all parts of the body correct? The only reason they develop differently is because of gene inactivation through processes like methylation and acetylation of the DNA/histones. Additionally, you assume that the mutations are useless, but you have no justification for that. Each mutation that permeated probably had some function and over time those functions synergized to form the eye we currently have.

We can develop reasonable explanations for the evolution of any particular cell type or organ even if we cannot definitively say that this is definitely how it came to be. This is a common argument from creationists who try to add gods into something that simply does not require them. Even if we had no explanation at all for these things you see as problems, that would not make saying "god did it" a reasonable explanation. Of course a being that can do anything is a sufficient cause for anything, but it is not an explanation because it has no explanatory power. It does not further our understanding of a concept, in fact it stops understanding because accepting that means we have no reason to try to study things to find the cause.

As to nonphysical things affecting physical things, math does not cause anything. Our physical brains are able to conceptualize math and then we do work with the understanding we have, but the math itself did nothing.

I specifically said that your arguments would not lead to the conclusion of a creator existing outside of time and space, not that they would not lead to a creator. Your arguments could also lead one to conclude that life creating fairies were the cause of evolution or that an immortal witch caused evolution or even a sprite that existed for a millisecond and cast a magic evolution causing spell and then ceased to exist.

As to accusing me of an argument from incredulity, I did not say that existence outside of time and space is impossible. I said that it made no sense. This is where you could try to explain it to me, something that I have never seen attempted. People assert that this is possible without demonstrating it. Since it has not been demonstrated to be possible or impossible, the proper stance is to neither believe it is possible nor impossible.
FrozenLichBox

Pro

Before I present my pentultimate argument, I'd like to share an observation I've made. Most of your rebuttals seem to consist of an attack on my personal knowledge, and not much else. My personal knowledge is not a relevant issue to this topic, so these attacks are ad hominems. You're attempting to discredit me by attacking my personal knowledge.

Now that we have that out of the way:

1. If there is no evidence to suggest that something is true, and there is a massive amount of evidence that suggests that something contradictory to the first is true, then one can logically rule out the former. As I stated previously, this does not concern my personal knowledge, therefore your rebuttal is fallacious, thus invalid.

2. If "kin selection" exists (which you've provided no evidence for), than it's not merely an imperfect advantage, it's downright dangerous for the survival of a species. Shouldn't missionaries to foreign countries be considered deviants? They remove survivability from their own community, and deliberately provide it to foreigners. "Kin selection" in no way justifies this, as the two are completely contradictory in nature.

3. Once again, this issue has nothing to do with my personal knowledge. Your ad hominem arguments should hopefully be reflected on your score. Anyway, my argument about the eye is also one of probability. This quote should do it justice:

"Since random changes in ordered systems almost always will decrease the amount of order in those systems, nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them. Nevertheless, the evolutionist insists that each complex organism in the world today has arisen by a long string of gradually accumulated good mutations preserved by natural selection. No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial (that is, adding useful genetic information to an existing genetic code), and therefore, retained by the selection process. For some reason, however, the idea has a certain persuasive quality about it and seems eminently reasonable to many people"until it is examined quantitatively, that is!

For example, consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts, and the problem of deriving that organism by this type of process. The system presumably must have started with only one part and then gradually built itself up over many generations into its 200-part organization. The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one, since it is far easier for a complex system to break down than to build itself up. A four-component integrated system can more easily "mutate" (that is, somehow suddenly change) into a three-component system (or even a four-component non-functioning system) than into a five-component integrated system. If, at any step in the chain, the system mutates "downward," then it is either destroyed altogether or else moves backward, in an evolutionary sense."[1]

Your hilarious pixie argument nonwithstanding, I've already addressed why those possibilities are ruled out by my argument, but I'll state it again. I've said we cannot physically measure our Creator, so pixies couldn't have created our world.

Claiming that something "doesn't make sense" is dismissing it as impossible because you can't understand it. Is this not the definition of an argument from incredulity? The only way I can explain the concept of a being existing outside of our physical laws is by simply stating that it's possible. As we can't really comprehend anything existing outside of our reality, I can't actually explain anything about it, other than that we have a Creator, and this Creator isn't physically measureable, but still has to exist, and therefor exists outside of the confines of our physical measurements. One cannot directly see His work because one cannot truly comprehend it. I apologize if that explanation doesn't satisfy you, but tell me something: can you, with the certainty of comprehension, truly explain the fourth dimension? It exists outside of our reality, so we can't comprehend it, but does that mean it can't exist?
Debate Round No. 4
V5RED

Con

Ad Hominem is to say you are wrong because you are stupid.
Argument from ignorance is to say that X is false because I do not understand X or because I do not have sufficient evidence to prove X.

Your arguments are mostly argument from ignorance, and that you accuse me of ad hominem for pointing this out is a straw man.

You are completely misrepresenting my rebuttals and claiming I committed ad hominem when I very obviously did not.

This makes you dishonest and borderline commiting ad hominem yourself by suggesting that my arguments should be ignored because you think I am mean. This is not ad hominem either. Your arguments fail because they are fallacious, that I think you are either dishonest or willfully ignorant of the fallacies you commit is not why you are wrong. You are wrong because every single argument you made is fallacious. These are commonly termed "God of the gaps" arguments. You look for something you think is unexplained and then say that since it is unexplained, therefore God. You take it a step further by ignoring actual evidence of how these things are able to be explained because it is devastating to your arguments and have yet to offer a decent rebuttal. I am not sure there is value in once again pointing out how your arguments are fallacious. You keep repeating the same themes. You do not understand how a thing could come about so it is false and you think I am saying this is a bad argument because I dislike you.

If anyone is to lose points for making dishonest and fallacious arguments, it would be you, not me.

1) There is not massive evidence for your god. Your evidence for your god is that "the first" is untrue. Your logic is circular.

2) If you cannot understand how a mental state that includes empathy and caring for one's fellow species would both lead to kin selection and to helping those who do not actually provide you a benefit, you should try thinking about it more. Empathy and caring lead to helping those you care about whether they are those who provide you an economic benefit or not. In general this will be advantageous because of many things. It motivates us to work together for each other's good. It also motivates us to not rob, rape, and murder each other. Since it is imperfect, some people still do rob, rape, and murder, but it is not the norm. Since it is not perfectly rational in a cold mechanistic way, some people are motivated by these emotions to help those who cannot help them back.

3) Deleterious mutations do not tend to get passed on, beneficial ones do. This is because creatures with these benefits will outcompete those without the benefit and those with a deleterious mutation will be in an even worse situation. Your probabalistic argument is completely backward. It is unlikely for mutations that help to be lost because offspring lacking them will not outcompete the offspring retaining them.

4) You saying that the creator cannot be measured does not mean that is true. You need to demonstrate that only an
unmeasurable creator could create the world, and since the pixies are sufficient to the task, I would be very surprised if you could do this.

5) You are confused with the meaning of words and how they are used in the English language. To say that a thing does not make sense is saying that it is not something that is understood or explained. It is not saying that it is impossible. There could be many things that could not be understood while still existing. I was however being a bit loose with my language. I should have said it doesn't make sense to me which would mean I do not understand it. To rationally state that a thing is possible, you must have evidence that it is possible. It is not enough to simply lack evidence that it is impossible. If you have no evidence for the possibility or impossibility of a thing, then the rational stance it to hold no beliefs about it. Ie you do not believe it is possible and you do not believe it is impossible. Argument from incredulity would be if I had said that because it does not make sense to me it could not be true. I never said that and it is dishonest of you to imply that.

As to the fourth dimension, It seems fairly well defined by mathematicians and physicists and is used to drive further research and study. If it were incomprehensible and not testable or used to further research, then it would only be reasonable to neither believe it exists nor believe that it does not exist. You need proof that a thing cannot exist to conclude that it can't exist. Lack of proof of its existence is not proof of its nonexistence.

Pro has failed to meet his burden of proof, all of his arguments have been rebutted very clearly and fully. Pro has not demonstrated that belief in a god is rationally justified, so the reasonable position is to say that it is not rationally justified. This is not to say that it could never be rationally justified, just that it is not currently rationally justified. Much like it was not rationally justified to believe in evolution until we had evidence for the process, it is not rationally justified to believe in a god because there is no useful evidence for its existence.
FrozenLichBox

Pro

FrozenLichBox forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
I award conduct to con for the forfeiture that occurred in R5. As for arguments, all of pro's were incredibly weak or incredibly fallacious. Pro's first argument, the second law of thermodynamics, was a complete misrepresentation of what the law actually says within it; this is shown by con and pro does concede that he misrepresented this point, essentially voiding it. Pro's next point, likelihood, is a very weak one, as con points out; the basis for the argument is simply an argument from ignorance. Con points out that just because we do not understand it, or that it cannot happen within our lifetime, does not point to a God. Pro's next point, emotions, has no clear impact on the resolution, so even if they did win this argument, there would be no weight added to it. Con shows that this is actually an example of what he calls "kin selection"; humans are not computers so we shouldn't be expected to act like them. Pro's defense is useless - all that he does is pose more questions and not really defends his arguments at all. The next argument of pro, irreducibly reducible organs cannot naturally occur, is a complete misrepresentation of what Darwin is actually saying, as con does point out in his long excerpt from Darwin himself. Pro never really rebuts this in a meaningful way, so con wins this argument as a whole.

As for the "ad-hominem attacks" that con is accused of making, there aren't any. Saying that an argument comes from ignorance is not attacking you, it is a legitimate type of logical fallacy. Also, con, you (yes you!) are guilty of the same thing that you are claiming that your opponent is guilty of - using multiple different types of logical fallacies.

For sources, I give them to con, for two reasons: a. con actually had sources throughout the course of the debate, and b. pro misrepresented his sources to say something other than what they were actually saying. I don't think I need to elaborate here. Overall, a very easy con win.
Posted by FrozenLichBox 1 year ago
FrozenLichBox
It would appear that I forgot to cite my source for the quote. The quote can be found here:

http://www.icr.org...
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
No it can only be justified. Not rationally..
Posted by V5RED 1 year ago
V5RED
Accepted.
Posted by FrozenLichBox 1 year ago
FrozenLichBox
I'd like to take you up on this debate. I have a pretty good case for God, so I hope you'll accept.
Posted by V5RED 1 year ago
V5RED
That would have wasted both of our time. To avoid such things I have modified the debate to only refer to gods.
Posted by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
Actually nevermind, I don't feel like expending the effort. Here is what I was going to run: dark matter belief is justified. Dark matter meets your definition of supernatural; it was going to be a semantics debate.
Posted by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
I would love to accept! I have a case already set up in my mind :)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
V5REDFrozenLichBoxTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in the comment section