The Instigator
AxiomDeliverer
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Wallstreetatheist
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Biblical Creationism is more probable than atheistic naturalism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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...
Wallstreetatheist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/22/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,640 times Debate No: 24321
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (56)
Votes (2)

 

AxiomDeliverer

Pro

This debate will be that the Biblical Creationism is more probable than atheistic naturalism.

This is not a open debate. Requirements are that you must be serious about the debate. I am looking for a serious contender.

Definitions:
Probable- having more evidence for than against, or evidence that inclines the mind to belief but leaves some room for doubt.

Biblical creationism is in its basic form is Young earth creationism, because the basis of this belief comes from within the Holy Bible. As a Christian I hold to the Bible as being the inherent Word of God with everything therein is true and historically accurate.

Atheistic naturalism is a combination of atheism and naturalism. In the most basic form it is the rejection of any deities and holds that all properties related to the physical creation are reducible to just nature. Most importantly it rejects the supernatural explanations that are the major part of many religious and theistic beliefs and instead relates it toward nature.

The burden of proof is upon both. Pro must provide evidence that suggest Biblical creationism is the most probable position. While Con must also provide evidence that his atheistic naturalism is the most probable choice. Both share the burden of discrediting their opponent's case.

I do not think we need many rules here except being courteous to one another and no trolling.

The round structure should be that the first round is for acceptance and last round is for conclusions. The middle rounds are for clashing our arguments.

I look forward to having a very interesting debate with someone. Please post in comment section to give reasons why I should pick you to debate with.

Thank you to all and look forward to it.
Wallstreetatheist

Con

I accept this debate, and thank Pro for creating such a fresh twist on these quasi-stale topics with this debate.

I think we both have a good idea of what a decent debate looks like, so I agree that specific rules for lawyering and petty advantages will not be necessary. Let the games begin!

To Pro!
Debate Round No. 1
AxiomDeliverer

Pro

Note]: I want to thank Wallstreetatheist for accepting this debate. I do hope for both our sakes that we provide a challenge for one another. Let's not forget that this should be enjoying as well as taxing.

[INTRODUCTION]
I will offer three (main) contentions for us to focus on in this debate. My first contention will be the support of God's existence. The second will be in support of Biblical Creationism. And third will be the problems with Atheistic Naturalism. There many points to bring up so I will number them as I go.

[Support of God]
To require a process to even assess the truth of a claim you require rational thinking. No thought that is true or false can come solely from a physical source. No arrangement of non-physical materials can create a rational thought.[1] Rationality does not arise from out of nothing but only from another rationality. Humans are able to convince by argument, there must be a rational being on which rationality derives. This is the being we call God.

For us to question the existence of God is simply fundamental. Though it is impossible to answer straight forward because we circle around natural causes and God is simply outside the rules of nature. [2] I think Richard Lewontin said it well when he said, "It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our prior adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations." (Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons," p.28).

The majority of my case is on the astronomical odds that biochemists and mathematicians themselves rate the odds of life arising from non-life. The discoveries in many scientific fields have suggested to us that we have a creator. Astronomy has shown us beyond any doubt that the universe did have a beginning. [3]If it had a beginning then something started it.

The early space programs were attempts at learning how the solar system evolved. [4]Though after all these years of testing these questions have not been answered. After the lunar space program, no evolutionist could explain with any knowledge or confidence how our moon formed.

Advances in molecular biology have shown vast amounts of information coded in ever living cell. Every cell of out body exists a detailed instruction code which is like a computer program. [5]A program that seems designed.

Right along with philosophers, scientists agree that only a creator and Law giver can be the only plausible explanation for complexity, design, and moral standard. Though it does not stop there, I have rounded up a few straw poles that focus on the question, Do you think God exist? [6] The majority of people do believe that God exist. http://www.gallup.com... http://www.gallup.com... http://realtruth.org...

[SUPPORT OF THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT]
This all leads us to the question, did the worldwide flood happen? The implications of a worldwide flood deserve serious reflection from every person. [7] Earth has many features that can only be explained by a worldwide flood. In the 1800's, Benjamin Sillman, head of geology of Yale, wrote, "Respecting the Deluge there can be but one opinion: geology fully confirms the scriptural event. These fossils indicate that they were buried by the same catastrophe which destroyed them, namely a sudden and violent deluge."

Our life is more than just energy and matter (Gen. 2:7; Job 12:7-10). [8] We know that if a creature is denied air it dies. Scriptures agree with the observable evidence when it states that only God can give the breath of life.

In the Bible we have the book of Genesis which gives a description of creation. This description has never failed under the screwtinity of real science. In this description we are given the precise events that made our universe and life. Scientist have verified that creation started with time, space and matter just as the Bible stated in the very first verse. [9] We can see that the creation in Scripture is supported by all true facts of nature. Of course a naturalisitc model is in contrast with nature.

[PROBLEMS WITH ATHEISTIC NATURALISM]
Atheistic Naturalism has become the position of not being interested in certain possibilities for just principle. [10] As atheist JBS Haldane said,"Not only stranger than we suppose, but stranger then we can suppose. But I am sure that it is stranger the we, as atheist, tend to represent while advocating atheism."

Decay is the major factor (and ultimate juggernaut) that shows the naturalistic point of view wrong. [11] Naturalist maintain a continuing naturalistic origin and increase in complexity. Though creationism suggests a supernatural origin and presents decrease in complexity. Evidence for this complexity and its decrease is implicit in observable data.

In the defense of naturalism it must maintain a version of scientific realism. I will be arguing that nature is only comprehensible scientifically if it is designed by supernatural forces. [12] For one cannot embrace naturalism and scientific realism.

The origin of all things in the universe are a chain of cause and effect that would never end and so of would not begin or stop at the Big Bang. [13] There is no way to use natural science to substantially prove (or disprove) an infinite universe.

If we are to believe in naturalistic models of evolution then we should also ask them were all this proof is at? [14] All we here about are mutations of bacteria and viruses. Even those explanations are inadequate to claim naturalistic evolution. We see this from scientific sources of the probabilities of evolution:The Science Blog:Science News Straight From the Source...'For 40 years, scientists have used quickly reproducing bacteria and viruses to watch evolution in the laboratory. The vast majority are loss-of-function mutations or modifications leading to diminished function.'

[CLOSE]
We have considered the realities of Creationism and Naturalism. The relationship between nature and creationism is apparent. Though it is not looking as probable for an atheistic naturalist.

I have successfully given my case. I hope it was provided in a understanding way. Thank you for reading and thanks to my opponent.
[RESOURCES]
http://www.iep.utm.edu... http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org... http://www.creationscience.com... http://ontology.buffalo.edu... http://www.philosophy.uncc.edu... http://richarddawkins.net... http://www.wikihow.com... http://www.icr.org... http://www.understandthetimes.org...
Wallstreetatheist

Con

Wallstreetatheist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
AxiomDeliverer

Pro

Note]: I want to thank Wallstreetatheist for accepting this debate again. I had hoped for both our sakes that we would have provided a challenge for one another. My opponent forfeited last round and that is discouraging.

[INTRODUCTION]
I will just repeat what I have already mentioned. In the last round I made points in my argument and in this round I will explain them further.

[Support of God]
[1] Rationality does not arise from out of nothing but only from another rationality. A rational decision is one that is not just reasoned, but is also optimal for achieving a goal. What goal?

Rationality is most different than anything else in physical nature. One's reasoning power by direct force makes our brain move in ways that the brain would not move unless of this power. Then physical particles move after a rational thought has been produced. Thus, we can not control the non-physical particles that causes a rational thought.

[2] God is simply outside the rules of nature. If God created the universe than He is outside of it. The Bible itself says that the universe can not contain Him. In physics and relativity, at least ten dimensions exist at the creation. Three of these dimensions formed our space-time that we observe. The other six are compact dimensions. God must be outside all ten dimensions to have created the universe and its dimensions.

[3] If the universe had a beginning then something started it. There is many theories but only one can give the exact answer. If the Big Bang theory were true, it still doesn't explain how the Big Bang came about itself. There is no plausible explanation other than the Biblical explanation.

[4] Evolutionist could not explain with any knowledge or confidence how our moon formed. They teach that our earth is estimated at 4.6 billion years old. Though moon rocks brought back were dated at 5.3 billion years old, this is about 1 billion years older. The moon does not fit any natural method. These oddities strongly indicate an artificial origin for the moon.

[5] Every cell of out the body exists a detailed instruction code which is like a computer program. A program that seems designed. Any instruction or teaching comes with the intent to give knowledge. Our natural biological cause suggests that prior programmed information is the cause. Nature can not and could not create precise information like that without intention.

[6] The majority of people do believe that God exist. This calculation dates back for thousands years and it is still the preferred belief today.

[SUPPORT OF THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT]

[7] Earth has many features that can only be explained by a worldwide flood. There is scientific evidence presenting the earth's features and fossils were formed over 5,ooo years ago. The global flood recorded in Genesis 7 is the phenomena witnessed in our fossil layers. Before the flood our oceans and mountains were much lower. There also is no coincidence that 200 flood legends are recorded around the world. Many describing one family that survives. This evidence is all around and has been recorded for centuries.

[8] We know that if a creature is denied air it dies. This is apparent. It is also apparent that God said that He gave the breath of life.

[9] Scientist have verified that creation started with time, space and matter just as the Bible stated in the very first verse.

[PROBLEMS WITH ATHEISTIC NATURALISM]

[10] Atheistic Naturalism has become the position of not being interested in certain possibilities for just principle. With the surrounding knowledge brought forth from this earth, naturalism can not explain alot. We are left to determine that naturalist do not want to know the truth of our earth but a pre-determined doctrine instead. Naturalism presumes that its scientific foundations are unbiased. All natural sciences have philosophical foundations. Natural scientists experimentation with theories derived from their own personal training.

[11] Naturalist maintain a continuing naturalistic origin and increase in complexity.

In 1976, Henry Morris explains his great discovery: "The most devastating and conclusive argument against evolution is the entropy principle. This principle (also known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics) implies that... evolution in the 'vertical' sense (that is, from one degree of order and complexity to a higher degree of order and complexity) is completely impossible. The evolutionary model of origins and development requires some universal principle which increases order... however the only naturalistic scientific principle which is known to effect real changes in order is the Second Law, which describes a situation of universally deteriorating order."

[12] For one cannot embrace naturalism and scientific realism. Naturalism can have no legitimate support from natural science. Scientific realism entails the falsity of naturalism.

[13] There is no way to use natural science to substantially prove (or disprove) an infinite universe. Again as another point we are physical and can not possibly calculate things outside of that physical state.

[14] All we here about are mutations of bacteria and viruses. Even those explanations are inadequate to claim naturalistic evolution. This is answered above.

Billions of people have witnessed billions of new people arise in no other way, for thousands of years. The origin of life was a unique event. The certainty of design has been demonstrated, science cannot identify the designer. Given a designer with the intelligence to construct all life forms, it is not only logical but the only logical possibility.
Life was designed. It did not evolve.

[CLOSE]
We have again considered the realities of Creationism and Naturalism. The relationship between nature and creationism is even more apparent. Though it still is not looking as probable for atheistic naturalism. Atheist wants to believe in naturalism, there are too many objections to its validity.

I have successfully given my case again. Thank you for reading and thanks to my opponent.

[RESOURCES]
http://home.comcast.net... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.rense.com... http://EzineArticles.com... http://www.wnd.com... http://www.reasonsforgod.org... http://faculty.bucks.edu... http://www.freerepublic.com...
Wallstreetatheist

Con

Read the comments. I have an argument to post if we can restart the debate. Re-challenge me, please.
Debate Round No. 3
AxiomDeliverer

Pro

I apologise to my opponent for not allowing him another debate.

* My opponent accepted this debate as a argeement of the rules and terms of this debate before He accepted. He failed to rise to the challenge.

I stick by my argument until it is engaged. No need to add any more.

Thanks to all readers and again my opponent.
Wallstreetatheist

Con

[Support for God]
My opponent begins by stating that, “No thought that is true or false can come solely from a physical source.” Which is demonstrably false, as the entirety of neuroscience studies the physical functioning of neurons and glial cells in specific brain sectors from which thoughts originate and process. My opponent also relies on zero evidence for the claim he has stated. There is no evidence of the existence of a soul or a mind, but only the physical brain and its functioning. Our neurons, glial cells, neurotransmitters, and synapses are almost identical to other animal species, and evolutionary biology has explanatory power when dealing with the evolution of the brain from simple to complex.

He then makes a giant leap of logic to say that, based on his faulty premises such as the previous and “rationality must arise out of another rationality,” God exists as the source of rationality. There is no reason why we should accept this, or reject the available science on the evolution of the brain.

He then states that we should question the existence of God, which I agree to, as the lack of evidence of a God logically necessitates the entrance of doubt and skepticism.

He then jumps around on a variety of scientific subjects using their proof or unproven phenomenon and events as leading to the idea of a God. This is patently absurd for several reasons. The basic assumptions that science is conducted under reject the use of supernatural intervention i.e. seeking natural causes, using natural evidence to understand those causes, and assuming consistency in those causes (God can’t suspend the laws of nature). He goes into biochemistry to note the small odds of life arising out of nothing. This is called abiogenesis. While the odds are small, the different recorded states of atmospheric conditions throughout geological history demonstrate the effect that certain organic compounds had prior to the origin of life. Also, low chance =/= no chance. Furthermore, the reality of low probability in this instance does not therefore necessitate a creator deity. That is an irrelevant conclusion. My opponent then thinks that the study of the universe and its formation is evolution. This denotes a profound lack of knowledge with the subject matter. Cosmologists have several hypotheses about how the moon formed and how the Universe came into being, the ones with the most evidence and argument are the giant impact hypothesis and the Big Bang. But, even if that were later proven wrong, science would adjust, as it is a falsifiable endeavor. Religious dogma and the proof for God are unfalsifiable endeavors, which should arouse suspicion in even the slowest of minds. He then states that the large amount of information in the cell demonstrates design. This goes against all of the available natural reasoning that explains how life becomes more complex and specialized over time. My opponent then makes up his own facts. We’ll call this ‘lyin’ for Jesus’. “...Scientists agree that only a creator and Law giver can be the only plausible explanation for complexity, design, and moral standard.” The percentage of scientists who support evolution has been estimated by Brian Alters to be about 99.9 percent. Evolution works without the assumption of God, therefore rendering a such a deity irrelevant in this respect. He then states that the “majority of people think God exists;” this is a blatant ad populum appeal.

[SUPPORT OF THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT]
My opponent mentions the biblical flood, then quotes a chemist from the 1800’s (perhaps the last century for a Yale professor to confess such a position without evidence). I’d like him to take a modern scientific consensus on evolution, the flood, and creationism and display that.

He then quotes the Bible as support for Biblical Creationism. One can see the circular logic in that. Bible says it’s true, it’s true. He then states that if a creature is denied air, it dies. Not only is that false for life, it’s false for the kingdom animalia: a species named Loricifera lives without oxygen, as it lacks mitochondria (the existence of such mitochondria which replicate independent of cell division, show that it developed in symbiosis with animal cells long ago after being engulfed via phagocytosis). This shows the animal is from an ancient strain of animal cells pre-mitochondria.

He then states that creationism has “never failed under the screwtinity of real science.” Creationism and intelligent design were deemed “not real science” when the controversy with evolution and I.D. reached a high point. Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, irreducible complexity has long been disproven, intelligent design is not based on the scientific method, and there is no evidence either logical inferences or empirical data that can constitute proof for creationism or intelligent design.


[PROBLEMS WITH ATHEISTIC NATURALISM]
My opponent states that atheist naturalists tend to dismiss certain possibilities just for principle. However, naturalist atheists are always open to the possibility of some supernatural phenomenon, as long as there is evidence and argument for it. Our brain forms models of the world, simple assumptions that help us live life. There is nothing to make certain these assumptions are 100% correct, but all of us assume the ground will be there when we walk or that the sun will make food for plants, etc. Holding all conceivable possibilities in one’s brain at all times is not possible, leads to cognitive dissonance, and corrupts the model forming process. James Randi founded a $1,000,000 prize specifically to seek out any instance of supernatural, occult, or psychic powers to see if any exist on this planet. No one or event has passed the secondary stage of testing.

My opponent then makes the claim that no one else makes, “I will be arguing that nature is only comprehensible scientifically if it is designed by supernatural forces.” There is not and probably never will be a mechanism or explanation for the interaction between supernatural mysteria and natural causality. Natural causality works independently of any unfalsifiable hypotheses about supernatural powers.

My opponent then states, “The origin of all things in the universe are a chain of cause and effect that would never end and so of would not begin or stop at the Big Bang.” With this he is claiming to know something that no scientist knows. Science is not dogmatic. It builds hypothesis and theories to help explain, and if they’re wrong they are changed. He then states, “There is no way to use natural science to substantially prove (or disprove) an infinite universe.” There is the multiverse hypothesis that has some explanatory power and logical defensibility on this problem.

He then claims that evolution doesn’t work because scientists mess around with bacteria that end up with diminished functions. Artificial selection =/= natural selection. Why would human tampering with bacteria by exposing them to assorted chemical improve their functioning? Natural selection ensures that the fittest for their environment survive, naturally improving functioning over time.

[Conclusion]
My opponent offers no substantial proof for his claims, uses fallacies, makes faulty assumptions, lies, and does a poor job with rhetoric and argument. Apparently to him, God is an ever receding portion of scientific ignorance. That’s a sad picture of faith from someone who is ostensibly a genuine Christian. Naturalism is more probable, because it is independently verifiable, observable, is falsifiable, our understanding of it leads to advances in civilization, and it is generally non-controversial. The experts in all fields of science reject biblical creationism and accept cosmology, evolutionary biology, geology, and scientific fields that explain the natural world: the only world we know exists.
Debate Round No. 4
AxiomDeliverer

Pro

AxiomDeliverer forfeited this round.
Wallstreetatheist

Con

REFUTATION

[Support of God]
[1] “Rationality does not arise from out of nothing but only from another rationality.” My opponent asserts this again, without giving a causal mechanism or even explaining how that is. We have many examples of brains becoming more complex and more dynamic over time, and biochemists and molecular biologists are beginning to unlock the keys to the development of neural centers. When brains evolve, they acquire more reasoning and rationality as they become more complex. Naturalism explains this well, and the explanation is becoming more refined.
http://abyss.uoregon.edu...

[2] “God is simply outside the rules of nature. If God created the universe than He is outside of it.” The universe contains all matter and energy, which are necessary for existence. If God is outside the universe, he is outside of existence. Therefore, he does not exist in this scenario. Furhtermore, there is no evidence of the things God has purportedly done that are outside the realm of Naturalism, leading further credence to my case.
http://www.uncommondescent.com...

[3] “If the universe had a beginning then something started it.” The leap to saying this is God is the argument from incredulity. Somehow we’re expected to believe that while the Universe couldn’t come into existence by itself, an incredible, complex deity could come into being to be the first cause? That just adds another step, making it less plausible.
http://www.infidels.org...

[4] “Evolutionist could not explain with any knowledge or confidence how our moon formed.” My opponent again displays his ignorance proudly: Cosmologists and astrophysicists study this stuff, not evolutionists. The best theory again is the Giant Impact Hypothesis that hypothesizes the moon was formed from the debris when Earth was impacted by a Mars-sized object.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

[5] “[About DNA] Nature can not and could not create precise information like that without intention.” Evolution has no intention and no goals, it just occurs. There is a wealth of undeniable strong evidence that supports evolution from the fields of chemistry, biology, biochemisty, molecular biology, etc and population genetics. There is only weak evidence and myth acting against evolution at this point.
http://www.evolutionofdna.com...

[SUPPORT OF THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT]
[7] “Earth has many features that can only be explained by a worldwide flood.” In John Woodmorappe’s book Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study, he concludes based on studies of animal populations, geological markers, Ark stability, Runaway Subduction, etc. that such an event is implausible, and based on the available evidence, did not happen.
http://www.trueorigin.org...

[8] “We know that if a creature is denied air it dies.” I’ve proven this false. Furthermore, Loricifera are animals that live without oxygen.
http://www.eu-hermione.net...

[9] “Scientist have verified that creation started with time, space and matter just as the Bible stated in the very first verse.” If you try to use science to support the bible, you’re gonna have a bad time. Here are some flaws in the creation story:

GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.

GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.


GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.

GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.


GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.

GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.


GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.

GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.


GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.

GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later.


GE 1:28 God encourages reproduction.

LE 12:1-8 God requires purification rites following childbirth which, in effect,

makes childbirth a sin. (Note: The period for purification following the birth of a daughter is twice that for a son.)


[PROBLEMS WITH ATHEISTIC NATURALISM]
[10] Already addressed.
[11] Already addressed

[12] “For one cannot embrace naturalism and scientific realism. Naturalism can have no legitimate support from natural science. Scientific realism entails the falsity of naturalism.” This is a bizarre claim. Naturalism only accepts what there is argument and evidence for. Scientific realism is that what we can understand through science is the real world, independent of altered perception. This goes back to a scientific assumption that we all generally perceive the physical world the same ways. Scientific realism and naturalism are consonant with the view that nature is what exists based on the evidence and argument.

[13] “There is no way to use natural science to substantially prove (or disprove) an infinite universe.”
Science can prove that the Universe is infinite through the use of atoms. Atom's had to have come from somewhere. So through various energetic interactions of an equal and opposite nature atoms created more atoms. But where did these atoms that created other atoms come from? Still more equal and opposite energetic reactions. These equal and opposite energetic reactions become smaller and smaller until we come to the singularity but some type of interaction had to create the singularity thus taking us deeper into the infinite Universe.

[14] “All we here about are mutations of bacteria and viruses." Spelling: hear*. Again there are a litany of scientific endeavors which support and advance evolution. There is no contradictory evidence for evolution in the natural world. Furthermore, at every major university in the world where they are doing the kind of work that advances our knowledge in biology, chemistry, genetics, etc. accept evolution and conduct experiments, do research, and investigate genes that further prove evolution true. Also, there has been a new species of bird created in the last 40 years on the Galapagos Islands. Scientists there observed the speciation.

http://www.wired.com...

“Life was designed. It did not evolve.” No evidence to substantiate this except for an ad populum fallacy.


CONTINUING MY CASE


Naturalism is more probable
For a quick example to demonstrate this: I give you an orange and one hand, then in your other hand I place what I call an “invisible orange.” I tell you that I’ve seen it in a dream, and that I read a book one time that told me invisible oranges existed, then I tell you that everyone I’ve ever grown up with believes in invisible oranges. Which one would you believe is more real? The one that you could see, feel, taste, smell, hear; the one that you could have anyone with scientific equipment verify the existence of; or the invisible orange? Probably you’d think the first orange was real.

The difference in that example is between strong and weak evidence. Strong evidence in the physical orange can be independently verified, seen, tested, perceived, and can change things in the natural world. The invisible orange and its case rely on weak evidence: belief, dreams, hearsay, ad populum fallacy, etc.

Likewise, the world we can understand around us with science and modeling is the world that has more strong evidence for its existence. Notice how my opponent didn’t completely rule out the natural world, he just went beyond evidence and argument to try to make a case for the supernatural world and its creation via a Creator God. The natural world we all generally perceive the same way. When we walk, we assume the ground will be there; when we type, we assume the keys will be there. There is consistent reliance and experience with the natural world, it can be independently verified and tested, and our use of it expands civilization. These reasons make atheistic naturalism more probable.

Thank you!
Debate Round No. 5
56 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Numidious 4 years ago
Numidious
I would vote for Wall Street Atheist here hands down, but I can't vote. It seemed to me that Axiomdeliverer didn't get much of a chance to reply, but I can't see that there's anything he could have refuted in WSA's argument.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
I'll debate this again.

Usually when someone asks to restart a debate, so the debate just isn't won on a forfeit (which despite better arguments can sometimes be the case), it is common courtesy to restart the debate or to tie the debate. I agree that I don't have grounds to be extremely mad, as my opponent did nothing wrong to me, he just cared more about winning than actually exploring the issue. If he didn't forfeit his last round, it would have been difficult for me to win.

Would you be willing to debate this, or something similar to it, stubs?
Posted by stubs 4 years ago
stubs
How come no one gets upset in all the other debates that one person forfeits that the other person doesn't restart the debate. Seems pretty unfair to do so with just this debate. Don't see why people are mad at axiom for Wallstreet not posting his argument haha
Posted by Man-is-good 4 years ago
Man-is-good
Not a hard debate that requires any long exposition.;) Pro made numerous bizarre statements in regards to the link between scientific realism and naturalism, mis-characterized atheistic naturalism as consisting of evolution, entertained rather bizarre leaps of logic correlated with a rather impressive ignorance of science that easily disproves his claims and assertions (for example, the statement "Rationality does not arise from out of nothing but only from another rationality") and demonstrate, in the conflation and misunderstanding of science, a steady ignorance. Con proved effective in noting the numerous holes and gaps of logic in Pro's case, especially when compared to the arsenal of scientific evidence that Con used to refute Pro's contentions.

With that disproved, and Pro's forfeits--which, despite establishing an equal ground between the two in terms of conduct, Con's case of naturalism, the dichotomy between strong and weak evidence that can, unlike Pro's extension to a creationist world, reasonably be extended to the reliance on the natural world due to ability of observance and experimentation. This, in contrast to Pro's dismantled case, is stalwart and sound in principle, especially in regards to the basic tenets of the philosophy of science.:)
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
Equally one forfeit and one non-round

Vote on arguments
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
Thanks, royal. I'll challenge him again, or another person. I want to refine this topic. It's very interesting.
Posted by royalpaladin 4 years ago
royalpaladin
He didn't get played. He said he was busy and asked for a new debate. It looks like you just want a free win.
Posted by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
"Though after all these years of testing these questions have not been answered. After the lunar space program, no evolutionist could explain with any knowledge or confidence how our moon formed."

Lol, this is the God of the gaps fallacy except the gaps arent actually there.

1. Moon
2. Therefore, God.

haha...
Posted by ScottyDouglas 4 years ago
ScottyDouglas
@Wallstreetatheist.
So let me get this correct. You got played and abused by a newbie(no pun). Then when this is shown you humiliate yourself further by blaming your opponent when it is clearly seen you did not take the debate seriously. Bad form young-chap.
Posted by duane 4 years ago
duane
Wallstreetatheist, let me quote you before the debate: "I'll wait until Friday to accept, so we have the weekend to devote solely to the debate"
Then, "I've been at going away parties and graduation parties"
Then, "We'll continue this debate for you, MouthWash, if it's the last thing we do"
Now, "It turns out he's not interested in debating, but rather getting an easy win on my mistake"

Pro was interested in a debate, but regrettably, he chose to oppose someone who made himself unable to meet the obligations of the debate. Better luck next time, Axiom.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by twocupcakes 4 years ago
twocupcakes
AxiomDelivererWallstreetatheistTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro uses many arguments. Many of pro's arguments such as rationality arising from nothing, the moon and evolution, and all creatures needing oxygen are not explained well enough and are extremely poor. Con successfully debunks all of Pro's claims. I would advise Pro to focus on a few select arguments and make them strong instead of using many horrid arguments. Con Wins.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 4 years ago
Man-is-good
AxiomDelivererWallstreetatheistTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: See RFD in comments:http://www.debate.org/debates/Biblical-Creationism-is-more-probable-than-atheistic-naturalism/1/comments/