The Instigator
SebUK
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Dufflepud
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Does God exist?

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...
Dufflepud
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/19/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 612 times Debate No: 46285
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

SebUK

Pro

Round 1 is for acceptance only and please no rebuttal in Round 2 , I will be arguing that there is a creator of the universe.
Dufflepud

Con

Accepted. I will be rejecting the claim that a god exists.
Debate Round No. 1
SebUK

Pro

Scientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous explosion of energy and light, which we now call the Big Bang. This was the singular start to everything that exists: the beginning of the universe, the start of space, and even the initial start of time itself.

Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, a self-described agnostic, stated, "The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion...The Universe flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen."9

Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics, said at the moment of this explosion, "the universe was about a hundred thousands million degrees Centigrade...and the universe was filled with light."10

The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter. in short words Everything that has a beginning has a cause if there is a cause to the universe than i see assuming that A space-less , time-less , and an eternal entity caused it as more intelligent of an answer rather than assuming it came out of nothing that is absurd also another question i would like you to adress is how can matter possibly lead to life and conciousness? I await my opponenets response
Dufflepud

Con

In this debate, I will be rejecting Pro’s claim that a god exists, and will demonstrate that one is not necessary for explaining the beginning of the universe (or rather, that explaining the beginning of the universe is not necessary to reject Pro's claim). One of the most important thing to keep in mind over the course of this exchange is where the burden of proof lies. As I am not required to make the positive assertion that no gods exist, the burden lies solely on the person who argues that one does. Therefore, it is Pro's job to provide evidence, and my job to refute it.

I think pro and I will both agree that it is safe to assume that the universe began. Given the observable rate of expansion of the universe, it is possible to mathematically calculate the age to be 13.77 billion years, with a margin of error of only 0.4%¹. The big bang model is commonly accepted of the beginning of this expansion, especially in light of further evidence such as cosmic background radiation². Unfortunately, beyond this, the explanation of the beginning of expansion Science has little to offer. It is often asked, what could have caused the big bang? However, this is in fact a loaded question, as it assumes that it is necessarily the case that anything with a beginning necessarily had a cause.

Often, theists begin with this, as the vast majority of observable phenomenon they can point to have a cause that can be demonstrated or investigated. They use this to build a model, and then use this model to assess that any other given observable phenomenon must also have a cause, regardless of whether or not that cause can be investigated. Generally, I would accept this model, ignoring any specific examples of unexplained occurrences that some might claim to be causeless. However, the assertion that it is impossible for something to occur without a cause is simply unjustifiable, in the same way that the assertion that unicorns do not exist is unjustifiable. Without showing that the described phenomenon is logically impossible (such as a being that can lift an object heavier than the maximum weight that said being is capable of lifting), one cannot make such assertions without absolute knowledge of the universe. There is nothing about unicorns that is logically self defeating, and as such, one cannot determine their nonexistence without omniscience. Similarly, since we cannot observe or investigate the beginnings of every phenomenon in the universe (including the universe itself) we cannot justify the claim that all such phenomenon require causes.

Now, I am not claiming that the universe began without a cause. However, that isn’t important in the context of this debate. Pro is making the positive assertion that a god created the universe, and has provided no demonstrable evidence to back up this claim. Since this claim, and the claim that the universe is causeless (a claim, I emphasize, that I don’t need to make) both have the same amount of demonstrable evidence backing them up (that is to say, none at all), they are both equally valid. An equal number of assumptions are required for the acceptance of both claims, and so Occam’s Razor doesn’t come into play. One can point to as many examples as one wishes of phenomenon with causes, but until the cause of a universe can be demonstrated, the idea that a universe necessarily has a cause is unjustifiable, and one cannot construct an evidence based model to explain the creation of universes.

Another point I’d like to address from the start is that, even if we were to accept that the universe necessarily has a cause, there are, given the lack of demonstrable evidence for any one cause, an infinite number of potential causes that one could invent, all requiring just as many (or just as few) assumptions to accept as the claim that a sentient, omniscient, omnipotent being was the cause.

The overarching argument I am trying to hammer home here is that until we can demonstrate a cause for the universe, it is futile to make claims about it, as all possible claims about the cause (or lack thereof) of the universe are equally valid in the absence of demonstration. As such, no explanation, including any god claim, is warranted until our investigation leads us to an evidence based theory that may serve as a proper answer. Much in the same way that it would be futile for us to make claims about the exact number of planets in the universe, so too is it futile to make claims about the exact cause of the universe. Ultimately, I am arguing that we should not be making any claims about the cause of the universe without evidence, regardless of the content of those claims.

Sources Used:
1. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...
2. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
SebUK

Pro

'Unfortunately, beyond this, the explanation of the beginning of expansion Science has little to offer. It is often asked, what could have caused the big bang? However, this is in fact a loaded question, as it assumes that it is necessarily the case that anything with a beginning necessarily had a cause.' My opponent claims that there wouldn't have had to be the cause behind The Big Bang , I have to disagree In fact i think it is absurd to belive that the original atoms and matter of the universe could just come out of nothing . ' It is often asked, what could have caused the big bang? However, this is in fact a loaded question, as it assumes that it is necessarily the case that anything with a beginning necessarily had a cause.' That's because everything that has a beginning does have a cause I would like my opponent to list one example of something that had a beginning but not a cause . 'Often, theists begin with this, as the vast majority of observable phenomenon they can point to have a cause that can be demonstrated or investigated' And Deists '. However, the assertion that it is impossible for something to occur without a cause is simply unjustifiable, in the same way that the assertion that unicorns do not exist is unjustifiable. ' Unicorns dont exist because there is no fossil record . I would like to know more why the belief is unjustifiable. Everything we observe in nature that has a beginning has a cause and the most logical explanation is that the cause behind it must be a space-less time-less and all-powerful ententity , Now some athiests would say than what created God! God doesn't have a beginning it doesn't have a cause . 'one cannot make such assertions without absolute knowledge of the universe' I agree it is just a theory just like you assuming that God is not the cause behind the begining that is also only a theory . 'Now, I am not claiming that the universe began without a cause. However, that isn"t important in the context of this debate. Pro is making the positive assertion that a god created the universe, and has provided no demonstrable evidence to back up this claim' No i didn't use any evidence i was explaining why it is logical to belive that God could be the reason behind the beginning , and just how my opponent didn't provide any strong evidence . 'Another point I"d like to address from the start is that, even if we were to accept that the universe necessarily has a cause, there are, given the lack of demonstrable evidence for any one cause, an infinite number of potential causes that one could invent, all requiring just as many (or just as few) assumptions to accept as the claim that a sentient, omniscient, omnipotent being was the cause.' An infanate amount of possiblities yet my opponent didn't explain what could be a cause behind it apart from such a being.
Dufflepud

Con

Note: Pro's statements are in bold, with my responses underneath. I have written this under the assumption that I am only supposed to rebut Pro's initial argument, and not their rebuttal to my initial argument.


"Scientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous explosion of energy and light, which we now call the Big Bang. This was the singular start to everything that exists: the beginning of the universe, the start of space, and even the initial start of time itself."


Yes, agreed. However, something that is outside of space and time is, by definition, nonexstant. One would have to reconcile this with the idea of a god figure which is claimed to have "existed" before the universe (i.e. space and time) existed.

"The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused that?"

Once again, this is a loaded question. Pro has claimed that "everything with a beginning has a cause" as if it is an axiom, but has failed to demonstrate the veracity of this claim beyond simply stating that they believe it is the case. Pro has claimed to be proving the existence of their god "logically," but is instead making assumption after assumption to get to their conclusion.


"Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter. in short words Everything that has a beginning has a cause if there is a cause to the universe"

Once again, this is an unverifiable claim. I have conceded that every instance of something beginning that we can observe has had a beginning, which is enough to build a model based on likelihood, but it is not enough to claim that a causeless occurance is impossible. To go back to my other example, the fact that we have no evidence of unicorns is not enough to justify claiming that unicorns necessarily don't exist, as it is always possible that we will gain new information proving that they do. I agree that they probably don't exist, and that there is no justifiable reason to believe in unicorns, but that is exactly the point I am making in that applying the same logical processes to a god shows absolutely no need to believe in one until demonstrable evidence has been provided.

"than i see assuming"

Right here, Pro admits to making their second unjustifiable assumption. Occam's Razor dictates that, as my position of not attempting to invent an answer to the question of what caused the universe (or whether or not it had a cause) assumes nothing, while Pro's argument is founded on two assumptions, mine is necessarily the more reasonable of the two.

"that A space-less , time-less , and an eternal entity caused it as more intelligent of an answer rather than assuming it came out of nothing"

This assumes these are the only two options, when in reality, there are an infinite number. Since Pro will not excersize their imagination, I will provide one:

The universe was caused by a creature in another universe that invented the technology allowing for the start of a new universe. It used this technology to produce our universe, went back to its own universe, and subsequently died.

This, of course, is just a silly little story, but given the lack of evidence, it is logically just as valid as your god claim.

Additionally, regardless of whether or not you deem the explanation "intelligent," when there is absolutely no demonstrable evidence for it, and it is based upon multiple assumptions, there is absolutely no reason to accept it as true. A logic based argument must be devoid of assumptions.

"that is absurd"

Once again, Pro makes a baseless claim that is, in this case, also completely subjective. This is in no way evidence that supports their argument, and as the burden of proof is on them, Pro's argument fails.

"also another question i would like you to adress is how can matter possibly lead to life and conciousness?"

"Life" and "conciousness" are both terms used to describe demonstrable emergeant properties of particular configurations of matter. Neither one requires any kind supernatural explanation.


Debate Round No. 3
SebUK

Pro

Because my opponent didn't adress the issue of matter turning into life and conciousness in more depthi will go deeper into this 'argument of conciousness We experience the universe as intelligible. This intelligibility means that the universe is graspable by intelligence.
Either this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence, or both intelligibility and intelligence are the products of blind chance.
Not blind chance.
Therefore this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence. Matter does not lead to conciousness. There isn't an athiest that i spoke to that told me the answer , If my opponent would like me to talk about it more i will do in the next chance i got . / 'Yes, agreed. However, something that is outside of space and time is, by definition, nonexstant. One would have to reconcile this with the idea of a god figure which is claimed to have "existed" before the universe (i.e. space and time) existed.' / I don't consider something outside of the space-time non-existant as i support the idea that there is a spiritual world .'Pro has claimed to be proving the existence of their god "logically," but is instead making assumption after assumption to get to their conclusion.' Yes i am making assumptions that i think are the most logical just like my opponent is assuming that my arguments are not valid . 'Once again, this is an unverifiable claim. I have conceded that every instance of something beginning that we can observe has had a beginning, which is enough to build a model based on likelihood, but it is not enough to claim that a causeless occurance is impossible. ' We make laws in Science assuming that because something works the same way over and over again it will continue to do so.c ' I am making in that applying the same logical processes to a god shows absolutely no need to believe in one until demonstrable evidence has been provided.' Beliving in a God is Faith Lack of Belief in Faith in a sense does require you to reject assumptions that might be valid ' while Pro's argument is founded on two assumptions, mine is necessarily the more reasonable of the two.' My Opponent didn't explain why his respone is any more reasonable or logical . 'The universe was caused by a creature in another universe that invented the technology allowing for the start of a new universe. It used this technology to produce our universe, went back to its own universe, and subsequently died.' There would have to be an infinate amount of universes and a an infanate repitition of the process. 'there is absolutely no reason to accept it as true. A logic based argument must be devoid of assumptions.' Just like there is no reason to say that it is certinally not a valid argument , Science is based on assuming . 'Once again, Pro makes a baseless claim that is, in this case, also completely subjective. This is in no way evidence that supports their argument, and as the burden of proof is on them, Pro's argument fails.' I don't agree that my argument failed usually when we see the same rule occuring in every process we take it as truth.
Dufflepud

Con

"My opponent claims that there wouldn't have had to be the cause behind The Big Bang , I have to disagree In fact i think it is absurd to belive that the original atoms and matter of the universe could just come out of nothing."

Pro states his opinion and does not provide an argument or explanation.

"That's because everything that has a beginning does have a cause I would like my opponent to list one example of something that had a beginning but not a cause."

Once again Pro fails to recognize how evidence works. I have not made the claim that something can have a beginning without a cause, I've simply stated that it's impossible to state that it necessarily can't without complete knowledge of the universe. Pro once again states their empty false axiom, but does not back it up.

"Unicorns dont exist because there is no fossil record."

You can't definitively say that Unicorns don't exist simply because we haven't yet found evidence for them. I never said it was reasonable to believe in Unicorns, only that it is impossible to justify the claim that they are necessarily nonexistant.

"Everything we observe in nature that has a beginning has a cause"

Yes, but since we can't observe everything, we can't determine that everything must have a cause. We've only examined a tiny, insignificant fraction of the universe. Once again, I am not saying that it is necessarily possible, I'm simply saying that it's not necessarily impossible.

"and the most logical explanation is that the cause behind it must be a space-less time-less and all-powerful ententity"

This is an empty claim, and not an argument. The fact that you say it's "logical" doesn't make it so. So far, all you've been able to do is state your own beliefs. You need to be able to explain why this belief is more logical than the infinite number of alternatives. Unfortunately, you can't as there is zero evidence backing it up.

"Now some athiests would say than what created God! God doesn't have a beginning it doesn't have a cause."

I haven't made the argument of infinite regression.


"I agree it is just a theory"

Hypothesis. There is no evidence backing up your claim, so it can't be called a theory.

"just like you assuming that God is not the cause behind the begining that is also only a theory ."

I have never made that claim or assumption. You're trying to shift the burden of proof with a straw man when I have repeatedly stated that I am not claiming that god necessarily doesn't exist. You need to adress the points that I'm actually making, not the ones you assume that an atheist will make according to your scripted argument.
No i didn't use any evidence

If your claim has no evidence, and is founded on assumptions, then there is no logical reason for believing in it.

i was explaining why it is logical to belive that God could be the reason behind the beginning ,

I never said that it couldn't be, you've simply failed to demonstrate why it is because all you've done is repeat your opinions and assumptions.

and just how my opponent didn't provide any strong evidence .

I haven't made any extraordinary claims that require evidence. Once again, the burden of proof is on you, as I have not made the positive assertion that a god doesn't exist. The fact that you refuse to provide evidence, and instead repeat your opinions and assumptions means that your argument, as of now, is completely unjustified.

An infanate amount of possiblities yet my opponent didn't explain what could be a cause behind it apart from such a being.

Go look up "creation myths." Here's a list, all equally justified as your god:

http://en.wikipedia.org...;

Debate Round No. 4
SebUK

Pro

'Once again Pro fails to recognize how evidence works. I have not made the claim that something can have a beginning without a cause, I've simply stated that it's impossible to state that it necessarily can't without complete knowledge of the universe. Pro once again states their empty false axiom, but does not back it up.'My Opponent once again failed to state why God is not a good logical answer to the beginning of the universe and neither did he use any good evidence .
'You can't definitively say that Unicorns don't exist simply because we haven't yet found evidence for them. I never said it was reasonable to believe in Unicorns, only that it is impossible to justify the claim that they are necessarily nonexistant.' I have made a logical claim to why i belive unicorns do not exist i know they don't exist but i don't claim that there isn't a chance they did . 'Yes, but since we can't observe everything, we can't determine that everything must have a cause. We've only examined a tiny, insignificant fraction of the universe. Once again, I am not saying that it is necessarily possible, I'm simply saying that it's not necessarily impossible.' I agree but just because there might be other options doesn't mean that the most logical option is wrong , Especially when you don't have much evidence to prove so . ' Unfortunately, you can't as there is zero evidence backing it up.' Just like there is no evidence that my claim is not true . 'all you've been able to do is state your own beliefs' Just like my opponent did . 'Hypothesis. There is no evidence backing up your claim, so it can't be called a theory.' Here my opponent states that you need hardcore evidence for there to be a theory , Theory -' an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events' . 'I haven't made any extraordinary claims that require evidence. Once again, the burden of proof is on you, as I have not made the positive assertion that a god doesn't exist. The fact that you refuse to provide evidence, and instead repeat your opinions and assumptions means that your argument, as of now, is completely unjustified.' I used to main theories the Cosmological Evidence and the Theory of conciousness that my opponent fails to address in much depth if you want to try to make my claims look illogical you need evidence for that too. 'Go look up "creation myths." Here's a list, all equally justified as your god:' My opponent doesn't take into account that i really might be a diest or heading towards Deism. If my opponent makes any significant claims in his last argument i will adress them in the omments section .
Dufflepud

Con

Don't worry, as Pro has only responded to my previous argumemts (as opposed to posting new ones), I will respond in kind.


We experience the universe as intelligible.

The part of the universe that we do experience is, to some extent, "intelligible," sure. I'm glad you've at least avoided presuppositional arguments xD.

This intelligibility means that the universe is graspable by intelligence.

Sort of. I would say that human intelligence is supremely limited in its capacity to understand the scale of the universe. However, once again, I will give you this for the sake of argument.

Either this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence, or both intelligibility and intelligence are the products of blind chance.

More like natural selection, which has an element of randomness, but it completely different from "blind chance." Given the gradient in terms of intelligence we see in nature, as well as our understanding of evolutionary processes, it's not unlikely that life in its most basic form could develope into something with humanlike intellect. You're paining a picture of "intelligence" and "non intelligence," when in reality there's a gradient going from self replicating amino acids all the way up to extremely complex organisms such as ourselves.

Not blind chance.

You make a misleading oversimplification to narrow down possibilities to just two, and then instead of explaining why one is true over the other, you simply declare it to be so. Once again, you can't make statements without justification and expect to have any semblance of a coherent argument.


Therefore this intelligible universe and the finite minds so well suited to grasp it are the products of intelligence.

This is an enormous leap of faith.


Matter does not lead to conciousness.

Conciousness is an explainable emergent property of the comple arrangement of matter that is the brain. There is absolutely no evidence that any cognitive processes occur outside of the brain.

There isn't an athiest that i spoke to that told me the answer , If my opponent would like me to talk about it more i will do in the next chance i got . /

The answer to what?

/ I don't consider something outside of the space-time non-existant as i support the idea that there is a spiritual world .

Congratulations. Yet another erroneous claim that you don't provide a single justification for. I don't care that you "support the idea that there is a spiritual world," I care about why! If you can explain that, we can have an actual debate, instead of you not making a single argument for me to contend with.

Yes i am making assumptions that i think are the most logical just like my opponent is assuming that my arguments are not valid .

Assumptions are not logical! That is the problem! If you want to justify a belief, it needs to either be supported without assumption, or based on evidence! I'm not "assuming" that your arguments (if you can call them that) aren't valid, I'm pointing out the gaping holes in them that you refuse to adress, instead only saying "I think it's logical." I don't care what you think, I care about why you think it!

We make laws in Science assuming that because something works the same way over and over again it will continue to do so.c

Once again, you miss the point. I am not asserting that something can come from nothing, I am simply demonstrating that, given the equal amount of evidence for that proposition and your god (none), neither is more valid than the other, regardless of how many times you declare it to be so. You need to provide an actual argument instead of repeating your personal opinion over and over again.

Beliving in a God is Faith Lack of Belief in Faith in a sense does require you to reject assumptions that might be valid '

The fact that something MIGHT be valid is not reason to believe in it. It MIGHT be the case that unicorns live inside of the sun. That doesn't make faith in unicorns a justified position.


My Opponent didn't explain why his respone is any more reasonable or logical .

Yes, I did, you simply cut out the second half of a scentence and ignored the first part where I did just that. If you look back, you'll see I referenced occam's razor, and how the fact that my views contain no assumptions, while yours are founded on many, yours is necessarily the weaker of the two positions. Trying to claim I provided no justification by quoting me out of context is a dishonest tactic.


There would have to be an infinate amount of universes and a an infanate repitition of the process.

So what?


Just like there is no reason to say that it is certinally not a valid argument

It is CERTAINLY not a valid argument because of the assumptions it contains. That is separate from saying that the conclusion is necessarily wrong.

, Science is based on assuming .

Not at all. "Assumptions" are conclusions that are made without any evidence in support of them. Science is the process of gathering evidence and using that evidence to come to conclusions! This is why a scientific theory is believable, and your god claim is not!
I don't agree that my argument failed usually when we see the same rule occuring in every process we take it as truth.


Your argument fails, as I explained in the bit that you were responding to, because it has no backing in evidence. An extraordinary claim with no evidence behind it can be immediately dismissed due to the nature of the burden of proof, a concept that you still refuse to recognize.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Dufflepud 2 years ago
Dufflepud
If we have a good reason to believe in a god, then that reason should be demonstrable. Pro did not demonstrate a single such reason. However, since you seem to think you do have good reasons, maybe we should engage in a debate where we can actually talk about evidence instead of what this debate culminated in.
Posted by turnerjb04 2 years ago
turnerjb04
Notice that I didn't just say evidence I also said reason, we have no good reason to think that unicorns exist on Jupiter, in fact quite the opposite, whereas we have good reasons to believe in God and if unicorns did exist on Jupiter I would also argue that this is best explained by God.
Posted by Dufflepud 2 years ago
Dufflepud
Sure, but you have absolutely zero evidence that unicorns don't live on jupiter. Unless you believe in unicorns living on jupiter, then you'd be rejecting the claim that they exist on the grounds of no evidence.
Posted by turnerjb04 2 years ago
turnerjb04
I get the point you are making and don't want to continue it much further the only problem I have is your understanding of having an objection to the existence of unicorns, you see atheists like to compare God to unicorns, or tooth fairies or santa, but the reason we reject them is not due to absence of evidence, rather it is contrary evidence, we have good evidence and good reason to believe that they don't exist, we have good evidence that santa isn't flying around the north pole and coming down chimneys, we have good evidence that the tooth fairy isn't putting money under people's pillows, and we have good evidence that suggest unicorns don't live in forests, so we reject them not due to absence of evidence, but contrary evidence, evidence and reason against there against, such evidence I am failing to see against the existence of God.
Posted by Dufflepud 2 years ago
Dufflepud
I agree, it's not evidence of absence, but I'm not trying to prove absence. Here, let me explain it in another light.

In a court of law, a defendant who is being tried will either be declared "guilty" or "not guilty." Never is the word "innocent" used. This is because the defense is not trying to prove that the defendant is innocent, they are simply trying to show that there is a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, and that as such, there are no grounds for conviction.

If the prosecution went into a court and said, "we don't have any evidence, but that doesn't mean that they defendant isn't guilty," they would be correct, but wouldn't have a case at all, and so the charges would be dismissed. Otherwise, we'd have "guilty until proven innocent," which would equate to believing everything until it can be proven false.

I am not trying to demonstrate that a god is "innocent" of existence, I am only showing that one is "not guilty." I make no claim that I know that a god doesn't exist, I only refute the claim that a god does exist. The difference that I'm trying to illustrate to you is that because I am making no assertions, the burden of proof lies solely on the claimant. This is no cop out, as it is simply how evidence works.

To frame it in yet another light, if I claimed that unicorns exist, and provided no evidence, you would have no way (without omniscience) of proving that they don't exist. However, that does not mean that belief in unicorns is justified, and you would still reject that claim due to lack of evidence.
Posted by turnerjb04 2 years ago
turnerjb04
The point is though that an absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence you can refute his points, but that isn't refuting God's existence
Posted by Dufflepud 2 years ago
Dufflepud
Remember, I'm not trying to prove that "God" doesn't exist, I'm simply defending a lack of belief in a god. The burden of proof isn't a "cop out," since at no point have I shifted it upon myself.

Pro is claiming a god exists, I am rejecting that claim. I don't have to make (and am not making) the separate assertion that a given god DOESN'T exist. As such, the burden remains on Pro.
Posted by turnerjb04 2 years ago
turnerjb04
I have to say that looking at the arguments presented so far con or dufflepud has really shown nothing at all good enough to reject a creator or God I am still waiting to here a really decent argument against God's existence, however I think that sebUk needs to present more than just this one argument that the both of you just keep going on back and forth, Does God Exist?, that's the debate so sebUk produce your proof and you dufflepud do the same and don't just use the burden of proof cop out If God doesn't exist so us you reasons please
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
SebUKDufflepudTied
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: This was a typical God debate but one in which Con clearly won. Pro started to appeal to the KCA, but con was able to show that pros claim to be true and for him to uphold the BOP he must show evidence that God is the cause. I think cons strongest point was how he warded a response to Pro. He essentially said that they both agreed there was a cause , but the cause is not necessarily God. He goes on to say there could be an infinite number of causes and for pro to uphold his BOP he must show that God is the only possible cause. Con had arguments clearly at this point. Pro would have had a better shot had this been something like "A God could exist". He takes on a positive claim and got a beat down due to the wording of the resolution. The only other thing was sources. Con actually had some and they went to further his argument. Therefore arguments and sources to con.