The Instigator
vardas0antras
Pro (for)
Losing
29 Points
The Contender
warpedfx
Con (against)
Winning
31 Points

Existence of God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Started: 12/25/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,742 times Debate No: 14144
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (23)
Votes (12)

 

vardas0antras

Pro

O Introduction
I want to see if my opponent is willing to debate me hence round one will be introduction only, my opponent may present his own arguments. Now if he decides to present something like "Bible contains contradictions" I require that only one contradiction may be presented ; likewise with similar arguments.

O Titles of my Arguments
Argument 1:
Experiencing God
Argument 2:
Argument from contingency
Argument 3
Kalam Cosmological argument

O My opponent
I hope you accept.

Thank you
warpedfx

Con

I want to thank vardas0antras for challenging me to this debate, and I hope this will be a fun ride at the very least for the both of us!

To begin with, I must make certain clarifications regarding my position as well as what my stance as an atheist means. Too many times I've heard the claim that atheism means that I "believe or assert that there is no god". This isn't true. Rather, atheism is best defined as "lacking belief in god", which makes no assertions and thus is not a truth claim. After all, Atheism is divided into its prefix; "A" meaning Without, and of course "Theism", which means belief in god. That having said, this makes an important demarcation on how my arguments would proceed. As an atheist who simply does not believe that god exists, in effect does not share the burden of proof that a theist who believes and thus asserts does.

This also proves to be an indication of how my arguments will go. Because I do not make assertions regarding the existence of the being of whom as far as I know no evidence exists for, I don't see a reason to assume such a being would exist. Hence with the burden of proof on the theist side, if he were to not be successful, all I am required to do is to show his position through the burden of proof to be unsubstantiated and thus not rational.

Let the debate begin!
Debate Round No. 1
vardas0antras

Pro

O Introduction
Thank you for accepting.

O Burden of Proof
My opponent thinks that he has no burden of proof. Belief in God is a basic belief as we can see via history ; this universe and everything in it gives us a sense of a creator. Now nothing I have just said proves God but it does show us that atheists have a burden of proof.

O Arguments
Experiencing God:
1.I experienced God.
2.If God does not exist then we have a contradiction
3.Other people experienced God
http://www.csmonitor.com...
4.If God does not exist then we have a contradiction
Conclusion:
God exists

Argument from Contingency:
1.A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
2.This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence.
3.The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
4.What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
5.Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
6.Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Conclusion:
Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.
http://plato.stanford.edu...

Kalam Cosmological argument:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe more likely than not began to exist
Conclusion:
God more likely than not exists

O Note
All arguments are based on probability, otherwise we all would be theists.
warpedfx

Con

Let's begin, shall we?

I will simply answer each of my opponents arguments an deal with them as such.

O Burden of Proof


This I fear makes no sense from a critical standpoint. One has the onus of bearing the burden of proof if one were to make an assertion. I have, as I've outlined previously, made none. All the opponent has suggested was a weak claim that is tantamount to "it looks created, and everything has a creator right?" which is not substantiated nor evidenced. Because of this, I can and do reject it and with it reject the attempt at shifting the said burden.

Now onto:

Experiencing God:
1.I experienced God.
2.If God does not exist then we have a contradiction
3.Other people experienced God
http://www.csmonitor.com......
4.If God does not exist then we have a contradiction
Conclusion:
God exists>

I'd like for you to substantiate 1 and 3. How does one know they've experienced god? How do they know it wasn't something else? A momentary episode or a hallucination? In fact, how could one verify such claims? If it can't be, why should anyone accept it?

Examples of such a being (or beings)?

<2.This contingent being has a cause of or explanation for its existence.
3.The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
4.What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
5.Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
6.Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
Conclusion:
Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists.
http://plato.stanford.edu...;

It's important to note that for something to be "caused to exist" is, as far as we have evidence for, is actually a transformative process than one where new things are truly created. With this in mind, what, then, would stop us from claiming the "necessary being" is the universe itself?

-- my favorite!
<1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause>

Any example of things that have begun to exist, given the contention with the "beginnings" we have evidence for are not "beginnings" in the strict sense but are "changes"?

<2. The universe more likely than not began to exist>

Unsubstantiated and hence rejected.

God more likely than not exists>

With the contentions with each points above, the conclusion is deemed (you guessed it) unsubstantiated.

All arguments are based on probability, otherwise we all would be theists.>

All arguments stand on the soundness of their claims. I also don't see how we would be theists here?

Having said all that, perhaps my opponent has several insights or clarifications of each points I've had contentions with which may be more than insightful!
Debate Round No. 2
vardas0antras

Pro

I appreciate my opponents pleasant conduct, it makes the debate many, many times more appealing and just fun.

O Burden of Proof
"One has the onus of bearing the burden of proof if one were to make an assertion."
I propose that things aren't that simple. " I have, as I've outlined previously, made none." Incorrect, rejection does not equal no assertion. As I have stated previously, the idea of God is such a basic and widespread belief that one must add some resistance to it before one rejects it. Meaning that you're not an atheist naturally, hypothetically, if atheism is correct, you still have never been an atheist "naturally".

O Experiencing God
Part 1:
"How does one know they've experienced god? "
A: One prays -----> The prayer is fulfilled.
B: One is an Atheist or a light believer ------> One keeps on seeing God (not literally, obviously).
C: The video (This was exactly my experience).

Part 2:
"In fact, how could one verify such claims?"
A: How can one refute such claims ?
B: The fact is I can't prove my experience which the video pins down quite well (it was a scary, exciting and a peaceful first watch for me). However it still is a good argument due to "C:".
C: We can play a game of probabilities. Lets assume I am lying and I never experienced this.

Q: Would I be a Christian ?
A: No, the old testament and the new testament prohibits lying.
Q: Is God pleased with my lying ?
A: One must note that God can produce good things out of sin for example Judas betrayal led to the salvation of mankind. Nevertheless betrayal is a sin and God does not approve it ; Judas is nowadays considered a villain . Likewise
with lairs.
Q: Is this a prank ?
A: If so then this is the most unorthodox and lengthy prank in the history of mankind. Also the joke would be on me.
Q: Alternative explanations ?
A: Sure, you may think of a rather plausible explanation. Nevertheless it seems and its more probable that I am sincere and that I am not alone.

Argument from Contingency
"Examples of such a being (or beings)?"

"All of the human artefacts around us might not have existed; for each one of them, whoever made it might have decided not to do so. Their existence, therefore, is contingent. You and I, too, might not have existed; our respective parents might never have met, or might have decided not to have children, or might have decided to have children at a different time. Our existence, therefore, is contingent. Even the world around us seems to be contingent; the universe might have developed in such a way that none of the observable stars and planets existed at all."
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...

"It's important to note that for something to be "caused to exist" is, as far as we have evidence for, is actually a transformative process than one where new things are truly created. With this in mind, what, then, would stop us from claiming the "necessary being" is the universe itself?"
I don't quite understand you, nevertheless, you conclude that the universe may be a necessary being. However that is unlikely:

"To say that the universe is necessary is to say that its non-existence is impossible. Most impossibilities are easily recognised because they involve obvious logical contradiction. The existence of a square circle is impossible, because the idea of a square circle is self-contradictory.
Where, though, is the logical contradiction in the idea of the universe not existing? There seems to be none; the universe does appear to be contingent."
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...

Kalam Cosmological Argument
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause

" 'beginnings' we have evidence for are not 'beginnings' in the strict sense but are 'changes'?
Indeed, in the strict sense we have only observed "changes" but as you said this is "in the strict sense".
2. The universe more likely than not began to exist

I assumed that you are aware of the "Big Bang" and other scientific theories:
http://skyserver.sdss.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
"Scientists generally agree that "the Big Bang" birthed the universe about 15 billion years ago."
Tom Parisi, Northern Illinois University

O Note
"All arguments stand on the soundness of their claims. I also don't see how we would be theists here?" Indeed, I meant to say that I don't have to prove God with 100% certainty instead it may be 60% or even 50.1% (it would be insane to reject the more possible).

Anyhow this is fun and hopefully I get to debate my opponent in the future !
warpedfx

Con

<"One has the onus of bearing the burden of proof if one were to make an assertion."
I propose that things aren't that simple. " I have, as I've outlined previously, made none." Incorrect, rejection does not equal no assertion. As I have stated previously, the idea of God is such a basic and widespread belief that one must add some resistance to it before one rejects it.>

Is no credible evidence to support the claim, no matter how popular it is, not enough? This seems to me to be not much more than an argument ad populum.



Actually, everyone is born an atheist. Once they are introduced to the concept of god and believes it, that's when they become a theist.

Part 1:
"How does one know they've experienced god? "
A: One prays -----> The prayer is fulfilled.>

Interestingly, a case study done on the efficacy of prayer has shown prayer to actually NOT have any significant, if any effects.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk...

One keeps on seeing God (not literally, obviously).
C: The video (This was exactly my experience).>

How do you know what you were experiencing wasn't a misinterpretation of natural phenomena?

Part 2:
<"In fact, how could one verify such claims?"
A: How can one refute such claims ?>

Why must I accept such an unverifiable piece of "evidence"? This seems to amount to little more than "well prove it isn't true!" That's not how it works, unfortunately. Being the claimant, it is up to YOU to substantiate your assertions.

C: We can play a game of probabilities. Lets assume I am lying and I never experienced this.>

Or more likely that you were genuinely mistaken.

A: No, the old testament and the new testament prohibits lying.>

The old testament also prohibited the eating of shellfish or wearing blended fabric. Your point?

A: One must note that God can produce good things out of sin for example Judas betrayal led to the salvation of mankind. Nevertheless betrayal is a sin and God does not approve it ; Judas is nowadays considered a villain . Likewise
with lairs.>

Why do we assume god's existence in a debate regarding its existence?

A: If so then this is the most unorthodox and lengthy prank in the history of mankind. Also the joke would be on me.>

Since I have not suggested the above "explanations" it seems to me like you're trying to strawman my arguments and/or commit the fallacy of false dilemma.

A: Sure, you may think of a rather plausible explanation. Nevertheless it seems and its more probable that I am sincere and that I am not alone.>

You could be sincere, and mistaken. Would you also argue that because say a Hindu or a Muslim had a religious experience, it also validates Vishnu or Allah?

Argument from Contingency
"Examples of such a being (or beings)?"

<"All of the human artefacts around us might not have existed; for each one of them, whoever made it might have decided not to do so. Their existence, therefore, is contingent. You and I, too, might not have existed; our respective parents might never have met, or might have decided not to have children, or might have decided to have children at a different time. Our existence, therefore, is contingent. Even the world around us seems to be contingent; the universe might have developed in such a way that none of the observable stars and planets existed at all."
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...;

This does not refute my point at all. I've already pointed out any and all "beginnings" that we in fact do have evidence for, are of a transformative cause. You have an artist who "causes" a sculpture to exist. However, that's a label given to a newly rearranged medium. Because of the limitations of what we call "beginning", it really cannot be used to support god's existence, much less as a creator.

At best, this would suggest that god is himself not much more than a "rearranger" who used materials already existing and manipulated them to form things. With god considered the creator in the sense that he "created ex nihilo", and because such mundane creations as manipulation of matter are in fact superfluous to explanation of the universe, it is crossed out on both theological and logical razor of Occam.

<"It's important to note that for something to be "caused to exist" is, as far as we have evidence for, is actually a transformative process than one where new things are truly created. With this in mind, what, then, would stop us from claiming the "necessary being" is the universe itself?"
I don't quite understand you, nevertheless, you conclude that the universe may be a necessary being. However that is unlikely:

"To say that the universe is necessary is to say that its non-existence is impossible. Most impossibilities are easily recognised because they involve obvious logical contradiction. The existence of a square circle is impossible, because the idea of a square circle is self-contradictory.
Where, though, is the logical contradiction in the idea of the universe not existing? There seems to be none; the universe does appear to be contingent."
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...;

How is the universe's existence as a "necessary being", particularly if we were to define it as "all that exists" any less of a contradiction than calling god one? Again more assertions about god that has no backing. In fact, the fact that we are discussing the status of god's existence itself suggests that god's nonexistence is POSSIBLE. Also, BECAUSE nothing has yet been established to have any "beginnings", and because the First Law of Thermodynamics states that "energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted", it certainly suggests that the universe is the brute fact.

Kalam Cosmological Argument
<1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
" 'beginnings' we have evidence for are not 'beginnings' in the strict sense but are 'changes'?
Indeed, in the strict sense we have only observed "changes" but as you said this is "in the strict sense".>

And this is notable because…?

<2. The universe more likely than not began to exist

I assumed that you are aware of the "Big Bang" and other scientific theories:
http://skyserver.sdss.org......
http://en.wikipedia.org......
"Scientists generally agree that "the Big Bang" birthed the universe about 15 billion years ago."
Tom Parisi, Northern Illinois University>

Bzzt, try again. It has not been established that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. Perhaps of THIS local universe, from previous material at the point of singularity, but to say that the universe in fact BEGAN in a creation ex nihilo sense that an argument such as this would require has in fact not been established.

O Note
<"All arguments stand on the soundness of their claims. I also don't see how we would be theists here?" Indeed, I meant to say that I don't have to prove God with 100% certainty instead it may be 60% or even 50.1% (it would be insane to reject the more possible).>

Well good luck then, sir.
Debate Round No. 3
vardas0antras

Pro

O Burden of poof
For convenience and because I feel like I need to review this ; I shall not make any further comment.

O Experiencing God
A: One prays -----> The prayer is fulfilled
This is not debunked nor addressed properly. How does anything my opponent said show that my and others answered prayer was actually not answered? My opponent has misunderstood what prayer is ; prayer is not a tool.

C: The video (This was exactly my experience).
"How do you know what you were experiencing wasn't a misinterpretation of natural phenomena?"
1.What are the chances that this would happen to me ?
2.What are the chances that someone would post a video who had the exact experience ?
3.What are the chances when one takes all experiences from all Christians ?
Part 2:
A: How can one refute such claims
Obviously you can't.
C:We can play a game of probabilities. Lets assume I am lying and I never experienced this.
"genuinely mistaken" How is that possible or probable ? The questions and answers don't apply here since I didn't expect this response.
"Would you also argue that because say a Hindu or a Muslim had a religious experience, it also validates Vishnu or Allah?" No, it validates God.

Argument from Contingency
"You have an artist who "causes" a sculpture to exist."
However, the artist may decide not to carve a sculpture. Wherefore, the sculpture is contingent.

"How is the universe's existence as a "necessary being", particularly if we were to define it as "all that exists" any less of a contradiction than calling god one?"
You are hard to understand hence I can't respond. However, Ill give it a try:
Necessary being = all that exists =/= a dictionary.
"the fact that we are discussing the status of god's existence itself suggests that god's nonexistence is POSSIBLE"
Possibility = Ignorance =/= Common sense. Also why are you attacking the conclusion ? I mean if the premises are true then the conclusion follows, right ?

Kalam Cosmological Argument
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
My opponent surprisingly concedes this point.
2. The universe more likely than not began to exist.
It is more probable. "It has not been established that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe" A source please ? It is generally accepted that the Big Bang began this universe: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Also I forgot to mention Einsteins theory of relativity ; his theory proved that the universe is not a cause, but instead an effect.

I hope my opponent tries to be clearer in the final round.
warpedfx

Con

A: One prays -----> The prayer is fulfilled


Actually my link has debunked it thoroughly, but for clarity's sake, I'll reiterate my point. How do you know your prayers are answered, when the overall results show the answer to be identical to simple chance? If prayer were to be truly answered, why were the ones who were prayed for in the aforementioned study not significantly better off than those who weren't prayed for? "Because you're testing god"?



Not so. I've just made the reasonable assumption that if one prays for something,

Let me ask you a question- how do you know your question's been answered by god, as opposed to chance simply dealing you a luck of the draw? After all, you'd have a 50% chance off in your favour without god.

"How do you know what you were experiencing wasn't a misinterpretation of natural phenomena?"
1.What are the chances that this would happen to me ?>

Fairly common. Or are you saying your perception is infallible?

<2.What are the chances that someone would post a video who had the exact experience ?>

Again, pretty common, given the understanding of how the brain works, tricking it is a relatively simple matter. Or have you not heard of optical illusions? The fact that even a drop in oxygen levels could cause momentary episodes for example shows your case to be nothing more than unremarkable and most importantly not divine.

<3.What are the chances when one takes all experiences from all Christians ?>

What are the chances when you take the same Christians and examine each "experiences"? You'd end up with contradicting tales.

In fact, why I should even accept these claims when NONE have been verified in any way is a question that has not been answered.

Part 2:

I don't actually need to. Can you similarly refute the invisible dragon in late Carl Sagan's garage?

"genuinely mistaken" How is that possible or probable ?>

Have you never made a mistake before?

< The questions and answers don't apply here since I didn't expect this response.
"Would you also argue that because say a Hindu or a Muslim had a religious experience, it also validates Vishnu or Allah?" No, it validates God.>

Or it validates nothing, except the fallibility of human perception.

Argument from Contingency
<"You have an artist who "causes" a sculpture to exist."
However, the artist may decide not to carve a sculpture. Wherefore, the sculpture is contingent.>

The sculpture is essentially a label we've given to certain forms after the artist manipulates the sculpture. How this helps your case is beyond me, because the point remains that the sculpture was not created, since there necessarily was the pre-existing materials with which the artist manipulated.

<"How is the universe's existence as a "necessary being", particularly if we were to define it as "all that exists" any less of a contradiction than calling god one?"
You are hard to understand hence I can't respond. However, Ill give it a try:
Necessary being = all that exists =/= a dictionary.>

God hasn't been established to actually be a necessary being, and in fact is superfluous to all explanations. Your point?

"the fact that we are discussing the status of god's existence itself suggests that god's nonexistence is POSSIBLE"


Except your premises are not more than assertions considering all that's shown to be "contingent" aren't actually individual discrete things but labels given to particular formations within the whole. Given this, and given the fact that an absolute "nothing" isn't even really comprehensible, isn't it thus logical to say the universe is in fact necessary and a brute fact?

Kalam Cosmological Argument
<1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
My opponent surprisingly concedes this point.>

I actually haven't conceded this at all. For example, there's the vacuum fluctuation in which matter "pops in and out of existence" without cause.

More importantly, though, I've actually challenged the notion that anything truly "begins" at all. As I've argued previously in the Argument from contingency, any and all "beginnings" we have evidence of are in fact not "beginnings" at all, but simply rearrangements previously existing materials.

2. The universe more likely than not began to exist.


And with what evidence do you back up this assertion?
< "It has not been established that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe" A source please ? It is generally accepted that the Big Bang began this universe: http://en.wikipedia.org...... >

By began, perhaps again in the mundane sense as outlined previously, ie previously existing material. But so what? This doesn't lend ANY sort of credibility to a god-creator. Either god is the creator of everything from nothing, ie the universe, time etc. Either that, or his requirement as an explanation is deemed superfluous and thus rejected on account of Occam's Razor.

And yet you forget that because of quantum mechanics, the theory of relativity is considered incomplete- a problem which becomes significant and its Achilles heel the closer we get to the Big Bang and the singularity from which it arose.
Debate Round No. 4
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by daniel_t 3 years ago
daniel_t
@vardas0antras: I was not attempting to debate you here. I merely was demonstrating that I entirely understand your arguments, and they are inadequate even if all the premises are accepted as true.
Posted by vardas0antras 3 years ago
vardas0antras
Being misunderstood is not good for ones health so adieus.
Posted by warpedfx 3 years ago
warpedfx
btw, my point was that all things at their basis were "necessay" since all that was "contingent" was simply the particular rearrangements of the pre-existing materia. As for universe being necessary, without it you'd have an absolute nothing which itself is an incoherent concept.
Posted by vardas0antras 3 years ago
vardas0antras
Listen, if you want to debate me then send a challenge because this is a waste of time. Also, my opponent didn't even make those arguments, got a grudge ?
Posted by daniel_t 3 years ago
daniel_t
@vardas0antras: Some notes about your arguments...

Even if we accept all of its premises, all your rendition of the Kalam Cosmological argument shows is that the universe has a cause. It gives absolutely no reason to suppose that its cause is anything even somewhat like any particular god, much less the God of Abraham.

Your argument from Contingency has a glaring hole in argument 4. There is absolutely no reason to suppose that contingent things (or even contingent beings,) must be created or explained by any sort of *being* whatsoever (e.g. snowflakes and lightning don't require any sort of being for their existence.) Like the Kalam argument, this argument, in so far as it can be accepted, only says that some sort of non-contingent thing exists, but it gives no reason to suppose that the non-contingent thing in question is any particular god.

As for your argument from experience: People experience UFOs, the efficacy of placebos, and phantom sense perceptions. Singular experience does cut it. This is precisely why science requires experiments to be repeatable. And again, even if we accept that these experiences really happened exactly as described, there is no evidence that they have anything to do with any particular god.

In essence all of your arguments boil down to arguments from ignorance. Since we don't know something, God exists. (Frankly, this isn't surprising since most arguments for God suffer from this fallacy.) Unless you are willing to accept that God is the personification of Ignorance, all your arguments fail.
Posted by vardas0antras 3 years ago
vardas0antras
"Pro brought out the same weak arguments for God and con pointed out just a few of their weaknesses. Nothing new here." By not even understanding them... Why do I bother ?... How depressing.
Posted by daniel_t 3 years ago
daniel_t
Pro brought out the same weak arguments for God and con pointed out just a few of their weaknesses. Nothing new here.

Now witness a gaggle of young theists like EuphoricTurtle come out of the woodwork to vote bomb. I expect that Pro will win, simply because he decided to argue for the existence of God, regardless of what his arguments were.
Posted by vardas0antras 3 years ago
vardas0antras
No, please look up the meaning of the word contingent, it means change...
Posted by warpedfx 3 years ago
warpedfx
I didn't misunderstand it- the entire argument on contingency depends on the assumption that things pop in and out of existence, instead of simply being one whole aggregate within which the subsets change forms, with each arrangements being "things" that we've given label to.
Posted by vardas0antras 3 years ago
vardas0antras
"You can't defend scripture with scripture, which is what your argument is based on. If there was no scripture, you would have no leg to stand on." I used arguments from logic and not scripture which he honestly didn't seem to understand especially the argument from contingency. I did however mess up the burden of proof argument... Ah well it was only one argument.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Freeman 2 years ago
Freeman
vardas0antraswarpedfxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering Dimittri's D-bag vote.
Vote Placed by kohai 2 years ago
kohai
vardas0antraswarpedfxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering.
Vote Placed by ExNihilo 2 years ago
ExNihilo
vardas0antraswarpedfxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Dimmitri.C 2 years ago
Dimmitri.C
vardas0antraswarpedfxTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Joe, I don't find your arguments convincing nor do I find them logically plausible. It seems as if you like to borrow from the theists position only to fashion your beliefs into a milder form of theism.
Vote Placed by maninorange 2 years ago
maninorange
vardas0antraswarpedfxTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I was amazingly disappointed that pro did not seem to understand... well... anything. He did not understand con's explanation of what burden of proof was; con's objection to personal experience, the necessity of God, or things having a "beginning;" or even simple logic, evidenced by his gross display of Post Hoc and Ad Populum fallacies. Furthermore, he may have had more sources, but they were vastly inferior in that the claims they supported were inconsequential. Con's sources were devastating.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 3 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
vardas0antraswarpedfxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by Doulos1202 3 years ago
Doulos1202
vardas0antraswarpedfxTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by daniel_t 3 years ago
daniel_t
vardas0antraswarpedfxTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by warpedfx 3 years ago
warpedfx
vardas0antraswarpedfxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by EuphoricTurtle 3 years ago
EuphoricTurtle
vardas0antraswarpedfxTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Research this debate: Kurt Gödel