The Instigator
janetsanders733
Pro (for)
Winning
34 Points
The Contender
DudeStop
Con (against)
Losing
25 Points

God Does Exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 15 votes the winner is...
janetsanders733
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/6/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,812 times Debate No: 41759
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (102)
Votes (15)

 

janetsanders733

Pro

I was hoping I could debate Con on the existence of God. I will be taking Pro, and if my opponent accepts, then he will be taking Con. I would also like to thank Con if he accepts this debate.


Round 1: Acceptance


Round 2: Opening Arguments


Round 3: Rebuttals/Conclusion(Can be a short conclusion)
DudeStop

Con

Accepted.
Debate Round No. 1
janetsanders733

Pro


The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument



1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or an external cause.


2. The universe exists.


3. If the universe does have an explanation for its existence, that explanation is God.


4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1 and 2).


5. Therefore, the explanation for the existence of the universe is God (from 3 and 4).




God:


an eternal, transcendent, metaphysically necessary personal entity, who is the greatest conceivable being possible.



[1]The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR): The principle of sufficient reason (PSR) is a principle saying that everything (of a certain class) has an reason/explanation. The PSR has a number of different forms, but I will use the one version of the PSR says that anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.



[1]Justification for Premise 1: Premise 1 is the form of the PSR that the argument uses. Things don’t just pop into existence on their own. That would be “magic”, and we all know that magic is just an illusion and not real.



Physical reality doesn’t seem to be the sort of thing that exists necessarily. There doesn’t appear to be any physical part of physical reality that is metaphysically necessary (e.g. stars and planets are contingent and indeed at one point they failed to exist; there are also no molecules that couldn’t fail to exist.)



If there is a possible world where no physical reality at all exists, then a fortiori there is a possible world where our own physical universe does not exist, in which case the explanation of the universe’s existence cannot lie in the necessity of its own nature because the universe does not have necessary existence.



With option (1) being unreasonable, let’s consider explanatory option (2): the universe having an external cause of its existence. If we go the explanatory route of some external cause of the universe, an external cause of all physical reality would have to be nonphysical, and there are only two sorts of things we know of that could fit requirement: abstract objects (like numbers) and unembodied minds (e.g. God, if he exists).



But, abstract objects can’t cause anything. So the only viable candidate for a nonphysical cause seems to be a personal cause. Among the pool of explanatory options considered (the universe existing by the necessity of its own nature, physical things causing the universe, abstract objects causing the universe, and a transcendent personal cause of the universe) a transcendent personal cause is by far the best explanation; indeed it is the only viable explanation among the entire pool. Thus we’re left with a transcendent personal cause of the universe if the universe has an explanation of its existence.




Justification for Premise 2:


Pretty self-explanatory, I mean we know the universe exist through our five senses.



[1] [2]Justification for Premise 3:



If God does not exist, then the Universe does not have an explanation of its existence. God who by definition is the greatest conceivable being possible, that means he must be transcendent, personal, and external. Therefore, he must be the only viable explanation as to why the Universe exists.



With a physical external cause of the universe’s existence being impossible, the universe’s external cause would have to be ethereal and no less strange than God creating the universe. By far the best option for my opponent is to say that universe exists eternally, inexplicably, with no external cause of its existence.



But, we know that it is false. Our universe had a beginning.



The BGV theorem- says that if the universe is on average expanding along a given world-line, this world-line cannot be infinite to the past. This theory also implies the theorem that even if our universe is just a tiny part of a so-called “multiverse” composed of many universes, the multiverse must have an absolute beginning.



Alexander Vilenkin, Professor of Physics explicitly says:



“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning” (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176)[3]



Justification for 4+5:


Pretty self-explanatory since it logically follows after the other premises that I listed.



First Conclusion:


We can safely and soundly say that the LCA is sound and proves that God’s existence must be necessary in order for the Universe to exist. My opponent must show which 3 premises are not true.


Sources:


[1]http://www.maverick-christian.org...


[2]http://www.reasonablefaith.org...


[3]Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176




DudeStop

Con

my argument is that we have no need for a God. I will show multiple ways a universe could come to be, then ask pro some questions for the next round.

In order for there to be a god, we *have* to have a need for one.

Why do we need god?

Well a very common answer would be to say that god is the only thing that could have created our world, with it's complexity, and us humans, with our intelligent minds.

This will be so brutal.

First, we show some causes for the Universe, or multiverse:

A) Simultaneous causation

This is the idea that cause and effect can happen simultaneously. The cause of the Universe could have happened at the same time of it's effect. Let's say we have atoms A, B, and C. If atom A causes atom B, then atom B would cause atom C, and atom C would cause atom A.
Why should we accept God over simultaneous causation?

B)Non-Sentient force.

Why can't the cause be an immaterial, causeless, eternal, powerful, spaceless, timeless, uncaused, non-sentient force that randomly creates things? Since this force was eternally creating things, one day the inevitable happened, energy, space, and time was created in a powerful reaction destroying everything including this force to create the two. The rest is history.

Why should we think God caused the Universe instead of this force?

From Magic 8000. Wherever he got it from beats me.

C)Ekpyrotic Universe

This model says

"...our current universe arose from a collision of two three-dimensional worlds (branes) in a space with an extra (fourth) spatial dimension." [http://wwwphy.princeton.edu......]

Why accept God over the Ekpyrotic model?

Then, I talk about the multiverse.

The multiverse is the idea that we had so many different universes, with so many different combinations, that it made the perfect conditions for us to live in.

Why accept god over the multiverse?

Then instead of asking where our universe came from, ask where GOD came from.

Intelligent design arguments say often that we need a god to create humans, and our complexity. Notice that this would evade evolution. (JanetSanders is arguing for the Biblical God)

The ways god could come to be:
1. god was eternal. God always existed.
This would mean that an intelligent mind can exist without god. If we know that god is intelligent, and intelligent minds need a creator, then either god doesn't exist or this rule is faulty. (Both) God could be used as proof that intelligent minds do not need a creator.

2. God has a creator. That would mean that there is something more powerful than our god out there. That god would need a creator, so would that gods creator, and so on...

Therefor, humans do not need a god in order for an intelligent mind to exist.

We could also look at the "useless" body parts in us. Here is an example of twenty useless body parts in us. What JanetSanders needs to do is answer why god would put these parts into us if there was no need for them.

Here's the source: http://www.bloggingwv.com...
See, what this shows is that the parts could have had a use in the past. Yet in the present, there is no use. This supports evolution greatly. Why does god make us humans live with the useless body parts?

The earth is intelligently designed:

Is it? Let's take a then look, shall we?

Okay:
1. The earth is 75% water. 1.25 % of this is drinkable by humans. Salt water actually makes you thirsty, rather than quench the thirst you have. In addition, 10% of the earth is dessert land. Humans cannot grow crops in desserts, and they have very harsh living conditions. Salt water/desserts cannot support human life. Not unless a river was in the dessert, or we had some sort of large boat etc. But on it's own, we could not live in these places.

We also know of course about the shifting tectonic plates. The shifting plates cause earthquakes.
Around several million earth quakes occur each year. http://earthquake.usgs.gov...
We know that there are high places in the earth, and that humans cannot be dropped more than 20 feet.
We know about volcanoes.
We know about poisonous plants.
In about 1 billion years from now, the Earth's oceans will disappear, due to the Sun brightening. However, well before this, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will be too low to support plant life, destroying the foundation of the food chains.[5] See Future of the Earth.
In about 5-6 billion years from now, the Sun will start to become a red giant. The oceans and the much of the atmosphere will boil away and the Earth's temperature will rise well above the boiling point of water. About 7-8 billion years from now, the Earth will probably be engulfed by an expanding Sun and destroyed.[6][7]

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

Why did god make an earth with such harsh living conditions? Why are humans barely suitable to live on this earth? Why did god make the earth set to be destroyed in the future?
So god created the earth available to support life on some of it's surface for some of it's time.

Why did god make the earth have those harsh living conditions?

Therefor, the earth is in fact not very intelligently designed for our life. God could have put many other variables into putting our earth together, and took out a lot of things.

Even if we said we would not be alive if the earth were a bit different, why should we assume life cam only be in carbon based form?

CONCLUSION: THERE IS *NO* NEED FOR A GOD. WE THEREFOR HAVE NO REASON TO ASSUME IT WAS GOD.

OTHER ARGUMENTS:
(I'll try to make this one quick)

1. God is supposedly omnipotent, pure, and omniscient.
2. If god was pure, he would want to destroy all evil.
3. If god was omniscient, he could find evil.
4. If god was omnipotent, god could destroy all evil.
5. Evil exists
6. Therefor, god does not exist.

For evil, we can substitute pain and suffering.

We have no observable evidence of god being real. As pro is making a claim, he must show that 100% there is a god.
Facts: No one has any observable evidence of god.

Quote of Hitchens: "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence as well.
Another Hitchens quote: "You want your god to take personal responsibility for the huge number of collapsing stars and imploding galaxies and destroyed universes and failed solar systems that have left us in this tiny corner, on the one planet on this petty solar system that can support life on some of its surface for some of the time. You want a creator who filled this earth with species, 99% of which are now extinct already"

Saying that god is real is as ludicrous as saying, theres a dead body thats evidence of a murder, despite the evidence pointing to natural causes.
And the one person saying, "really? prove to me there is no murderer.

Thank You.

Ha ha, this is long/lastminute/poorly written.

Have fun mate!
Debate Round No. 2
janetsanders733

Pro


I do not have enough room to copy Con’s opening arguments, so I will just write my rebuttals instead.



A) Con raises the issues of why the Universe could not have been caused at the same time of its effect. My question for Con is: Why can't the cause and effect exist at the same time in an asymmetric dependency relation? For example, a heavy chandelier hanging on a chain from the ceiling. The ceiling and chain hold up the chandelier; the chandelier and chain don't support the ceiling! Because the ceiling pre-existed before the chandelier and chain. So Con’s argument is faulty at best, because there must be something that is pre-existent to the Universe, that is uncaused(God).


B) Con then asks why the cause can’t be an “immaterial, causeless, eternal, powerful, spaceless, timeless, uncaused, non-sentient force that randomly creates things”? Well it sounds to me like Con is describing God. God is the immaterial, causeless, eternal, powerful, space-less, timeless, and uncaused non-sentient force.



http://www.reasonablefaith.org...


C) Con mentioned some model called the Ekpytrotic Universe. However, I quoted Alexander Vilenkin, a well-known Russian Physicsist who said that any Universe that has been expanding can’t have a past-eternal beginning. It must have had a beginning. This would even include the multiverse if one even exists.


Again, even if a multiverse did exist, Con needed to show how the first universe came into existence. Universes began to exist, and are made of matter , time, and energy. So, they can’t just happen on their own unless there is something outside of them that is greater that can make them happen.


When you say something comes from nothing, you are literally saying there was an absence of space, time, matter, and energy. So, you must explain how any of that even began to exist.



As I said before in my LCA, I think it is safe to say we have good grounds for thinking that God must be the uncaused first cause of the universe, since anything that begins to exist must have a cause. The Universe began to exist; therefore, it must have a cause.


It must be timeless, space-less, and immaterial uncaused first cause. What I am describing here is God ladies and gentleman.



Con assumes that I believe in Intelligent Design. Also Con argued that I am arguing for the God of the Bible. This is a bare- assertion fallacy that Con made against me. 1) I am not arguing which God exists. That is a different topic for debate. I am simply arguing that there must be a God who exists necessarily in order for our Universe to exist. 2) Nowhere did I ever mention that I believed in Intelligent Design at all in this debate. Con just assumes that evolution disproves the existence of God without giving any justification whatsoever. And, he also assumes that I believe in ID.



2. This is such an old philosophical argument that has been refuted. Con asks the old school-boy question “Who created the Creator?” If God is created then he’s not God he would be a creation. God by definition is the greatest conceivable being possible. That means he must be uncaused, eternal, timeless, immaterial, space-less, all knowing, all powerful, omnipotent, omnipresent, loving, just, compassionate, kind, forgiving, etc…


So, then God does not have a creator, he is the creator. There would none above him or outside of him. He’s at the top of all things.


In fact Con’s question is self-defeating because what he’s doing is asking an infinite regress of questions.



This is a “red herring” used by Con. How does he know that the body parts may not be useful? Now I am not going to go through all his examples, but I would like to just show a few he mentioned in this blog.



  1. 1. Body Hair-Body hair facilitates sweating that cools our bodies. http://science.howstuffworks.com...

  2. 2. Appendix-1) produces some white blood cells in the body, that help fight off infection. 2) Produces good bacteria.http://articles.mercola.com...


Even though I am not arguing from the Bible, but if I was the Bible does talk about earthquakes, in the end times. However I don’t see at all how this argument that Con has made disproves that God could not have created the Universe.



I think Con needs to address the Fine-Tuning, and the Physical Constants of the Universe. Here is a chart below.


Fine Tuning of the Physical Constants of the Universe


Parameter Max. Deviation


Ratio of Electrons:Protons 1:10^37


Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity 1:10^40


Expansion Rate of Universe 1:10^55


Mass Density of Universe1 1:10^59


Cosmological Constant 1:10^120


These numbers represent the maximum deviation from the accepted values, that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not having matter, or be unsuitable for any form of life.


That shows that God cares for his creation by giving us life here on Earth. Earth is considered the only planet in existence suitable for life. This includes human beings, plants, animals, and insects.


There may be other life on planets, but no planet that we know of is fine-tuned like our planet Earth.


http://www.godandscience.org...


Con is committing Argumentum ad Ignorantiam here by putting his assumption as his conclusion. Con can’t assume that just because we don’t have enough good reasons for God to exist that we can; therefore, automatically conclude that naturalism or atheism is true.


Con needed to show some positive arguments for naturalism to be true. However, all we have seen are negative arguments against theism here.


Con at best can argue agnosticism, since he has not given any positive arguments for atheism. Therefore, my proposition that God exits still stands, because there could be something out there beyond nature.


http://philosophy.lander.edu...


Con is actually shooting himself in the foot here because he recognizes evil and good. On an atheist worldview there is no standard of good and evil. If Con assume there's such a thing as evil then he must assume there’s a such a thing as good. If he assumes there is a such a thing as good and evil there must be a moral law to differentiate between good and evil. If he assumes there is a moral law, then there must be a moral-law giver who gives us that moral law to know good and evil.


But, that is who Con is trying to disprove and not prove. Because if there’s no moral law giver, there’s no moral law, and hence morality would be neutral like the animal kingdom, and what we call good and evil is just an illusion since there would be no such thing as good and evil.



Con says that we have no empirical evidence for God; therefore, he concludes that God does not exist.


However, there are many things that in reality that are true that can’t be proven empirically.



  1. 1. Numbers, symbols, and words can’t be proven empirically, they only exist in the minds of human-beings.

  2. 2. Gravity can’t be proven empirically.

  3. 3. Neutrons, protons, and electrons can’t be proven empirically. Only theoretically can they be proven.


So, if we go by Con’s definition then we must accept that these things are also false as well.



Conclusion:


So as you can see, Con has committed nothing, but red herrings, bare-assertion fallacies, circular reasoning, and argument ad ignoranum here. I still propose that my proposition for the existence of God still stands.



I would like to thank Con for having this debate with me.


DudeStop

Con

An interesting debate we have had here mate. I'm sorry to hear that you were not able to cite my arguments, it makes it hard to read with those missing from your round

BEFORE I BEGIN CONCLUSIONS, REMEMBER THAT PRO HAS NOT YET FULFILLED HIS BURDEN OF PROOF: He said if we do not know what caused the universe, then it has to be god. So according to him, rather than just saying we don't know, you should assume that this god did it. Blindly.

Let us look at his arguments/rebuttals:

When I said:
"God is supposedly omnipotent, pure, and omniscient.
2. If god was pure, he would want to destroy all evil.
3. If god was omniscient, he could find evil.
4. If god was omnipotent, god could destroy all evil.
5. Evil exists
6. Therefor, god does not exist.

For evil, we can substitute pain and suffering."

He responded:
"Con is actually shooting himself in the foot here because he recognizes evil and good. On an atheist worldview there is no standard of good and evil. If Con assume there's such a thing as evil then he must assume there"s a such a thing as good. If he assumes there is a such a thing as good and evil there must be a moral law to differentiate between good and evil. If he assumes there is a moral law, then there must be a moral-law giver who gives us that moral law to know good and evil.
But, that is who Con is trying to disprove and not prove. Because if there"s no moral law giver, there"s no moral law, and hence morality would be neutral like the animal kingdom, and what we call good and evil is just an illusion since there would be no such thing as good and evil."

Janet completely ignores the statement; "For evil, we can substitute pain and suffering" Pain and suffering does exist. Clearly. Evil is an opinion.
I could say There does not need to be a moral law giver. Even if we said I believed in a moral law giver, he ignores the argument entirely and does not say why god does not destroy evil.
I think abortion is evil.
I think gay marriage is fine.
Bob thinks abortion is fine.
Bob thinks gay marriage is evil.

So, as we can see, evil is an opinion. That is why I said we were going to define evil as pain and suffering. It would be to confusing just to say: "Evil"

JanetSanders actually agrees with this definition:
(In the message section)
DudeStop: "What did you define "evil" as"
JanetSanders733: Suffering and harm, morally corrupt"

My opponent agrees that pain and suffering is a fair term for evil.
My argument still stands high; We do not need a law giver, and Janet avoided the argument entirely.

In fact, I could have even said that the definitions contradicts each other. I don't have to believe in good and evil. I could just say that if good and evil exists, and god wants to /can destroy that evil, then that contradicts with itself. Make sense?

Then we see pro make things up, and yet again ignore arguments:

"Con assumes that I believe in Intelligent Design. Also Con argued that I am arguing for the God of the Bible. This is a bare- assertion fallacy that Con made against me. 1) I am not arguing which God exists. That is a different topic for debate. I am simply arguing that there must be a God who exists necessarily in order for our Universe to exist. 2) Nowhere did I ever mention that I believed in Intelligent Design at all in this debate. Con just assumes that evolution disproves the existence of God without giving any justification whatsoever. And, he also assumes that I believe in ID"

1. He states that I think he believes in intelligent design at the beginning, and the end of his argument.

Point to a time where I said you believed in intelligent design? (ID)?

I never said that. My argument was that intelligent design was faulty... (Which he ignored so I'll count that as a concession) I have an argument designed to say we have no need for a god. I predicted that someone would say that we need god for because their is no way the earth, humans, and the universe could come out of nothing, and that it was so precisely designed that it requires a creator. My argument basically refutes those points, meaning their is no need or requirement for a god. There is also no reason to accept god...

2. It is logical to say you wanted the god from the bible. In the forums, you asked me if I wanted to have a debate about god. Also in the forums, you were arguing for the Christian God. Why wouldn't I assume this? It's not a bare assertion. I guess you could say I made an inference, but to ask me to debate you then change your stance is cold... I also never said evolution disproves god. I was trying to disprove intelligent design... I don't think I ever touched evolution, except for asking why we were created with useless body parts, which yet again, you didn't answer.

You only said:
"How do you know these don't have any use?"
Please point to a use the third eyelid has? I mean it does nothing. We also have body parts that make it harder for us to live.

Let's look at some more arguments.

"B) Con then asks why the cause can"t be an "immaterial, causeless, eternal, powerful, spaceless, timeless, uncaused, non-sentient force that randomly creates things"? Well it sounds to me like Con is describing God. God is the immaterial, causeless, eternal, powerful, space-less, timeless, and uncaused non-sentient force"

Pro has refuted his own argument. He actually says later that god is: "loving, just, compassionate, kind, forgiving"

And what does sentient mean:
"able to perceive or feel things"

God has felt love.

Perceive definition:

"To understand"

God understands the earth and it's laws.

Therefor, according to pro, god is sentient.

Conclusion for this one argument:

Pro has been confused.

"Con raises the issues of why the Universe could not have been caused at the same time of its effect. My question for Con is: Why can't the cause and effect exist at the same time in an asymmetric dependency relation? For example, a heavy chandelier hanging on a chain from the ceiling. The ceiling and chain hold up the chandelier; the chandelier and chain don't support the ceiling! Because the ceiling pre-existed before the chandelier and chain. So Con"s argument is faulty at best, because there must be something that is pre-existent to the Universe, that is uncaused(God"

Here, Janet sander's ignores yet ANOTHER argument.
In this argument I asked him to:

1. "Why accept god over simultaneous causation?

How he responded:
With a question that had nothing to do with it.

What he did wrong:

A chandelier hanging from a ceiling does not equal simultaneous causation. Simultaneous causation is when the cause and effect are simultaneous, and all of the states (ABC) are caused at the same time. He basically got causation mixed up with simultaneous causation. If something was holding up the ceiling, it WOULD be simultaneous causation. But he forgot that something had to cause the ceiling, otherwise that would not equal simultaneous causation.

Pro obviously doesn't understand the argument I have made.

"C) Con mentioned some model called the Ekpytrotic Universe. However, I quoted Alexander Vilenkin, a well-known Russian Physicsist who said that any Universe that has been expanding can"t have a past-eternal beginning. It must have had a beginning. This would even include the multiverse if one even exists"

In this argument I asked pro to:

1. Why should we accept god over Ekpytrotic universe?

His answer:

"I quoted Alexander Vilenkin"

A quick response:

Okay? So why should I accept what this person says? Where's this quote? How does he know this? Where's your proof that this is true? Pro's argument is full of holes.

I'm gonna quote Hitchens now:
"god Is not real"

Therefor, because I quoted somebody, I am able to assert anything. (According to pro's logic)

What he did wrong:

He tried to assert things without proving them. There is no reason to accept this is true.
"That which can be proven without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence as well"

He did this twice actually. We see him saying that according to "my logic" Gravity cannot be proven. Really? Do we have no evidence for gravity whatsoever? We of course know that gravity exists. Why? Because we have done tests explaining the effects of gravity. Same with the others. If someone just said: "Hey, what if we had a force pulling us Down?" Without actually giving any evidence, then he cannot assert gravity is real. But we know it is, because it has been proven.

"This is such an old philosophical argument that has been refuted. Con asks the old school-boy question "Who created the Creator?" If God is created then he"s not God he would be a creation. God by definition is the greatest conceivable being possible. That means he must be uncaused, eternal, timeless, immaterial, space-less, all knowing, all powerful, omnipotent, omnipresent, loving, just, compassionate, kind, forgiving, etc""

Okay thank you. That actually just proved my argument. If an intelligent mind can exist without a creator, then there is no need for a god.

CONCLUSION:
Pro accused me of many fallacies. Pro dodged arguments. Pro conceded to one of my points. Pro never cited any arguments. Pro switched his case. Pro's argument was refuted. Pro has no case.

Thank You! I'll be willing to debate anyone else on this subject if they ever challenge me.... Make good choices my friends,
Debate Round No. 3
102 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DudeStop 2 years ago
DudeStop
(Raises hand solemnly)

1,000 views mate...
Posted by yay842 2 years ago
yay842
who actually read this?
Posted by DudeStop 2 years ago
DudeStop
I'd just like to be the 100th comment, and point out that we now have over 12 hundred views. Great!
Posted by DudeStop 2 years ago
DudeStop
Though I suppose you'd be the perfect voter, wouldn't you? (Just because agnostic would be neutral, if we're going by the same definition)...
Posted by DudeStop 2 years ago
DudeStop
Yeah...
Posted by miketheman1200 2 years ago
miketheman1200
This is truly impossible to debate with no voter bias.
Posted by DudeStop 2 years ago
DudeStop
Debate339, explain how that is not a perfect example of a vote bomb?
Posted by DudeStop 2 years ago
DudeStop
"particularly the idea of simultaneous cause and effect (represented somehow by a circular process which has not been observed)."

Which has been observed multiple times... I could name of a few if you'd like.
Posted by janetsanders733 2 years ago
janetsanders733
@IamtheJuan lol me to. It just seems like doing the voting period for only a few days just wouldn't be enough time for the audience of DDO to vote.
Posted by Iamthejuan 2 years ago
Iamthejuan
I know it sucks, but long voting periods are ideal on here. Most debates don't get a lot of votes at once. I don't mind waiting...in fact I love getting that surprise email saying I won or whatever after 2 weeks (and if I lost, oh well).
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by OtakuJordan 2 years ago
OtakuJordan
janetsanders733DudeStopTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: "In order ere to be a God we have to have a need for one." Yeah, no. I call fallacy.
Vote Placed by MassiveDump 2 years ago
MassiveDump
janetsanders733DudeStopTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I voted on this debate because DudeStop told me not to. I don't have the patience to read this whole thing, are you kidding me?
Vote Placed by amik10 2 years ago
amik10
janetsanders733DudeStopTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: S&G to Pro b/c Con made a lot of capitalization errors. Arguments to Pro because Con flat out says "my argument is that we have no need for a God." Which I believe is outside the resolution so Pro wins arguments. Overall though it was a very good debate from both sides? Nice Job!
Vote Placed by Projectid 2 years ago
Projectid
janetsanders733DudeStopTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did a lot of accusing and dodged the Cons arguments. Pro conceded to one of the Cons points. The Pro wavered in siting any of Cons points. The Pros argument was refuted. The Pro never made his case. Especially since it is mostly William Lane Craig's adaption to the argument.
Vote Placed by Iamthejuan 2 years ago
Iamthejuan
janetsanders733DudeStopTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a tough one to call, as con did have a good knowledge of alternate theories to creationism. I think Pro honestly won, because of his expansion upon the cosmological argument via deductive reasoning based in science. (I will admit I am a creationist as well for similar reasons.) I also see holes in Con's initial arguments-- particularly the idea of simultaneous cause and effect (represented somehow by a circular process which has not been observed). I also think that the non-sentient argument is irrelevant; pro already conceded that God is a metaphysical consciousness not an actual being that we can define or comprehend, Consciousness does not arise from unconsciousness-- this has nothing to do with being tangible or sentient. I could go through the rest of the rounds like this, but I'm out of characters :-) This is good, because it is OK to disagree, as long as you communicate respectfully. This is how we learn from each other in the pursuit of knowledge and truth.
Vote Placed by WilliamofOckham 2 years ago
WilliamofOckham
janetsanders733DudeStopTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was a little hard to judge because of the nature of the resolution and the type of God that each debater is arguing for/against. I disagree with the voters who concur that con basically argued only against the Christian God as opposed to "philosophical theism", because the God that pro described through the LCA in his first argument is much like the Christian God. With that being said, con's arguments were not very strong. They had numerous fallacies, especially red herrings, and he also virtually ignored pro's initial argument, which was a huge blunder for him. Overall, I'm not going to vote for either side because pro's arguments never really "proved" God, whereas con's arguments were very sloppy and disorganized, and were not a coherent rebuttal. I will award the source points to pro, though, because he had more, reliable sources than con.
Vote Placed by Nzrsaa 2 years ago
Nzrsaa
janetsanders733DudeStopTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Great debate! Conduct was fine, S/G was fine also. I think that Pro used the better sources - Con did not use any in the 3rd round. However, I think that Pro made the better arguments; Con spent much of the debate arguing again the Christian God rather than a generic "God", and his arguments were all over the place, not very organised, and in general, didn't disprove the existence of God. Pro's points were organised, and straight to the point. They were presented effectively too, which is why arguments go to Pro. Good debate though!
Vote Placed by tylergraham95 2 years ago
tylergraham95
janetsanders733DudeStopTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: S&G were mostly equal, not enough to award points over. Same can be said for conduct and sources. Although Pro made strong points against Con (especially regarding the morality argument) pro only proved the god *might* exist. Although I must say that con could have argued that because the Resolution was "God Does Exist" as opposed to "A god does exist" con could have argued that this debate was referencing a specific god of a specific religion, and because the instigator is christian, the god in question is probably the christian god. Anyway, Pro stepped dangerously close to tautology for me with the Leibnizian cosmological argument, which made his stance difficult to substantiate. Overall, con sufficiently cast reasonable doubt over the existence of a god, therefore points awarded to con.
Vote Placed by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
janetsanders733DudeStopTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I believe in God. However, I also believe that it is impossible to prove God' existence solely through scientific means. This debate further proved that point to me, as Pro was not really able prove the existence of God; he only managed to prove that the existence of God is POSSIBLE.
Vote Placed by supershamu 2 years ago
supershamu
janetsanders733DudeStopTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made a very strong case and stayed on topic with the debate which was "God Does Exist." Pro was right In pointing out that this debate was not for the Christian God and was just for a God in general. This point effectively nullified the God's morality argument Con put forward. The thing that got me about Con's morality argument was that it was stating that God has the power and desire to remove evil but never declared that he has to. I fail to see how that would even counter arguments for the Christian God. Pro responded to more of Con's arguments with greater effectiveness in relation to the debate. Pro conducted himself better and also did not have any spelling or grammar issues that I could find. This was a good debate and well done.