The Instigator
JakeFertig
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
KhalifV
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

God exist, and belief in His existence is rationally justified.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 4 votes the winner is...
KhalifV
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/4/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 715 times Debate No: 59980
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

JakeFertig

Pro

God exist and belief in God is rationally justified through historical and scientific evidence.
There are a couple of arguments I would like to focus on, such as the Kalam Cosmological Argument, Design Argument, and much others. This debate is not to discuss free will or the inerrancy of the Bible (although are great topics), but the existence of God. These arguments don't point to the Christian God, but they do point to a creator.
KhalifV

Con

BoP is on pro to "PROVE" that god exists.

The Character limit is far too low for such an in-depth topic.

None the less I look forward to pro's renditions of these arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
JakeFertig

Pro

First, I would like to thank you for agreeing to join this debate, I respect you and your beliefs.

The First Argument I would like to bring up that points to a Intelligent Mind is the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
This argument has 3 premises, and following the rules of logic, if the first two are true then the conclusion stands.
For example:
1.) All man are mortal
2.) Socrates was a man.
3.) Therefore Socrates was mortal.

Kalam Cosmological Argument:
1.) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2.) The universe began to exist.
3.) Therefore the universe had a cause.

There are two types of causation: event causation and agent causation.
Like if I ask you why is the tea boiling? You would say something like, "Stove is hot and metal conducts heat." Which would be event causation. But I then would ask you why is the tea there in the first place? You would say something like "Someone wanted tea so they put it there." Which would be an example of agent causation. Event causation: physics, scientific explanation process Agent Causation: cooperation with physics.

2.) The universe began to exist. Based off of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, Hubble's red shift, and Einsteins equations, the universe has been proven to be finite.

3.) The universe has a cause. Simply put, beginnings have Beginners. So if matter began to exist at the moment of creation, then the matter's cause must be nonphysical or spiritual. Since space itself came into existence at the moment of creation or the big bang, space's cause must be space-less. Since time began at the moment of creation or the big bang, time's cause must be timeless. Since change is a product of time, time's cause must also be changeless. Given the immensity of energy and matter that comprises the universe, energy and matter's cause must be unimaginably powerful.
Best explanation for the origin of the universe is that it was brought into by a personal Creator.

Alternate explanations:
The universe brought itself into existence. However, for something to cause itself to come into existence, it must already exist. If it already exist, it must have a cause outside itself. Do you not realize how illogical that sounds? I can not bring my self into existence, because i did not exist to bring my self into existence.

So until you can provide me evidence that everything that begins to exist does not have a cause, the universe did not begin to exist, or the universe does not have a cause, this argument stands valid.

This argument does not reveal that the bible is reliable, that Jesus is God, or Christianity is true, but this argument does reveal that the universe was created and someone created it. Thank you for your time!
KhalifV

Con

As Con it is my job to negate the arguments.

Kalam Cosmological Argument:
1.) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2.) The universe began to exist.
3.) Therefore the universe had a cause.

I'm not sure why people think this argument is good.
Well I'm going to challenge both premises.

On P1:

Well first, there is no way to know if P1 is true.
However, P1 is not true.
If it's the case that I can find one instance in which something begins without a cause, then P1 fails.
Virtual particles come into existence from nothing all the time.
The first test was conducted in the 1940's. In a hydrogen atom an electron and a proton are bound together by photons (the . Each photon shall spend time as a virtual electron plus its antiparticle--the virtual positron. The hydrogen atom has two energy levels that appearto have equal energy. However,when the atom is in one of those levels it interacts differently with the virtual electron and positron than when it is in the other, so their energies are shifted a tiny bit because of those interactions.

Further more a vacuum yields protons.
And this has been empirically observed

"The researchers began with an array of 250 superconducting quantum-interference devices, or SQUIDs—circuits that are extraordinarily sensitive to magnetic fields. They inserted the array inside a refrigerator. By carefully exerting magnetic fields on this array, they could vary the speed at which microwave photons traveled through it by a few percent. The researchers then cooled this array to 50 thousandths of a degree Celsius above absolute zero. Because this environment is supercold, it should not emit any radiation, essentially behaving as a vacuum. "We were simply studying these circuits for the purpose of developing an amplifier, which we did," says researcher Sorin Paraoanu, a theoretical physicist at Aalto University. "But then we asked ourselves—what if there is no signal to amplify? What happens if the vacuum is the signal?"The researchers detected photons that matched predictions from the dynamical Casimir effect."

So P1 fails. However even if everything that began to exist, had a cause, one could not say that the universe has a cause.
It's a composition fallacy.
P1) Things that begin to exist in the universe have a cause
P2) The universe began to exist
C) The universe has a cause

The conclusion does not follow from the premises because it presumes the universe is like things in the universe.


Pro says: " But I then would ask you why is the tea there in the first place? You would say something like "Someone wanted tea so they put it there." Which would be an example of agent causation. "

Once again this is a composition fallacy. Just because somethings in the universe have purpose, does not mean the universe has purpose. No observations support the assertion that there is purpose in the universe.

On P2:

Eternal/Acausal Models


-The Oscillating Universe
This is a self-contained model in which the universe evolves from a big bang, then expands and expands and then collapses upon it's self and then re-expands. This model is perfectly self-contained and no god is needed.


-Hartle Hawking



QET:
Any universe that is described by quantum mechanics with non-zero energy and a time independent Hamiltonian is eternal in both arrows of time.
Ekpyrotic Universe: "...our current universe arose from a collision of two three-dimensional worlds (branes) in a space with an extra (fourth) spatial dimension."

The point isn't that any of these are the right model, rather that there are self contained models.
Could a being create the universe?NO.

If the universe began to exist, then space and time came into being with the universe.
In order for a being to create the universe, the being would have to create the universe in no space and time.
This being would exist in no space and no time. If a being has no value in space or time, it does not exists.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...
not enough room to site sources :(

Debate Round No. 2
JakeFertig

Pro

You made some great points in your arguments, however you have a lot of mistakes and fallacies. You said in the beginning there for premise one that there was no way of telling if it was true. But then you turned around and said in the very next sentence that we know it's not true because.... So that is a self contradiction, because if we can't know it's true than we can't know that it's false.

What's wrong with the Big Bang? Many, many things. The idea that a cosmic explosion caused everything and anything to come into existence is absurd and illogical. There's a law of thermodynamics that states chaos cannot produce order. We have order in this world: the sun rises, the sun sets, the moon comes out. Let's say a tornado rustled through a junkyard and at the end it created a 2014 Kia Soul. We would knowthat's impossible, that's improbable. Also, natural laws can only act on things that already exist, so they can't be the first cause for the universe.

The universe is not eternal, if that's what your implying. 2nd law of thermodynamics: processes taking place in a closed system always more toward a state of equilibrium. In other words, unless outside energy is added to a closed system, the usable energy within the system will eventually run down. In our universe we still have energy, which we would not have if the universe was eternal. We all know it's impossible to count up to infinity because there's always at least one more need to count. Well it's just as counting up to infinity is impossible, so is counting down. We could never get to the preset moment if we had to cross an actual infinite number of moments in the past. Yet the present is real. Since the present moment is real, it must have been preceded by a finite past that includes a beginning or first event. Therefore the universe had a beginning.

Oscillating universe theory :
Con has shown me a picture of a oscillating universe and then made the claim that an expanding and retracting universe proves that no god is needed. However, this oscillating universe theory has many holes in it. For one, there are no known laws of physics that shows why the universe would need go retract and expand. The oscillating universe theory would be good if science and physical laws weren't involved. If the gravity rte was higher then the expansion rate then yeah I would believe it. But the opposite is true. The expansion rate of the universe is greater than the pull of gravity.

Con:"if the being had no value to space or time, then it does not exist."
I strongly disagree. I'm not saying that God or this being has no value in space or time. I'm saying that because He created space and time He cannot be bound by either.

So that brings to our next argument, the law of causality; stating every event has a cause. So, God not being confined by space or time is exempt from this law. Thus he would not need a creator. Well that brings us to a common objection. "The universe was created for a chance." This is wrong. Chance is based on measurements of probability and statistics, which are all defined and observed within space and time. We, then, cannot say that chance can operate outside of space and time. Since the only logical alternative to chance is choice, and choice is the result of intelligence, the universe had to have an intelligent origin.

http://christian-contemplate.blogspot.com...
KhalifV

Con

Pro thinks I have contradicted myself but this is not the case.
The claim that X can't be known to be true and X can be known to be false are not inherently contradictory.
For example if I said every universe has a guy named jim, I can't verify the truth of that claim, because universes are always being formed, however if I find one without a guy named jim, then the claim is false.

" Let's say a tornado rustled through a junkyard and at the end it created a 2014 Kia Soul. We would knowthat's impossible, that's improbable. Also, natural laws can only act on things that already exist, so they can't be the first cause for the universe."

The reason why we can say things have a cause is because they began in time. If there's no time before the universe, then the notion of a cause is incoherent. It's like saying X>Y. When did X>Y? Never.
Well that makes no sense.



2ndLawofTD:
Now CalTech Cosmologist Sean Carrol offers an interesting idea.
What if there is no thermodynamic equilibrium?


Problems of eternality apply to god as well:
If he is eternal, then we run into some big problems with infinity, just like an eternal universe.
If god has always existed, then that would mean, an infinite amount of events would of had to have passed. However, as stated by pro, infinity can only be approached, not realized. In such a case, god would logically have to have a beginning as well.



Multiverse as an explanation for life permitting parameters and beginning:
1. Let's visit the multiverse. The multiverse is a natural consequence of inflation. Via BICEP2 Primordial gravitation waves have been detected, which is almost indisputable proof of inflation.
Inflation accounts for the:
1.Uniformity. The cosmic background radiation is quite uniform. Inflation adequately accounts for the uniformity. A uniform region expanded rapidly, evolving into our visible universe.
2. Mass density. Inflation predicts the omega should 1. The Planck satellite measures the omega as 1, which means our universe should be flat, which it is.
3.Small non-uniformity. The small non-uniformity in the universe is easily accounted for by quantum fluctuations, which have been observed in the CBR.
As explained the multiverse is a consequence of inflation. All the other predictions have come true. I would say that would constitute a good reason to think the multiverse is true.
Via inflation, some parts of the early universe expanded more than other, created bublbles of space time, which later developed into other universes, and our universe is just a bubble universe and requires no creator just a prior universe. The multiverse can be eternal.

"I strongly disagree. I'm not saying that God or this being has no value in space or time. I'm saying that because He created space and time He cannot be bound by either."

In order for god to create space and time, he would have to precede space and time, meaning at some point, he would have to have no value in space or time. Once again, if something has no value in space or time, it does not exists.
Pro sholuld have to explain how something exists outside space and time.

"intelligence" -.-:
Ifinite regression!
If anything with intelligence comes from prior intelligence, then god must have come from prior intelligence. Is god not intelligent?
It is absurd to argue everything intelligent comes from prior intelligence but the most intelligent being conceivable doesn't.
Conclusion:
1. Pro has not established that everything needs a cause. I showed the opposite through quantum physics.
Even if everything in the universe needs a cause, we can't say the universe itself, needs a cause.
2. The biggest problem with a being creating the universe, is that the being would have to exist outside of space and time, which is nonsense.


https://www.astro.rug.nl...

http://arxiv.org...
Debate Round No. 3
JakeFertig

Pro

2ndLawofTD: Con "Now CalTech Cosmologist Sean Carrol offers an interesting idea.
What if there is no thermodynamic equilibrium?"
1.) This does not answer or prove anything.
2.) But however, there is thermodynamic equilibrium.
So that argument does not apply here nor is it important.

Problems of eternity apply to god as well-Answered
Material things run out of energy. You are comparing God to an material thing, which the opposite is true. God is immaterial, which also explains why he can exist outside of space and time. God is eternal, which is infinite time. So God is not bound by space or time. He was never born, He can never die. Always was there and always will be. And you also have questions about God existing outside of space. However, logically it makes sense. Something bound by space can not create space, so that would require a space-less object to create space.

Multiverse Theory: There is no compelling or strong evidence about these multi-verses. Even if there were, it still would not undermine God. Like we all agree that our universe is fine tuned. Just like Goldilocks and three bears, its not to hot, its not to cold, its just right.
-The laws that govern the universe are delicately balanced to support the emergence and sustenance of intelligent life.
-Change any of these laws just a little and life is unsustainable.
There are so many examples of Fine-tuning that physicists cannot dismiss them all as mere accidents.
-If the initial mass of the universe differed by as little as one grain of salt, there would be no universe.
-Life must be in the right type of galaxy, of the three types of galaxies, only spiral galaxies can support life.
-Life must be in the right location of the galaxy. We are situated in just the right place in the milky way to avoid harmful radiation.
-Life must have the right type of star,while most stars are too large, too luminous, or too unstable to support life, our sun is just the right size and age.
-There is a window of time in which a sun can support complex life. It can't be too young or too old.
-Life must have the right relationship to its host star. If earth were slightly closer to or farther from the sun, water would either freeze evaporate, rendering earth inhabitable for complex life.
Life needs surrounding planets for protection. A habitable planet must have large surrounding bodies (such as Jupiter or Uranus) to protect it from incoming comets.
-Life requires the right type of moon. If the earth did not have a moon of the right size and distance it would be uninhabitable. The moon stabilizes the earths tilt, preventing extreme temperatures and thus creating a stable, life-friendly environment.
-If we try to assign a probability to the fine-tuning of all the known constants of nature, the necessary digits would be greater than the number of elementary particles in the universe.

Con stated that if anything with intelligence comes from prior intelligence but it is absurd to think that the most intelligent being doesn't. How do I respond? Since God is an all-knowing being, He passes down intelligence. He does not come from a higher intelligent being, He is the highest intelligent being.

Conclusion:
1.) God existing outside of space and time, can not run out of energy because He is an immaterial being.
2.) The universe is incredibly fine-tuned. If anything about life was changed just a little bit, life would but uninhabitable. Fine-tuning requires Fine-tuners
3.) God didn't come from an intelligent being, He is the intelligent being from which everything comes from.

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

Con

On god's eternality:
Pro has still not made the existence of something outside of space and time coherent.
God being immaterial, whatever that means, does not escape this problem. If it's the case that something exists at all, it exists in space and time. To say something exists in no space and no time is utterly incoherent. So this being must have a mind, but minds are the effect of a physical cause- the brain. So is there a brain outside of space and time too? The whole idea is non-sense.

Fine Tuning-
All fine tuning s perfectly explained by the multiverse.
In some universes, one would expect to see the life permitting parameters we observe.
Pro makes it sound like all the universe is fine-tuned for life, but only a profoundly small percent of the universe can support life.


Composition Of The Universe:


Now <0.03 of the universe seems to allow for life
0.03% of the universe has heavy elements(which life needs)
So life presumably needs water
"Two percent of the water on earth is glacier ice at the North and South Poles. This ice is fresh water and could be melted; however, it is too far away from where people live to be usable. Less than 1% of all the water on earth is fresh water that we can actually use."
1% -.-

The universe as a whole is definitely not fine tuned for life.
Now within this 0.03 % space in the universe, some life has evolved, but this does not point to a god.

Pro:" 3.) God didn't come from an intelligent being, He is the intelligent being from which everything comes from."

P1 of the argument from design is that intelligence comes from prior intelligence, it follows if god is intelligent, he had an intelligent designer. The argument contradicts its conclusions. It's special pleading to say god does not need to be designed.

Conclusions:
1) It's still incoherent to say a being exists outside of space and time.
2) The instances of fine tuning can be explained by the multiverse
3) The universe, on average is not fine tuned.
4) If god is intelligent, god needs to be designed in order to avoid special pleading.
http://www.fcwa.org......
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 4
JakeFertig

Pro

Con wants me to give him an example of something existing outside of space and time. Thus I will do so. Think of an idea. Or a thought. It is not bound by space or time because it was immaterial. You can't measure an idea by how much it weighs or how long it is. How it exists outside of time, it can never die for lack of a better term. You might forget the idea or thought, but it can not be physically dead. Thus, I have given an example of something existing outside of space and time and still be coherent.

Multiverse Theory:
1.) There is no known evidence for the multiverse theory.
2.) Even if there was, it would not debunk God but rather raise the question of fine tuning to a higher level.
Think about it, there are so many parameters of life that make life habitable that they can not all arisen by chance or luck. If the fine-tuning of this universe can not be dismissed by chance, then whats the probability of all the universe? The probability of infinite universes is to be calculated to 1/10 to the 10 power to the 123 power. So that is a chance of one out ten to the power with 123 zero's added to it.

http://creation.com...

Con: If God is intelligent; God needs to be designed in order to avoid special pleading.
It's not that everything that exists has a cause, but everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe clearly began to exist so it needs a cause. ON the other hand, God is the uncaused, self existent, eternal cause of the universe. Think about it, If God were caused by something, then that something would need a cause, and that something would need a cause. And we would have an infinite regress without a beginning. The regression only stops with something that is self-existing. This thing cannot be physical because physical matter itself began to exist.

McDowell, Sean, and Jonathan Morrow. Is God Just a Human Invention?: And Seventeen Other Questions Raised by the New Atheists. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2010. Print.

Conclusion:
1.) It is coherent to have something that exist outside of space and time, for example an idea or a thought.
2.) The multi-verse theory does not disprove or answer the question of fine-tuning, just raises it to a higher standard. In fact, the multi-verse theory helps prove the fine-tuning argument. Based off the parameters of this universe being fine-tuned by chance is improbable, then it would become more improbable for all the universes to be finely tuned by chance alone.
3.) God is not created, but an eternal self existing uncaused cause of the universe. If you ask who made God then you're going back and infinite regress to a beginning, but the regress stops at the infinite being. For example, I could ask, who created me? My parents. Who created them? My grandparents. Who created them, my great grandparents. And I go all the way up the line to the first man and woman, which in my worldview is Adam and Eve. Then I would ask who created Adam and Eve? God. Well who created God? NO ONE. God is eternal has always been here and and uncaused being.

Therefore, based on the arguments I have given, I believe in God, not in spite of the evidence, but because of the evidence.
Thank you for your time.
KhalifV

Con

"Con wants me to give him an example of something existing outside of space and time. Thus I will do so. Think of an idea. Or a thought"

I could have predicted this.
Ideas are the products of minds and minds are the products of brains.
"In philosophy, ideas are usually construed as mental representational images of some object."
Notice the word "mental" in the definition.
Also, ideas don't act. An idea can't create the universe, itself.
So ideas only exist in minds and minds are the result of brains, so the notion fails.


Multiverse: If you alter the parameters, our local conditions would change, however I don't concede, therefor life couldn't exist.
Theism is an incredibly poor cosmological model, even if this universe was the worse possible universe, theists could just say "god made it like that for vague reason x". If the multiverse does not solve it, theism definitely does not.

Here's leading cosmologist Sean Carrol on Fine-Tuning.
https://www.youtube.com...

More on causality -.-:
Pro once again asserts the KCA, even after I refute it.
Once again:
If it's the case that I can find one instance in which something begins without a cause, then P1 fails.
Virtual particles come into existence from nothing all the time.
The first test was conducted in the 1940's. In a hydrogen atom an electron and a proton are bound together by photons (the . Each photon shall spend time as a virtual electron plus its antiparticle--the virtual positron. The hydrogen atom has two energy levels that appearto have equal energy. However,when the atom is in one of those levels it interacts differently with the virtual electron and positron than when it is in the other, so their energies are shifted a tiny bit because of those interactions.

Further more a vacuum yields protons.
And this has been empirically observed

"The researchers began with an array of 250 superconducting quantum-interference devices, or SQUIDs—circuits that are extraordinarily sensitive to magnetic fields. They inserted the array inside a refrigerator. By carefully exerting magnetic fields on this array, they could vary the speed at which microwave photons traveled through it by a few percent. The researchers then cooled this array to 50 thousandths of a degree Celsius above absolute zero. Because this environment is supercold, it should not emit any radiation, essentially behaving as a vacuum. "We were simply studying these circuits for the purpose of developing an amplifier, which we did," says researcher Sorin Paraoanu, a theoretical physicist at Aalto University. "But then we asked ourselves—what if there is no signal to amplify? What happens if the vacuum is the signal?"The researchers detected photons that matched predictions from the dynamical Casimir effect."
So P1 fails. However even if everything that began to exist, had a cause, one could not say that the universe has a cause.
It's a composition fallacy.
P1) Things that begin to exist in the universe have a cause
P2) The universe began to exist
C) The universe has a cause

The conclusion does not follow from the premises because it presumes the universe is like things in the universe.

I don't have enough space to argue evolution, and origins of human life, but it's not necessary.

Conclusions:
1) Most importantly, something existing outside of space time is non-sense. The reason we say things have causes, is because they begin in time.
2) I convincingly refuted the KCA
3) Instances of fine-tuning, are explained by the multiverse, but if they are not, theism does not solve anything.
4) Intelligence arguments encounter an unavoidable infinite regression

I thank pro for the debate, I'd like to have another one, but with a larger character limit

Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by lifemeansevolutionisgood 3 years ago
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Why do people still try using the KCA? It is one of the most flawed arguments for a god.
Posted by Hariex 3 years ago
Hariex
Pro didn't develop the Kalam Cosmological Argument enough. Even if his first two premises were true, the only valid conclusion would be that the Universe had a cause. This is to say nothing of an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent God.
Posted by KhalifV 3 years ago
KhalifV
4,000.
It should be 10,000
Posted by SocialistAtheistNutjob 3 years ago
SocialistAtheistNutjob
What is the character limit?
Posted by KhalifV 3 years ago
KhalifV
Please define "god"
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by distraff 3 years ago
distraff
JakeFertigKhalifVTied
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: Pro tried to use the fine-tuning argument for God and Con responded with the multiverse and the idea that only a small part of the universe is fine-tuned so the low probability of life only means a small part of the universe can contain it not that such a thing is unlikely to exist in the universe at all. This point was not convincingly refuted by Pro who just gave statistics to his refuted fine-tuning assumption. Pro did not refute the evidence for the multiverse and his claim that it is evidence for fine-tuning relies on his refuted fine-tuning argument. Pro's argument that only things that began to exist needs a cause and that material things need a cause outside of them or else there would be an infinite regress was not refuted well. Con's argument of impossibility of creating time before time, or how a brain could exist outside space-time held. The thought example was refuted by Con. The virtual particle example was not refuted. Con wins overall.
Vote Placed by Vexorator 3 years ago
Vexorator
JakeFertigKhalifVTied
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 failed to prove the existence of God.
Vote Placed by CountCheechula 3 years ago
CountCheechula
JakeFertigKhalifVTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Great debate, I would love to see you two hash it out again. You both rebutted great and gave very interesting arguments. I am a Christian so my first two must go to JakeFertig. Thanks for the read you two!
Vote Placed by SocialistAtheistNutjob 3 years ago
SocialistAtheistNutjob
JakeFertigKhalifVTied
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: Argument: I feel as though Con successfully refuted the idea of intelligent design when he brought up the composition of the universe. Sources: Con cited multiple scientific websites, while Pro relied on creation websites and blogspot.com for his sources.