The Instigator
KingDebater
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
atheismo
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

God exists.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
KingDebater
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/24/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,246 times Debate No: 31646
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (4)

 

KingDebater

Pro

The burden of proof is shared. I will be arguing that God exists, my opponent will be arguing that God does not exist. I will define God as a spaceless, uncaused and timeless being who created the universe.

The first round will be for acceptance.
atheismo

Con

God does not exist because to creat the universe he would have to be sentient and then he would have cause and then not be uncaused so that would be a contradiction which meant he cant exist.

http://rationalwiki.org...
Debate Round No. 1
KingDebater

Pro

I said the first round is for acceptance, but alright.

Rebuttals
The argument presented to me is the following one:
(P1) Everything that has a sentient has a cause.
(P2) God would have to have a sentient to create the universe;
(C) Therefore, God has a cause.
None of the premises have been backed up with evidence, not by Con or by Rationalwiki, so we have no reason to think that this argument is sound.

Part 1: The Kalam Cosmological argument
I will present the Kalam Cosmological argument, one popularized by William Lane Craig. It can be summarized as follows:
(P1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
(P2) The universe began to exist.
(C) Therefore, the universe had a cause.

Defence of Premise 1
We know that this is true because something cannot come from nothing because if it did, there would be no reason why that thing came out of nothing and not something else. Hence, everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Defence of Premise 2
This must be true to avoid an infinite regress. Infinity is not a number, as you cannot add or take away from it, so when asked the question "How old is the universe?", you would have to come to the conclusion that the universe once began to exist.
Defence of the Conclusion
This is the logical conclusion following premise one and premise two.

Virtual Particles
Virtual particles are commonly presented as an exception to the first premise, but virtual particles don't come from nothing, they come from a quantum vacuum, which is something.

Part 2: What do we know about this cause?
What do we know about the cause of the universe? What properties must it possess? Well, since it's been established that everything that begins to exist has a cause, this cause would have to be uncaused, and to avoid an impossible infinite regress of events, that cause must've been timeless. Since it existed before time, it must've existed before space and therefore is spaceless. This cause is spaceless, timeless and uncaused, which is what theists call God.

Conclusion
- I've given sound arguments to back up my position.
- Con has failed to do this.
- To win, Con needs to back up the premises of his argument and disprove my arguments.



atheismo

Con

the sentience argument is perfectly sound, its obvious.1 is backed by everything we see, like with the kalam premise 1. All things that have sentience, like humans, cats, dogs, monkeys, gharials, etc all are caused, by human parents, cat parents, gharial parents. etc. so 1 is obvious if you use your "intuition" like with the premise 1 of the kalam cosmological arg.

premise 2 is also obvious, since god speaks to moses and noah's ark and the israelites, and jesus, and the wandering jew. But you cant talk if you dont have thoughts, and thoughts means that you have a consciousness. So god has to have a consciousness which means he is sentience.

So if god is sentient and sntience is caused, then god is caused. which refutes the KCA of god not needing a cause because he didn't "begin to exist"

Kalam

pro's argument is stupid, not only because of my sentience argument, but because everything about it is nonsense.

the THEORETIC PHYSIST Lawrence Krauss, who knows more science than both of the debates, here, explained that the universe came from a quantum when it fluctuated in a vacuum.
http://www.amazon.com...

the Kalam cosmolgical argument is also cherry picking since we say that everything has a cause, but God doesnt need a cause. God has sentience so he needs a cause. But why doesn't God need a cause in the KCA? this is what philosophers call speicial pleading, it's a logical fallcacy

the kalam is also circular since the only reason to think the universe has a cause is if the first and second statements are true, and the first and second are only put there to give the christian reason to think that god exists. So the kalam is also circular since he is trying to assume what that god exists

bible

bats are not birds, people can't rise from the dead, etc and people still think that the Bible is real. But its not true, it's just written by a bunch of jews in the middle east, there's no reason to believe the bible is historically true.

And the bible is also immoral

"Homosexuality is an abomnation" -- book of leviticus. This is ridiculous, theres nothing wrong with being gay

"In the beginning god created the earth" -- book of genesis. This is also ridiculous since Lawrence krauss proved the earth doesn't need a beginning, it can come from quantum physics which most christians don't even know about., science advances beyond religion

"on the third day Jesus rose from the dead" -- the gospel books. but when people die, they die. this is pretty much a fact of life, it's impossible to come back from the dead when your body is already decaying in a tomb.

"it rained 40 days and 40 nights" -- the book of noah. theres no evidence for a flood, meteorologists disprove this every day on the weather channel, it never rains that long.

Everything in the bible is crap, god needs a cause, and the kalam is stupid.
Debate Round No. 2
KingDebater

Pro

Sentience argument
Premise 1
Con says: 1 is backed by everything we see, like with the kalam premise 1. All things that have sentience, like humans, cats, dogs, monkeys, gharials, etc all are caused, by human parents, cat parents, gharial parents. etc. so 1 is obvious if you use your "intuition" like with the premise 1 of the kalam cosmological arg.
I'd like to say that just because everything we observe with a sentience has a cause, that does not mean that everything with a sentience has a cause. For Pro to back up his first premise, he would have to prove that everything with a sentience must have a cause. He has so far failed to do this. Also, he says that we are purely using our intuitions with the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological argument. If you look, I backed up the first premise in the first round of this debate [1].
Premise 2
Con thinks that the God we're talking about here is the Christian God, but neither the resolution or any of the rounds so far written by me say that this is going to be a debate over the existence of the Christian God. This is a debate over a God in general. So, this premise isn't backed up either.

Kalam argument
Con says: the THEORETIC PHYSIST Lawrence Krauss, who knows more science than both of the debates, here, explained that the universe came from a quantum when it fluctuated in a vacuum.
http://www.amazon.com......
So the question now is: Where did that vacuum come from?

Con says: the Kalam cosmolgical argument is also cherry picking since we say that everything has a cause, but God doesnt need a cause. God has sentience so he needs a cause. But why doesn't God need a cause in the KCA? this is what philosophers call speicial pleading, it's a logical fallcacy
The Kalam Cosmological argument does not commit the fallacy of cherry picking as it says that everything that begins to exist has a cause. God did not begin to exist, he is eternal and timeless. As far as I'm aware, that's not cherry-picking [2].

Con says: the kalam is also circular since the only reason to think the universe has a cause is if the first and second statements are true, and the first and second are only put there to give the christian reason to think that god exists. So the kalam is also circular since he is trying to assume what that god exists
Maybe I'm having a grey moment, but I don't see how that makes the Kalam argument circular. Please explain yourself better.

I believe this argument is untouched.

Bible
Again, this debate isn't about the Christian God.

Conclusion
-My arguments have been backed up with evidence and Con hasn't disproved them.
-Con has failed to provide even one sound argument.
-Con has failed to respond to any of my arguments or defences of my arguments.
-To win, Con needs to disprove the Kalam argument and present a sound argument of his own.

Sources
[1] http://www.debate.org...
[2] http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...

atheismo

Con

Well pro says everything that begins to exist has a cause i can just say that everything that has sentience has a cause beause sentience cant come from, nothing because if it did there would be no reason why sentience came out of nowhere and not someone else and thats' the same argument he is using so he cant argue against it or he refuts his own argument.
premise 2 is also true because you cant create things if your not sentient, like a rock never created a house or anything. So if god creates stuff thatn that prove that he must have a sentient and if he does then he cant exist as rationawiki already proved http://rationalwiki.org...

Kalamn

this argument is already proven false by modern quantum physics and cosmologics so that right there provs my opponent has no credible point in his argument which is just false and no one belives it except stupid theist who have no understanding of science and astrology

Laurence Kraus is an expert in physics and he knows what hes talking about when he says that the unvierse didn't get created by god apparently pro thought that he is smarter than a THEORETIC PHYSICIST.

the kalalm argument is cherry picking because it just says that god doesnt have a cause. But as I already proved with the sentient argument god must have had a cause if was sentient so ist arbitraryly cherry picking to just say that 'oh god doesnt need a cause because hes god' and, that violates occams razor which is an unbreakable law of logic and again this proves that pro has no rationalargument but just stupid christin propaganda instead.

bible

con says that this debate isnt about the christian god well i say back that christianity and judaism invented god based on paganism so my opponent is just ignoring my argument s since there is no rebutal because it s obvious that the bible is wrong and stupid.

my opponent needs to start studing actual science and then he will understand why the kalm argument falls miserably to anyone with half a brain.
Debate Round No. 3
KingDebater

Pro

Kalam
Con says: Well pro says everything that begins to exist has a cause i can just say that everything that has sentience has a cause beause sentience cant come from, nothing because if it did there would be no reason why sentience came out of nowhere and not someone else and thats' the same argument he is using so he cant argue against it or he refuts his own argument. premise 2 is also true because you cant create things if your not sentient, like a rock never created a house or anything. So if god creates stuff thatn that prove that he must have a sentient and if he does then he cant exist as rationawiki already proved http://rationalwiki.org......

Con makes the argument that because we've never observed anything without a sentinence create anything, that means that nothing without a sentience can create anything. This doesn't apply to God, as we haven't observed everything. Con will have to prove that everything that creates something has a cause, because so far his argument is this:
(P1) We have never observed anything without sentience create anything.
(P2) If we haven't observed something, then it's impossible.
(C) Therefore, it is impossible for something without a sentience to create anything.
Premise 1 makes the mistake of forgetting to include that we've also never seen something with a sentience create something. Con may want to argue that humans create things like buildings, but we don't create things in the way that God does. We create something by rearranging certain elements to make something that looks new. God creates new things.

Con also makes the mistake of trying to use this argument:
(P1) It is impossible for something with a sentience to come from nothing.
(P2) God has a sentience.
(P3) God came from nothing.
(C) Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist.

I doubt the second premise is true, but let's (for the sake of argument) say that it is. God did not come from nothing, he didn't come from anything, which is different to coming from nothing. That's like saying I started the game with no money when really I never started the game. God is eternal, he always is and always was. He is the creator of time.

Con says: this argument is already proven false by modern quantum physics and cosmologics so that right there provs my opponent has no credible point in his argument which is just false and no one belives it except stupid theist who have no understanding of science and astrology

Laurence Kraus is an expert in physics and he knows what hes talking about when he says that the unvierse didn't get created by god apparently pro thought that he is smarter than a THEORETIC PHYSICIST.

First of all, Con has failed to show me how my argument is false. Second, he has ignored my arguments that back up the Kalam Cosmological argument. If Con ever wishes to respond to them, they're here [1]. Next, Con says that since Lawrence Krauss is a theoretical physicist and I am not a scientist at all, that he is right and I am wrong. This isn't necessarily the case.

Con says: the kalalm argument is cherry picking because it just says that god doesnt have a cause. But as I already proved with the sentient argument god must have had a cause if was sentient so ist arbitraryly cherry picking to just say that 'oh god doesnt need a cause because hes god' and, that violates occams razor which is an unbreakable law of logic and again this proves that pro has no rationalargument but just stupid christin propaganda instead.

The Kalam Cosmolgical argument does not cherry-pick. It states that everything that begins to exist has a cause, which means that things without beginnings to their existence don't necessarily have a cause. But it is obvious that things without beginnings to their existence don't have causes, because if they don't have a beginning to their existence, they are eternal, and they are not eternal if they have a cause. Therefore, anything without a beginning to its existence doesn't have a cause. If Con can think of anything else that has no beginning to its existence that exists, then it doesn't have a cause.

Also, Occam's Razor is not an unbreakable law of logic, try to find anything on this article that says that Occam's razor is an "unbreakable law of logic" [2]. Occam's razor certainly doesn't prove that the more complex hypothesis or the hypothesis that makes the most assumptions is false and the hypothesis that is the least complex or makes the least assumptions is true.

Bible
Con says: con says that this debate isnt about the christian god well i say back that christianity and judaism invented god based on paganism so my opponent is just ignoring my argument s since there is no rebutal because it s obvious that the bible is wrong and stupid.

I honestly can't see how there's a link between them. I am not talking about the Christian God or the God based on Paganism. I have defined God as a being that is spaceless, timeless, uncaused and created the universe, so we are debating over a spaceless, timeless and uncaused being who created the universe. Con devoted a whole section of his arguments to talking about the Bible, which was supposedly written on the influence of the Christian God. The Christian God is different to the being we're debating the existence of because the Christian God posseses properties that the being we're debating the existence over doesn't have. Omnipotence, Omnibenevolence, Omnipresence and Omniscience, for example. The being we're debating the existence of is different to the Christian God because although there are some properties that they share, they are different because the Christian God posseses properties that our being does not posses.

Conclusion
-Con has still failed to refute the Kalam Cosmological argument.
-Con has failed to present a sound argument of his own.
-To win this debate, Con will have to succeed in doing the two things above.

Sources

[1] http://www.debate.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_razor

atheismo

Con

sentience

No i'm saying that sentience can't come from nothing because sentience is compliex, something complicated must come from soething else thats also complicated. psycology proves that sentience is the brain

"First of all, sentience is really about the nerve functioning in the body." - Compelling Interest, roger resler

"Current research in cell biology is is suggesting that sentience is a function of living structured water in and around the cells of our body" - Biodynamic Craniosacral Therapy: Volume Two, Volume 2 by Michael Shea

so sentience is really just the brain, which is complex, so sentience is complicated. so sentience comes from something already complex... premise 1 is true. it has to have a cause

how can you say that god isn't sentient if god talks to moses and noah, israelites, jesus, peter, etc and everyone in the bible, obviously you have to be ale to think if you want to talk... you cant say god isn't sentient of course god is sentient. Seriously, its not even that hard to uderstand what im saying

kalam

but youre just saying "beginning to exist" so you can say god doesn't need a cause otherwise it would be "EVERYTHING that exists" because i can't even think of anything that doesnt have a cause besides the universe, and the universe is different from everything int he world, thats the fallacy of composition because the universe is a whole. so you're just syaing beging to exist, because you say god doesnt have a begining and so it excludes god. Otherwise it would just be everything like with the universe

Ocams razor is a law of logic.

"Reconstructionists with a basic notion of logic and reasoning might invoke Occam's razor" -- crime reconstruction by William chesum page 92

"There is a principle of logic, widely accepted in science, called the principle of Occam's razor" -- What's so great about christianity by dinesh souza page 135

"In logic, Occam's razor is the statement of an argument in its essential and simplest terms" -- world book dictionary vol 1 page 1436

This should be obvious to anyone else reading the debate that ocams razor is a rule of logic, it means that we should choose something not complicated (simple) over something that is, the kalam breaks this by saying God doesn't need a cause, well if everything needs a cause (begining to exist is just cherry pick) then so does god

bible

God was created by jews and christians, this is a fact of history if you are arguing about god, you are arguing about the god of jews and christians.

"The ancient Israelites had the concept of one God, a universal and eternal deity." -- voices in exile by marc angel

"It is simply that they have had the benefit of history and philosophies unknown to the ancients who formed the concept of one God" -alternatives by marvin leon page 92

"For they found themselves absolutely awash in a world of polytheistic beliefs and people who hated their concept of One God" -- speaking of angels by david albans page 120

"I'm equally sure that the concept of one God does not begin with the prophet Mahomet since the Jews were the first to encounter this One God through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." - This jesus by Jonah Awodeyi

This should be obvious too, if you want to talk about god you're always talking about the one god that the JEWS and Christians have worshiped

sources

king debater doesn't even know what the sentience argument is, or why i say premise 1 is true, then he cherry picks and argues in a circle for kalam, and then he says that the jews did't cerate god, all of which ihave proven to be false, dead wrong.
Debate Round No. 4
KingDebater

Pro

Sentience
Con is still backing up the fact that God is sentient because the Christian God is. We're not talking about that God, we're talking about an uncaused, spaceless and timeless being who created the universe. I could've called this being anything, but I decided to call it God because with the properties it has, it is quite similar to some definitions of "God". My God never talked to Moses and Noah or the Israelites or Jesus or Peter. They are not the same God, they are different. One God may have a sentience, but another may not. Just because the first pencil ever invented has a rubber on the end of it, that doesn't mean that all pencils have a rubber on the end of them.

Kalam
In response to what Con has said, if it were true that everything that exists has a cause, then that would mean there would be an infinite regress of events, which is impossible because it means we go back forever. So, we need an uncaused cause. What do we know about this cause? We know that it's spaceless because it existed before space and timeless because it existed before time. So while the hypothesis that everything needs a cause may be less complex than the hypothesis that the Kalam Cosmological argument is sound, the hypothesis that the Kalam Cosmological argument is true is much more likely to be true than the hypothesis that everything has a cause.

The Kalam Cosmological argument does not cherry-pick. It says that everything that begins to exist has a cause, and we have good reason for thinking that. If something that begins to exist doesn't have a cause, then it came from nothing. However, if it came from nothing, then there is absolutely no reason why it began to exist and not something else. Hence, everything that begins to exist has a cause. But what about things that don't begin to exist? Well, the Kalam Cosmological argument doesn't state that everything that has a cause begins to exist, so things that don't begin to exist don't necessarily have a cause. But if something that doesn't begin to exist has a cause, then to have a cause there must've been a time when it didn't exist and if that's true, then it began to exist. So, everything that doesn't begin to exist does not have a cause.

Bible
Again, there is no link between the being we are arguing the existence over, and the God created by Christians and Jews.

Vote Pro.

atheismo

Con

wow this is retarded. pro basicaly just skimmed my entire debat and wrote based on what eas in his head, not what i wrote. well looks like i have to finish the d beate anyway.

sentience

I ALREADY SHOWED THAT GOD HAS TO BE THE CHRISIAN AND JEW GOD!!! since they invtendted the concept of "One God"!!! There's no other monotheism Gods except for Christian, Jews, and Islamic God. Pro is just trying to get out of this by saying that hes not refering to it, but why not, since the argument he uses is used to give god persoanlity!

Wilam lane craig who defends the kalam says
"Such an account of the origin of the universe will work only for agent causation, for only a libertarian agent could interrupt the static reign of being of the First Cause sans the universe. It is for that reason that we should conceive of the First Cause as personal."
http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

The kalam cosmolgoical argument is always used for the god that is personal and has a mind so pros only argument leads him to a personal god rather than just a timeless god so god is sentient, AS I HAVE BEEN SAYING THIS ENTIRE TIME......

So god is sentient, and i have proved with my sources in the previous round that sentience is a brain, and a brain is complexated so it must have a cause, but god doesnt have a cause so he cant exist because then, it's a logical contradiction

kalam cosmolgical arg

im not saying that everything has a cause, i'm saying that that is whwat everyone who uses the kalam is saying, because they are just chery picking in saying "begining to exist" rather than 'exists", because they only say that so they can exclude god from needing a cause. well god is setnient, so he needs a cause, but it is still cherry picking even if god isnt sentient.

bible

At this point pro is just completely ignoring what i said, i cited almost ten different books which showed that the one god is the god of the ISTRAELITES, like moses and noah, and jesus. if you're arguing over god you have to be arguing over the ONE god who has all the same features as the god of the Bible. well the god of the Bible cant exist because the Bible isn't even scientific, as i said in round 2

what have pro and i learned

well we learned that i won this debate, but also that god has to be sentient, god needs a case, that the kalam cherry picks and is circular, the bible is false.

That is what we learned, so i won.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Argumentative9 3 years ago
Argumentative9
Secondly makh, can you phrase your argument better as it makes very little sense. Anyway, a perfect vacuum is an abscence of matter. Ok, light can pass through it but there is still no matter. If you have any understanding of rudimentary physics you will know that photons have no mass, and therefore are not matter they are energy just as a flame is not matter it is pure heat energy. What i am saying here is that before the big bang the could have been a perfect vacuum with no matter, just energy eg photons and heat. Then due to quantum fluctuation, the energy transformed into matter and with matter came gravity as matter has mass. Then all this energy-transformed matter was pulled by gravity into one point of infinite density (singularity) and then exploded into the big bang. As there was infinite energy in this point of infinite density, the universe is expanding with no sign of slowing down. Oh, by the way you said 'vacuum is abscence of matter. This is not correct. A vacuum is place with no matter' i never said it was an abscence of matter. And 'if a vacuum is nothing it cant be filled' well it can be filled. The vacuum of space is filled with planets and hydrogen atoms. I am talking about a pre-universal perfect vacuum. A perfect vacuum has no matter at all but can still be filled by energy transformation. Get your facts right before arguing about quantum mechanics.
Posted by Argumentative9 3 years ago
Argumentative9
Right, to refute the cosmological argument. God is supposedly perfect, in all religions, then why is there so much imperfection in the universe? This suggests that the god who created it was imperfect, therefore not god. Also as con said, everything must have a cause, except god, this is illogical.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
vacuum is empty place.
so place is the part of universe.
you must know the space was first created as universe than it was filled with matter.
the space or vacuum is more difficult thing to come into existence.
which is called space.
same is time.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
hhahahahhahhah.
if vacuum is nothing. than it cant be filled.
vacuum is absence of matter.
this is not correct.
vacuum is place where there is no matter.
in vacuum there is 100% chances the light may be there. or can come.
it is obvious that light (photons) may be interring in vacuum and losing its speed and than having real mass not relative mass.

as for sound waves the median is need but for light not.
vacuum is median less place.
vacuum can be created on earth.
just see how they do in discharge tube.
don't make your own theory. which do not make any sense.
Posted by Argumentative9 3 years ago
Argumentative9
'Where did that vacuum come from'. A vacuum is nothing. There are no atoms, no substance in a vacuum. In a perfect vacuum there isnt even light so it doesnt need to come from anywhere as it is nothing, there is nothing to be created. Also, modern theoretical physicists have proved that quantum fluctuations in pre universal space can lead to energy, which cant be created, just like your supposed god, being converted into matter. If this energy has always been around, not god, which eventualy after billions of years due to random fluctuation converts into matter which begins the universe, this not only proves there doesn't need to be a god but it also satasfies the kalam argument that there is an uncaused cause, energy, not god but also the law of the conservation of energy.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
wish both of you best for last round.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
it at the time of our prophet (saww).
A group of doctors went to the holy city of prophet saww.
and they wanted to serve the country of beloved prophet. they remain for six months there.
but no one come to them.
and than they went to prophet complaning that they come from so far to server your nation.
but no one comes.
than prophet saww replied.
no body become sick here. when you follow the nature and best practice. than there would not be any error.
one man i saw i think deviant.genie.
he was complaining about birth defects.
when you use Viagra. and pregnancy preventing medicine. and all other dirty stuff. and than complain like that. its stupid. this is against nature.
and you see the consequence.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
what is natural radioactivity.
what is nature.
automatic.
ALLAH just initiated it. than it continues it by itself.
means there was first cause. and after that all cause can occur automatically.
and this is his rule which is called nature.
he guided the nature.
the systematic thing do not initiate by themselves. but with the guider. and guider guides every step of it.
than turn the switch on.
than the whole process starts the way it is design.
if you put any thing extra or less. it cause pro. and observe it around it.
one eg. is straight sex and anal sex.
and see the physiological and medical complication attached to it.
i will give another example in next comment.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
if some thing is more complex that dose not mean we throw it away.
GOD is suppose to be complex.
but he gave you simplicity.
believe him unseen. blindly.
and you will be saved.
but if you wanted to find him. they way you want he is unreachable.
ask him not you brain. or others. or science. i did not see any body who have called him with good faith havent found him. you are suppose to ask help and whatever you want for you life.
this is the deal. taking about seeing him and talking him is not which you have to think.
there was a nation who was able to find thing in whole universe. but ALLAH took to himself.
and that was not allowed. he always says. there was some nation who were more stronger a more in any regard than you. means all coming nations are not going to me more wiser than the older.
see the maya nation. and their calender. who made all you so scared.
loll.
i was laughing on that.
Posted by atheismo 3 years ago
atheismo
yes magic 800 it does make him argue against himself since hes already saying the universe has a cause, well i think having a brain and sentience is alot more complicated then a UNIVERSE
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by sweetbreeze 3 years ago
sweetbreeze
KingDebateratheismoTied
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: Great arguments and spelling and grammar to Pro.
Vote Placed by jh1234l 3 years ago
jh1234l
KingDebateratheismoTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had incorrect spelling in some instances, and also sometimes forgets to capitalize, so spelling/grammar goes to pro. Con's arguments were also not convincing and do not address pro's adequately.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
KingDebateratheismoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: It seems to me that yuiru filled out his vote wrong as it does not match his RFD.
Vote Placed by yuiru 3 years ago
yuiru
KingDebateratheismoTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had bad spelling, and arguments.