The Instigator
tholos
Con (against)
Losing
126 Points
The Contender
InquireTruth
Pro (for)
Winning
232 Points

God exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/13/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 11,316 times Debate No: 4409
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (86)

 

tholos

Con

God cannot exist because there is no proof of his existence. Please give me evidence or facts that prove God does indeed exist.
InquireTruth

Pro

I would first like to thank my opponent for starting this debate. Secondly, I think it is important to note that neither side can offer evidence that can concretely prove the existence or nonexistence of God. My opponent simply and impudently asserts that God does not exist because there is no proof. Well let us reason that Tholos asserts that he was thinking about building a pizza store yesterday, I might ask, "well could you please concretely substantiate that claim." What evidence would Tholos offer the skeptical that he was indeed thinking about building a pizza store. Unfortunately no one has access to the thoughts of Tholos, other than Tholos of course. So we must take his word for it. Just as much as I can not concretely prove to my mom, by means of the scientific method, that I love her – so Tholos cannot prove to anybody that he was thinking, loving, feeling any certain way at any particular moment. So it seems that a lot of credence is given to human testimony.
Let us then treat this like a courtroom. I exclaim that God exists, and Tholos emphatically denies. I step up to the stand and offer my experiential testimony for the existence of God. Would Tholos' testimony at the stand negate my own? How can it be that since Tholos has had no divine experience that he can demand that therefore none exists? If in a courtroom a witness steps up and proclaims that they had witnessed the murder of two people. Would the defense have a reasonable case if they just grab some nobody off the street to say "I did not witness the murder of two people, therefore it did not happen." Clearly such reasoning is weak. But even if such negation were logically permissible, I would then call my second witness to the stand, who gives there experiential testimony for the existence of God. Then a third, a forth, and soon 90% of the worlds population would have been called to the stand to give experiential testimony for the existence of God. So the existence of God is confirmed by the majority of witness testimony (and not by a small margin).

Lastly, if we were to focus purely on semantics, my opponent has made a fatally damning mistake in his reasoning. He presumes that something "cannot" exist if there is no evidence for it. I will not concede that there is no evidence (I will save my science and metaphysics for later in the debate), but I will however highlight that evidence does not determine existence. 2,000 years ago we had no evidence that atoms or bacteria existed, does that mean they did not exist at that time? There certainly was no evidence for them.
My opponent is obviously taking the route of atheism, which is a belief that no God(s) exist, so he must therefore offer his evidence for such a belief. If I were to say that there is absolutely no gold in China, I would necessarily need absolute knowledge of China to be sure. Since my opponent asserts there is no God, and does not have absolute knowledge of the universe, such a statement is a statement of faith, and he must offer evidence for his belief.
Debate Round No. 1
tholos

Con

" I think it is important to note that neither side can offer evidence that can concretely prove the existence or nonexistence of God"

This may be true, but the burden of proof lies on you, not on me. If you're the one that is making the claim that God exists, you're going to need some evidence for this claim.

Secondly, just because you cannot prove that something doesn't exist, it does not mean that it exists.
Think about it, just because there is no proven cure for the common cold, does not mean that it is not out there somewhere.

Just as you claim that I cannot prove that I thought of building a pizza store, you cannot prove any of the 90% of the testimony for the existence of God, you can prove that people say that they have had divine experiences, hearing things from God, callings, etc, but you cannot prove that any of them are real.

Also, the proof for the murder would be the two dead bodies.

2,000 years ago the concept of the atom was proven. In the 5th cent. B.C. the Greek philosophers Democritus and Leucippus proposed that matter was made up of tiny, indivisible particles they called atom, or in Greek "a-tomos.

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

Once again I will hammer home that the BURDEN OF PROOF is on the theist, not the atheist, I do not need proof for the un-existence of God, you need proof for the existence of God, which, so far, there is none.

Do I know that there is no God for sure? No

Is it possible that there is a God? Yes

Is it plausible? No, there is no evidence for his existence.

You believe in God because

a) You were told to by your parents

b) You think you've had some connection(s) with God that are not able to be proven by science
(Which the connections might not be explainable, but as you've stated, it does not mean that there is no explanation for them).
InquireTruth

Pro

Correct me if I am wrong, Tholos, you were the one who requested the debate and decidedly chose to make the claim that God does not exist. If you truly desired no burden of proof, you would have properly taken the route of agnosticism. You however, chose to make the unequivocal judgment that God does NOT exist – a claim which, since you do not posses absolute knowledge of the universe, must be adequately substantiated.

"Secondly, just because you cannot prove that something doesn't exist, it does not mean that it exists. Think about it, just because there is no proven cure for the common cold, does not mean that it is not out there somewhere."

Please notice the grave mistake my opponent has made. In hopes of refuting my point, he has actually made my point all the clearer. He asserts that if something cannot be proven to NOT exist, it does not mean that it exists. However, in hopes of qualifying his aforementioned sentence, he only hurt his own argument. He states that even though we have no proven cure for the common cold, it would be a grave mistake to assume that there is none out there somewhere. Well, Tholos, that is so beautifully true – and explain to me why the same is different with God? We cannot prove that He does not exist, and we have no concrete proof for his existence… would it too be a grave mistake to assume that God did not exist out there somewhere? You fall by the testimony of your own logic.

Take note that Tholos did not adequately refute my point of personal testimony. He tried to nonchalantly cast it aside by saying that I cannot prove that what they experienced was real. Ironically that was precisely my point. By illustrating that Tholos cannot prove to anyone at any moment the content of what he is thinking, but must rather hope that people simply believe his testimony, I hoped to illustrate the enormous amount of weight people put on personal testimony on a daily basis. I cannot prove to anybody that I love them; they must take my word for it. Almost every part of our daily communication relies on the honesty of personal testimony. But if Tholos believes that a courtroom of 90% of the world's population can so easily be cast aside then let us move forward.

Tholos believes that somehow two dead bodies is evidence of murder – unfortunately the only evidence that can be concretely proven by two dead bodies is two dead bodies. Apparently Tholos can make the leap that two dead bodies = murder, but it is wrong for 90% of the population to say that a fine-tuned-and-intricately-complex-universe = creator.

Tholos also tried to show that 2,000 years ago the concept of the atom was proven. Mistakenly, I am sure, he said that the concept was proven. Unfortunately it was not proven, but rather just the concept was derived (by mere speculation and not a sliver of science) in order to refute such things as Zeno's paradox. Atoms did not gather evidence for existence until 1661 AD.

It should by duly noted that other mere concepts such as Flat Earth and Spontaneous generation have once been held – so mere hypotheses cannot be rightly used as proof or evidence.

So what evidence other than overwhelming personal testimony gives credence to the existence of a god? First, let us start with what is formally known as the Anthropic Principle. The Anthropic Principle essentially states that the probability of a life sustaining universe spontaneously arising out of unguided primordial matter is so slim as to be logically classified as impossible. Our universe is fine tuned in away that if the gravitational pull was any different, our universe would either drift into abyss or implode in on itself. If the balance of our chemicals (nchop) was any different, our earth could not sustain life. The universe and its constants have an apparent fine-tuning for life that simply cannot be explained by chance. Unless of course Tholos wishes to reckon that it is quite plausible for a tornado to rip through a junkyard and spontaneously fling together an entire airplane ready for takeoff – that is the sort of probability that we are dealing with.

In order to keep it shorter I will highlight only a few more things.
Something needs to be eternal and uncaused in order that we do not have the impossibility of infinite regression. The Big Bang Theory essentially states that at one moment time, space, and matter were brought into existence – something came from nothing. This defies the 1st law of thermodynamics that states that "matter is neither created nor destroyed." If our universe is not eternal - as the 2nd law of thermodynamics seems to imply (and the Big Bang Theory states) - then there needs to be something that is. This is an evidence for a creator that is both eternal and uncaused.

There are far too many things I could use as evidence for a creator; I simply have too little room. But it should be noted that if an intelligent designer existed, it would eliminate the contradictions in modern theories. That is to say, there would be no contradictions with the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics, and there would be no contradictions with the 1st law of biology (that nonliving organisms cannot produce living organisms, which would have had to been the case if we believe in a completely naturalistic origin of the universe).

And lastly, if my opponent believes that there are only two reasons for believing God, he should talk to Francis Collins, head of the human genome project, who states that our DNA is the very language of God. Or C.S. Lewis who states that he was dragged kicking and screaming into the kingdom of heaven by reason alone.

As is abundantly clear, my opponent has not refuted my points or even presented a case of his own. It seems only fair to vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 2
tholos

Con

"We cannot prove that He does not exist, and we have no concrete proof for his existence… would it too be a grave mistake to assume that God did not exist out there somewhere? You fall by the testimony of your own logic."

Well first of all, if you CANNOT prove that God does exist, why should I believe any of the stuff you tell me about said "God" ?

If you fail to prove that he even exists, how are you going to tell me that you know things about him? Why would I believe it?

It is safe to say that there are other galaxies that exist in space. Say I say: "There is this galaxy, this galaxy is called Tholos. The galaxy has 3 planets, all three planets have no life on them, ............."

First, I cannot prove to you that galaxy Tholos exists, so why should you believe that it has 3 planets, why should you believe that there is no life on those planets? You shouldn't, because there is NO proof that those planets, and even the galaxy exists.

"Take note that Tholos did not adequately refute my point of personal testimony. He tried to nonchalantly cast it aside by saying that I cannot prove that what they experienced was real. Ironically that was precisely my point. "

"Then a third, a forth, and soon 90% of the worlds population would have been called to the stand to give experiential testimony for the existence of God. So the existence of God is confirmed by the majority of witness testimony (and not by a small margin). "

I'm sorry, but did I miss something? It looks like you said, because 90% of the population have said they have witnessed God, he exists...

"Tholos believes that somehow two dead bodies is evidence of murder – unfortunately the only evidence that can be concretely proven by two dead bodies is two dead bodies. Apparently Tholos can make the leap that two dead bodies = murder, but it is wrong for 90% of the population to say that a fine-tuned-and-intricately-complex-universe = creator."

I believe that if there is a murder case, and the defendant is charged for the murder of two, the dead bodies are proof that he is the murderer (if the weapon used, DNA testing, fingerprinting, etc.) are found to match the defendant.

It is wrong for 90% of the population to say that a fine-tuned and intricately complex universe = creator.

90% of the population lacks critical thinking skills. (with re guard towards religion).

If you were born in China, you would be a Buddhist, since you were born in America, you are most likely a Christian. If you were born in China, you would think that Christianity is wrong, and your religion is right. It is by mere chance that you are a Christian, unless your parents weren't, and you made the choice.

"So what evidence other than overwhelming personal testimony gives credence to the existence of a god? First, let us start with what is formally known as the Anthropic Principle. The Anthropic Principle essentially states that the probability of a life sustaining universe spontaneously arising out of unguided primordial matter is so slim as to be logically classified as impossible. Our universe is fine tuned in away that if the gravitational pull was any different, our universe would either drift into abyss or implode in on itself. If the balance of our chemicals (nchop) was any different, our earth could not sustain life. The universe and its constants have an apparent fine-tuning for life that simply cannot be explained by chance. "

the probability of a life sustaining universe spontaneously arising out of unguided primordial matter is very slim. It is very slim, therefore, it NOT impossible. This is the beauty that I see in the universe, that we are here on very slim chances, and honestly it makes the world a lot more beautiful for me. I was a Roman Catholic Christian until about 6 months ago. I believed in God because my parents told me to, and I attended a Roman Catholic High School (which I still do).

"Something needs to be eternal and uncaused in order that we do not have the impossibility of infinite regression. The Big Bang Theory essentially states that at one moment time, space, and matter were brought into existence – something came from nothing. This defies the 1st law of thermodynamics that states that "matter is neither created nor destroyed." If our universe is not eternal - as the 2nd law of thermodynamics seems to imply (and the Big Bang Theory states) - then there needs to be something that is. This is an evidence for a creator that is both eternal and uncaused. "

First of all, you violate your own premise by saying that "the creator" is uncaused. The Big Bang Theory is coming to be explained more and more every day by Antimatter
http://en.wikipedia.org...
And the M-Theory
http://en.wikipedia.org...

"There are far too many things I could use as evidence for a creator "

Please, give me the evidence, because so far, you have not.

My opponent has so far not done the point of the debate, he has attacked my logic and reasoning, but has still ignored the main point of the argument, to give proof that God exists. Undeniable proof that there is indeed a God.
InquireTruth

Pro

I never said there is no evidence; I said there is no CONCRETE proof.

"My opponent has so far not done the point of the debate, he has attacked my logic and reasoning, but has still ignored the main point of the argument, to give proof that God exists. Undeniable proof that there is indeed a god."

The point of the debate was to refute your argument that God cannot exist because there is no evidence. The only argument you have thus far presented is: "there is no evidence, therefore God cannot exist." If the point of the argument was for me to present "undeniable" proof that God exists, I certainly would not have accepted. I can give evidence, but not undeniable proof. I have not seen you present any piece of undeniable evidence (or any evidence for that matter). The point of your opening statement was God cannot exist without evidence – a point which has already been sufficiently refuted (by your very words even).

"Well first of all, if you CANNOT prove that God does exist, why should I believe any of the stuff you tell me about said "God" ?"

I simply do not know what you're talking about. I have never said anything regarding the character of God. All I have said is it is not plausible to assume that no god exists. Quite frankly, it takes more faith to be an atheist.

"I'm sorry, but did I miss something? It looks like you said, because 90% of the population have said they have witnessed God, he exists..."

Actually yes, you did miss something. The point is that witness testimony is rendered as evidence, and so far I have furnished 90% of the world's population as witness testimony. So that counts as evidence in my favor, despite the holdups you may have.

"I believe that if there is a murder case, and the defendant is charged for the murder of two, the dead bodies are proof that he is the murderer (if the weapon used, DNA testing, fingerprinting, etc.) are found to match the defendant."

Once again, the two dead bodies are evidence only of two dead bodies. You are now assuming a weapon, placing fingerprints, and dabbing for DNA – evidence that is not gathered directly from the bodies. You are creating a scenario and describing a process, but two dead bodies alone, is evidence only of two dead bodies.

"90% of the population lacks critical thinking skills. (with re guard towards religion)."

This is a completely unsubstantiated point and assumes that all people who believe in a god(s) are unintelligent. This sort of argumentation is mere ad hominem unless critical evidence for such an erroneous claim is provided.

"the probability of a life sustaining universe spontaneously arising out of unguided primordial matter is very slim. It is very slim, therefore, it NOT impossible. This is the beauty that I see in the universe, that we are here on very slim chances, and honestly it makes the world a lot more beautiful for me."

Again, if you believe it is possible for a tornado to rip through a junkyard and assemble an airplane ready for takeoff, then you're quite the high roller. In all logical rationale, it would be what most would consider impossible – then again, nothing is impossible with God. But it still stands as Item B in the evidence closet for the existence of God. Probability is simply not on your side.

"First of all, you violate your own premise by saying that "the creator" is uncaused."
I absolutely do not violate my own premise by saying God is uncaused. I'm saying that it is absolutely fundamental that something be uncaused in order that we do not have infinite regression. Time cannot progress forward unless it started. Dominoes cannot be falling if they never began falling. If you follow the dominoes back in time and it goes back infinitely, they never started. The Big Bang Theory states that Time, Space, and matter came from an initial singularity. Either something came from nothing, or something created that initial singularity; something eternal and uncaused. I say that this is Item C in the evidence closet for God.

The absolute intricacy of our DNA, as Francis Collins states, is evidence for an intelligent designer. I'll put that as expert testimony for the existence of God.

Michael J. Behe, a microbiologist, states that it is impossible for some of the complex organisms that exist today to have naturalistically evolved. He argues that some things are irreducibly complex. I'll put this as expert testimony.

You have not proven your point that God cannot exist because there is no evidence. We both have shown that it is possible for things to exist even without evidence. And I have shown that there is indeed evidence for the existence of God. You have not offered any evidence that God does not exist. And you have been adequately refuted in all areas. I hope the judges will use there better judgment to determine that PRO has won with ammo left.
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 4 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
Regarding several reported votes on this debate:

[*Reason for non-removal*] No RFD is required on this debate, so votes are not moderated.
************************************************************************
Posted by gracekpritchard 1 year ago
gracekpritchard
I completely agree with the fact that there is no black and white proof that God exists. Although, there is so much evidence that leads us to believe he does. I really liked what InquireTruth had to say about the pizza store, and about how feelings can"t be proven, but they exist. It was a good analogy. I can personally believe and say that God exists, because I have a relationship with him. Also it is proven that the organisms that exist today could not have come about on their own. There had to be some greater force to evolve them into existence. My comments to the con-opponent is that there are many people in China who are Christians and there are many people in America who are Buddhist"s. I don"t think that is clear evidence that God doesn't exist. Each argument had good intentions, but I believe that the pro"s argument won. Great facts and evidence verifying the case!
Posted by Orangatang 3 years ago
Orangatang
Why am I the only one (on the first few pages), to actually leave reasons for voting??
Posted by narmak 4 years ago
narmak
ok so omnipotent has two meanings the first being the ability to do anything even things logically absurd such as creating a square circle.

the second being the ability to do anything logical. that being said lets look at these 2 definitions

the ability to do anything even the logically absurd.
This is to say god can create a being more powerful than himself oh wait a minute if god can create something stronger than himself then He's not omnipotent so that definition fails.

the second the ability do all things logical.

Man has the ability to move matter. God cannot because he would need to be created from mass or energy to do so and as such would have limits based on the matter and energy he is made up. for proof Ek=1/2(m)(v^2) F=ma No mass = no force and no energy=no velocity no m=no kinetic energy. therefore the second definition of omnipotent fails ergo there can be no omnipotent being.
Posted by quantummechanics97 5 years ago
quantummechanics97
I don't know if this has been brought up or not cuz i'm too lazy to read the argument. in case it hasn't: god is all-powerful with at least all things tangible. if this is so, then can he create a boulder so big that he can't move it? if he can then he won't be able to do something with something tangible and therefore isn't all-powerful. if he can't then he will be failing in his task and will again not be all-powerful.
Posted by Freeman 7 years ago
Freeman
"God cannot exist because there is no proof of his existence."

Thats fallacious.
Posted by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
Sorry for double post, I'm uploading so my comp was lagging
Posted by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
"god was created by man through a bible."

Almost all writing in the Bible (save for the epistles) was oral tradition before it was written down. That is, God could not have been created via the Bible.
Posted by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
"god was created by man through a bible."

Almost all writing in the Bible (save for the epistles) was oral tradition before it was written down. That is, God could not have been created via the Bible.
Posted by christ88 8 years ago
christ88
What a ridiculous debate. I am sure if Inquiretruth had proof that God existed he would not be wasting time telling people on debate.org. I think more likely it would be worldwide news... but you know maybe he only wants to let people on this site know that an almighty power exists and he is the only one with the proof...

With that said, I believe con needed to have gone further down the root of the question. Rather than saying there is no proof for god, ask where the idea of God came from.

God was created by man through a bible. But why is the bible even believed? It was written by mans' interpretations, and then edited and translated according to the decisions of man. There is no possible way for this scripture to not be erroneous.

God was an idea created by man to soothe the fears of death and explain the phenomenon that is our existence.
86 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by dumbocrat 7 months ago
dumbocrat
tholosInquireTruthTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by KingDebater 8 months ago
KingDebater
tholosInquireTruthTied
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 
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 10 months ago
dsjpk5
tholosInquireTruthTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
tholosInquireTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by TK57 2 years ago
TK57
tholosInquireTruthTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Both used good sources but Con didnt refute anything Pro said while Pro refuted everything Con said. Pro wins easily
Vote Placed by Aithlin 2 years ago
Aithlin
tholosInquireTruthTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by NiamC 2 years ago
NiamC
tholosInquireTruthTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by telisw37 2 years ago
telisw37
tholosInquireTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Cons. Case was wacky.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
tholosInquireTruthTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Lt.Harris 2 years ago
Lt.Harris
tholosInquireTruthTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Very good argument and he is right.