The Instigator
Derrida
Con (against)
Losing
13 Points
The Contender
Kleptin
Pro (for)
Winning
30 Points

Is God's existence evidentially likely or unlikely?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
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: 2/3/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,333 times Debate No: 2380
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (9)

 

Derrida

Con

I have finally decided to debate my own views and opinions on the nature of God. I will be taking the position that the classical theistic God (Omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent) probably does not exist given the balance of evidence.

I would suggest to my opponent that the first round is used only to present opening arguments, the second for objections, the third for counter-objections, and the final round for closing statements or final objections. However, if my opponent chooses otherwise, I will attack their opening post in its entirety, and support my own opening post in the third round.

I will put forth four lines of evidence for the nonexistence of God: The Argument from Lack of Evidence, the Argument from Moral Evil, the Argument from Scale, and the Argument from Religious Confusion.

Argument from Lack of Evidence (ALE)

Whilst absence of evidence isn't always evidence of absence, we have good reason to believe that if God exists, He would want to have a relationship with human beings. However, the consensus view of philosophers of religion is that no compelling evidence for God exists. This goes against what would be expected if God prized human beings as the most important things in His creation, created "in His likeness", as most of the mainstream religions assert. The lack of evidence for God, then, is in this case evidence against God as a loving, personal being. Of course, my opponent will assert that there is evidence for God's existence, and so the validity of this argument boils down to whether my opponent's arguments stand up to scrutiny.

1) If God exists, then probably all people would be capable of having a relationship with Him.
2) If there is no evidence for God's existence, then having a relationship with God is not possible for all people.
3) There is no evidence for God's existence.
C) Probably, God does not exist.

Argument from Moral Evil (AME)

The problem of evil is a familiar argument against God's existence, but is very unwieldy in debates like this, so I have opted for a largely unknown version of the deductive argument from evil. The argument is this:

1) If God exists, then He eradicates all evil that does not entail a greater good or prevent a greater evil.
2) Moral evil does not entail a greater good or prevent a greater evil.
3) Moral evil exists.
C) God does not exist.

The most famous, and only objection to moral evil is the Free Will Defense (FWD), which states that freedom is a greater good that the eradication of moral evil (By the eradication of free choice) would destroy. However, the FWD is incoherent for two reasons:

1) Freedom in the FWD is defined as Libertarian Free Will, the idea that free actions are not caused or entailed by any other events. But this view of freedom leads to indeterminacy, the idea that free actions are inherently random. If our choices are not caused by anything, then they are not caused by our preferences, our reason or our beliefs and values. Making a decision is thus like flipping a coin; freedom of choice no longer confers moral responsibility, because nothing about your character or identity explains your actions.

2) God must have free will, because the FWD implies that free will is a virtue. But free will also requires the possibility of committing acts of moral evil, which contradicts God's omnibenevolence. Thus, the main premiss of the FWD, that no being can be free and necessarily good, is false.

Because the AME stands up to all possible objections, the premisses are true and the conclusion is sound.

Argument from Scale (AS)

The AS is based on what we would expect given naturalism, and what we would expect given theism. If the world is a product of blind natural laws and random chance, then the age, scale, and composition of the universe is pretty much what we would expect. This is because the universe is not at all suited for organic life given the grand scale it resides on. The fact that the universe has existed for fourteen billion years, of which life has only existed for the last few million years, of which intelligent human life has only existed for the last hundred thousand years (A microsecond on the universal scale), shouts out to us that the universe is largely indifferent to our existence. The universe is unimaginably large, expanding at the speed of light, and will probably never be explored, or even seen, in its entirety by any intelligent beings. Finally, most of the universe is filled by a radiation-rich vacuum, fatal to all life and yet food for Black Holes, which are not only rare but surprisingly prevalent in our universe.

Theism, on the other hand, doesn't explain any of this. If God exists, then we have no reason to believe that God would create such a world. We can envision many ways in which God could have created the universe, for instance in a way similar to the Genesis account of creation, or perhaps even in a non-material universe, where we could converse with God directly. Nicholas Everitt concurs on this point, saying that we would expect that "... the universe would be on a human scale", meaning that we would expect the universe to be suited to our size, perhaps a few hundred million light years in breadth rather than thirty billion, perhaps only a hundred million years in duration with human beings relatively near the beginning. This at least seems more likely under theism than the universe we actually see.

Hence:
1) If God exists, then probably the universe would be on the human scale.
2) The universe is not on the human scale.
C) Probably, God does not exist.

Argument from Religious Confusion (ARC)

All the most popular religions state that if one honestly seeks God, they will find Him. However, no matter which God exists, it seems that the majority of seekers have gone terribly wrong in their search. No religion can lay claim to a simple majority of the human race, with Christianity, the most popular religion, only being composed of two billion people, roughly a third of the human race (http://en.wikipedia.org...), which is to say nothing about sectarian disputes. But this seems a strange outcome no matter which God is the true one, for two reasons:

- The God of most religions requires belief to obtain certain benefits, including entrance to Heaven.
- The God of most religions has the power to change the lives of a large number of people.

The God of Christianity, for instance, sent His son to Earth to perform miracles and redeem mankind, gave the followers of Jesus visions and guidance, and is said to work through Christians even today (According to Christians). All God would seem to need to do to get the majority of people to believe in Him would be more of the same! Even if God isn't affiliated with any of the mainstream religions, or that all these religions point to the same God, (A highly unlikely eventuality), we would still expect theists to have a clear consensus knowledge of God's attributes. The sort of arguments caused by religion are vicious and bloody, leading to ethical confusion and inevitable war and anarchy.

1) If God exists, then, probably most theists would have a clear understanding of God.
2) Most theists do not have a clear understanding of God.
C) Probably, God does not exist.

PLEASE READ THE DEBATE IN ITS ENTIRETY BEFORE VOTING FOR THE PERSON WHO YOU BELIEVE BEST DEFENDED THEIR POSITION

I await your reply with bated breath.
Kleptin

Pro

The issue is "Is god's existence evidentially likely or unlikely"?

My opponent's position is against that statement.

My position is for it.

I do believe that God's existence is evidentially either likely or unlikely.

I ask that my opponent prove why there is a third alternative, since his position is "Con".
Debate Round No. 1
Derrida

Con

Oh dear, its all gone a bit wrong.

I suppose I should have expected that something along these lines would happen. What I thought to be a fairly simple exposition of positions, that I believe that the existence of God is unlikely, (Something I elaborated on in my first post), has been perverted to the cause of petty semantic squabbling. Even though I only presented the debate statement in this way because, if I were to present it as a proposition, it would have to read "The existence of God is not likely, but in fact unlikely" for each party in the debate to hold a positive position, which seems to me to be more confusing.

Fair enough.

I reject all the arguments I presented in my opening post, and will instead argue against the proposition "The existence of God is likely or unlikely".

I will do this by arguing that the proposition "God exists" is meaningless. This entails that the proposition "God exists" is neither true nor false, and so no evidence will ever be able to support either eventuality. I could have held my position by simply arguing that there is no evidence either way, or that the evidence is equally balanced, putting the onus of proof squarely upon kleptin's head to show otherwise. But that seems far to easy.

God as a definition of a potential entity is meaningless because no complete definition of God has ever been produced.

A complete definition is one that lists and explains all of the necessary attributes of the entity being defined.

As such, the complete definition of a sphere would be that it has one face, an infinite number of planes of symmetry, and that it is extended in three spacial dimensions. These are the necessary attributes of a sphere because, without these attributes, it wouldn't be a "sphere". For instance, if it were extended in three dimensions, had six faces, and nine planes of symmetry, it would be a cube.

Does God have a complete definition? No. There is something missing from the definition of God, when it is said that God is "immaterial" and "non-spatial". To say that something is not material and doesn't reside in space requires that the properties attributed to material objects needs to be replaced with analogous attributes.

To show why this is, imagine a non-organic life form. We know that organic life forms can grow, evolve and reproduce because of the properties of organic substances. But, having not observed any non-organic life forms, we aren't able to know how such an entity would do these things. So when we say it is non-organic, we need to replace this negative definition with positive attributes and properties, otherwise the definition of life form isn't applicable to it.

Similarly, we need to assign positive attributes to our "non-material" God, otherwise we aren't able to understand how such a being could be called a "person".

When we say that a being is a person, we take that to mean that that being is rational, conscious, intentional, interacting with other things, etc.

But, we can only understand these properties in relation to materials. We only observe reason, consciousness, and intentionality with relation to the brain, and the interactions between matter, space, energy and so on. In the words of philosopher Kai Nielsen: "We have no understanding of ‘a person' without ‘a body' and it is only persons in the last analysis that can act or do things. We have no understanding of ‘disembodied action' or ‘bodiless doing' and thus no understanding of ‘a loving but bodiless being."

This harks back to a famous problem in philosophy, called the modus operandi problem, specifically to show how a non-material being can interact with a material world, or even itself so as to produce the effects of consciousness.

Until my opponent does this satisfactorily, the definition of God is incomplete, and saying that God exists is like saying "Friblets are happy". We cannot attribute meaning to this statement without a complete review of the subject.
Kleptin

Pro

I think, Derrida, that you actually prefer it this way. Afterall, the debate as it is now is slightly more interesting than the beaten-to-death "existence of God" debates, is it not?

"God as a definition of a potential entity is meaningless because no complete definition of God has ever been produced.

A complete definition is one that lists and explains all of the necessary attributes of the entity being defined.

As such, the complete definition of a sphere would be that it has one face, an infinite number of planes of symmetry, and that it is extended in three spacial dimensions. These are the necessary attributes of a sphere because, without these attributes, it wouldn't be a "sphere". For instance, if it were extended in three dimensions, had six faces, and nine planes of symmetry, it would be a cube.

Does God have a complete definition? No. There is something missing from the definition of God, when it is said that God is "immaterial" and "non-spatial". To say that something is not material and doesn't reside in space requires that the properties attributed to material objects needs to be replaced with analogous attributes.

To show why this is, imagine a non-organic life form. We know that organic life forms can grow, evolve and reproduce because of the properties of organic substances. But, having not observed any non-organic life forms, we aren't able to know how such an entity would do these things. So when we say it is non-organic, we need to replace this negative definition with positive attributes and properties, otherwise the definition of life form isn't applicable to it.

Similarly, we need to assign positive attributes to our "non-material" God, otherwise we aren't able to understand how such a being could be called a "person".

When we say that a being is a person, we take that to mean that that being is rational, conscious, intentional, interacting with other things, etc.

But, we can only understand these properties in relation to materials. We only observe reason, consciousness, and intentionality with relation to the brain, and the interactions between matter, space, energy and so on. In the words of philosopher Kai Nielsen: "We have no understanding of ‘a person' without ‘a body' and it is only persons in the last analysis that can act or do things. We have no understanding of ‘disembodied action' or ‘bodiless doing' and thus no understanding of ‘a loving but bodiless being."

This harks back to a famous problem in philosophy, called the modus operandi problem, specifically to show how a non-material being can interact with a material world, or even itself so as to produce the effects of consciousness.

Until my opponent does this satisfactorily, the definition of God is incomplete, and saying that God exists is like saying "Friblets are happy". We cannot attribute meaning to this statement without a complete review of the subject."

I actually don't have to do that. Your argument is essentially that since God cannot be defined, attributes of God cannot be defined, and since existence is an attribute, it makes the question "does god exist" meaningless.

First, I have to say this. The fact that something cannot be defined properly has nothing to do with whether or not it exists. Definitions are artificial descriptions for things that humans perceive to exist. If I did not have the definition of a flibbergloop, it does not necessarily mean that it does not exist, since the definition of a flibbergloop could very well be what we commonly know as a chair. Thus, not being able to define God does not mean that God does not exist.

The term "existence" is a tricky one, and I believe that you cannot really apply it towards that kind of logic.

We can all see the logic in your argument with your example "Friblets are happy", since the statement begs the question of whether Friblets exist or not. However, if we were to modify it to "Friblets exist", we can no longer claim the statement is invalid because it is too basic a statement.

In that case, your argument would work for "God is benevolent", or "god is immortal". You can use that argument to claim that these phrases are meaningless because they all assume the basic notion that God exists. But you cannot apply that logic towards the statement "God exists".

Thus, the question "Does God Exist?" definitely has an answer.
Debate Round No. 2
Derrida

Con

"Your argument is essentially that since God cannot be defined, attributes of God cannot be defined, and since existence is an attribute, it makes the question "does god exist" meaningless."

Not exactly. I'm saying that, because God has been "partially" defined, the content of the proposition "God exists" is the same as saying:

- God is omnipotent.
- God is omnibenevolent.
- God is omniscient.
- God is immaterial.
- God is non spatial.
- God is a personal being...

But, because we don't know what "immaterial", or "personal" in this instance mean, we can't in this instance know what "God exists" means. Hence, it is meaningless.

To elaborate, imagine that I gave you a partial definition of a sphere, saying that it is a three-dimensional solid. Suppose further that you collected a group of 3D solids, a cube, a cuboid, a pyramid, etc. If I smashed up the pyramid and asked you if the sphere was still there, what could you say? You could only ask for more information, without which you couldn't comprehend the answer to the question.

In many ways this is like Wittgenstein's private language argument. Suppose you had a closed opaque box, and decided to say "there is a beetle in the box", whilst defining the beetle as "inside the box". Is it then true to say that the box contains a beetle? No, because the sentence gives us no information as to what a "beetle" is. Any meaning given to the term beetle would be circular.

To say that something exists isn't to say that it has the attribute of existence, but is to say that that something is instantiated and has a certain number of properties, otherwise such an assertion is meaningless.

"We can all see the logic in your argument with your example "Friblets are happy", since the statement begs the question of whether Friblets exist or not. However, if we were to modify it to "Friblets exist", we can no longer claim the statement is invalid because it is too basic a statement. "

This again misses the point. If I say "Friblets exist", you would ask what friblets are, and then we have the problem that friblets don't have a definition. If we can't point to something and say that is what it is, then we cannot apply the concept of instantiation to it, which is at the root of the phrase "Friblets exist".

In saying that "God exists" is meaningless, I'm not saying that God can't exist. I am in fact saying that the sentence has no meaningful referent, and so falls down at the first hurdle.
Kleptin

Pro

I think I understand your argument now.

The issue at hand is our position on the question proposed, which is "Is God's existence evidentially likely or unlikely"?

You maintain that since the definition of God is incomplete, the question is void.

In that case, I would like ask by what standards you are using to say that the current definition of god is a "partial" definition.

Using your shapes example, you have asked me to find a "sphere" with the partial definition of it being a 3D solid. After bringing it all back, and you smashing one of them, I can simply say "yes, I brought back 10 spheres, you broke one, there are 9 spheres left".

Until you add more to the definition you gave me, the answer is YES, spheres, as per your definition, do exist because I brought back 10 of them.

Thus, the question at hand is still valid if we have SOMETHING to go along with. Even if we have only ONE attribute of god defined, it is still possible to argue whether or not god exists.
Debate Round No. 3
Derrida

Con

"Using your shapes example, you have asked me to find a "sphere" with the partial definition of it being a 3D solid. After bringing it all back, and you smashing one of them, I can simply say "yes, I brought back 10 spheres, you broke one, there are 9 spheres left".

Until you add more to the definition you gave me, the answer is YES, spheres, as per your definition, do exist because I brought back 10 of them."

This is an invalid objection, as a partial definition is, as stated previously, one that leaves out necessary attributes. So, in the sphere example, I'm not saying that a sphere is ANY 3D solid, but a certain 3D solid with certain undisclosed features.

Hence, when I say God is an immaterial being, I don't say God is any immaterial being, (Abstractions like numbers are for the most part immaterial, but we aren't talking about God as a set of these abstractions, we're saying that God is something more), but a certain immaterial being that somehow is able to have thoughts and accomplish things in the material world in which we live. But, because the definition of God we currently have omits certain necessary attributes of God, we have no idea how this happens.

"Until you add more to the definition you gave me, the answer is YES, spheres, as per your definition, do exist because I brought back 10 of them."

Again, I'm not saying that a sphere is any solid, but a certain solid. The trouble is that the sphere is being defined in relation to other things, so saying that the sphere is a certain type of solid gives us less information than we need.

Similarly, God is being defined via negativa (The negative way) in that He is said to lack something: materiality.

If we define Dick Chaney as "Not George Bush", we're not saying he is anything other than George Bush, in fact we're saying very little at all.

Because of this distinction, God has still not been defined properly for us to understand what "God" means, and as such the question of His existence is nullified.

To say that God is not something isn't enough. We need a positive definition of God, otherwise we don't have a clear idea of what God is, just as if we don't have a clear idea of what a sphere is by being told that it is a "certain solid".
Kleptin

Pro

"This is an invalid objection, as a partial definition is, as stated previously, one that leaves out necessary attributes. So, in the sphere example, I'm not saying that a sphere is ANY 3D solid, but a certain 3D solid with certain undisclosed features."

"That argument borders on absurdity. On what basis can you say that an attribute is necessary for a definition or not? A definition is composed of characteristics of the thing you are defining, you're assuming that a definition exists in and of itself. This ties in with another point...

"Hence, when I say God is an immaterial being, I don't say God is any immaterial being, (Abstractions like numbers are for the most part immaterial, but we aren't talking about God as a set of these abstractions, we're saying that God is something more), but a certain immaterial being that somehow is able to have thoughts and accomplish things in the material world in which we live. "

Doesn't matter. In this case, you just added another few attributes to god. Thus, anything I find that is immaterial, able to have thoughts, etc. would satisfy my quest for finding God.

"But, because the definition of God we currently have omits certain necessary attributes of God, we have no idea how this happens."

There's that "certain necessary" thing again. How can you say that something has certain necessary attributes without including it in the definition? It's either an attribute or not an attribute. You can't say that an attribute exists but you don't know what it is. Otherwise, what justification would you have for saying that the attribute exists in the first place? In order to prove the existence of God, all we have to do is go by the attributes we have. And we have plenty.

"Again, I'm not saying that a sphere is any solid, but a certain solid. The trouble is that the sphere is being defined in relation to other things, so saying that the sphere is a certain type of solid gives us less information than we need."

Unless you know the full definition of a sphere, I could bring you back a rectangular prism and satisfy the conditions necessary to prove that spheres exist. Afterall, you're only CALLING it a sphere. You've never seen a sphere before, else you wouldn't want me to prove its existence. So here's this thing that you arbitrarily name "sphere". You know it has the property of being a 3D solid. I bring you a rectangular prism.

On what basis can you say that I did not bring you a sphere?

"Similarly, God is being defined via negativa (The negative way) in that He is said to lack something: materiality.

If we define Dick Chaney as "Not George Bush", we're not saying he is anything other than George Bush, in fact we're saying very little at all."

Again, same logical flaw. If you wish to prove the existence of a "Dick Chaney" and only know that an attribute of a "Dick Cheney" is not "George Bush", I could bring you Condoleezza Rice and it would satisfy the condition. Of course, in this universe, you would not know that the thing I brought you is Condoleeza Rice. you would simply see a thing that is not George Bush and therefore, would satisfy the definition of being a Dick Chaney.

"Because of this distinction, God has still not been defined properly for us to understand what "God" means, and as such the question of His existence is nullified.

To say that God is not something isn't enough. We need a positive definition of God, otherwise we don't have a clear idea of what God is, just as if we don't have a clear idea of what a sphere is by being told that it is a "certain solid"."

No, you're not thinking correctly. You're confusing our world with the world in your analogy. If you lined it up correctly, there wouldn't be so much confusion on your part.

In your analogy, for someone to be curious about the existence of a "sphere", he has to understand that it has a characteristic that sets it apart from everything else.

Let's say you live in a 2D universe and by induction, theorize the concept of a 3D substance. You've never seen a 3D substance before, so you automatically label this mysterious thing a "sphere".

I, being the sharp and resourceful person I am, run along and find a 3D solid that in OUR universe, is known as a "rectangular prism". However, in this 2D universe, you have never seen it before, and thus, it is most definitely a sphere, as per your definition.

**************

Simply put, God either exists or does not exist. You can say that it is evidentially likely, or evidentially unlikely. The fact that we use the word "God" means we already have a concept and definition attached to it. Your argument that there are certain "necessary" attributes of God that are not attributes is just...absurd.
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
Derrida, furthermore you are arguing against points noone in this debate has made. For instance your last comment. Noone has define God simply as "an immaterial thing". That is your own interpretation of... WHO KNOWS! Immaterial is an adjective describing his physical being- though that may not be a true definition. So in effect it is YOU who are presenting the partial definitions of God. Noone has even attempted to give their own definition of God, and you haven't even bothered to ask. You have relied on your own knowledge, which by your own premise implies ignorance on the subject.

PS. VOTE OBAMA!!!
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
Derrida, you can't argue a point based on the premise that you don't understand the subject of that point. Many theologists would argue against your claim- and no offense in the use of this word- out of ignorance. There is not a complete definition for many things, yet we accept the definition given as enough to identify the subject. If you had no idea or personal interpretation of the definition of God (or what you call a partial definition), then you couldn't even make an argument against it because you wouldn't know what you were talking about according to your own premise! LOL!

The truth is everyone has at least a rudimentary understanding of the definition of God, and you are claiming to posess even LESS knowledge than the common knowledge definition. You are arguin against someone else's CODIFIED definition, but you are not even giving your interpretation of the adjectives used in this "partial" definition. If you presented arguments against the partial definition then maybe you would have a point, but you didn't even ATTEMPT to do that!

Kleptin has done a very good job of pointing out the fallacies in your argument, your point of view, and your understanding of the subject itself. He doesn't even have to BELIEVE in God to argue his point because YOURS has so many holes it doesn't hold any value in this debate.

You are doing a great job at SOUNDING smart, but bringing up analogies that really don't fit, using words that really don't apply to your premise, and continuing to reiterate your point against all logical arguments isn't doing you any good.
Posted by Derrida 9 years ago
Derrida
If that's true then surely that means that nothing is meaningless.

For instance the sentence "Pfillings spike brown greatly" is perfectly meaningful as long as we know that pfillings are green.

As I said, to say that God is an immaterial thing is like saying that a sphere is a solid thing.

That I don't know the full definition of God has no bearing on the matter, as long as God has an attribute that I can't explain.
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
Derrida, you are using half arguments. If the true being of God is unknown, then so is the standard for a full definition! You can't say "hey, that's a partial definition of God" if you don't know the full definition yourself! So as Kleptin stated- unless more information is given you are bound to the knowledge of what is available.
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
Bwaaajajajajaja! That is a great argument Kleptin!
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
Derrida, your new premise is more ridiculous than your original. "no complete definition of God has ever been produced"? How about- the guy or entity, no matter what form or perceived definition of reality- who created life, the universe, and everything that encompasses anyone's definition of creation. I believe your opponent is being very ridiculous as you were clear on your point of view, and so far my vote is for you on the basis that you are actually debating.
Posted by DucoNihilum 9 years ago
DucoNihilum
I hate these wrongly worded propositions.

With your current proposition I could try to argue that the existence of god is 'likely or unlikely'.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 9 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
For the most part, I think your argument can be debunked on the basis that you assume God to be the creator of our world/universe. You can't enter the Bible as evidence supporting that, either, because the Bible begs the question of God's existence as per the Bible and is inadmissible.

So all I would have to do is demonstrate how an omnibenevolent, omnipresent, and omniscient god could accomplish what you speak of... An actually fairly simple explanation, even for the problem of evil...
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
Formulating your argument against "the God of classical theism" may not be arguing against a particular religion, but you are focusing on the God of Islam and JudeoChristianity. Not only that, but you are focusing on classical- and often disputed- descriptions of him that are also non-biblical. Furthermore, you are limiting the interpretation of omnipotency, omnibenevolence, and omniscience to the Judeo-Christian interpretation of those adjectives.

There is no possible body of evidence against the existence of God, and any evidence in support of his existence would be circumstantial, opinionated, and limited to one's own understanding of what God is capable of as a god, and the very nature of his existence.
Posted by Derrida 9 years ago
Derrida
Mangani: I'm not arguing against any particular religion, just the God of classical theism:
the omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent creator of the universe. The ARC doesn't presuppose any God other than the one defined, and neither do any of my other arguments.

I think that my premisses follow well enough from these attributes, though if questioned further will probably go into further detail.

I'm interested in seeing how this goes.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
DerridaKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
DerridaKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
DerridaKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
DerridaKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by mrmatt505 9 years ago
mrmatt505
DerridaKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
DerridaKleptinTied
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 Derrida 9 years ago
Derrida
DerridaKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
DerridaKleptinTied
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 Agent_D 9 years ago
Agent_D
DerridaKleptinTied
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