The Instigator
thett3
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
GorefordMaximillion
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

It is probable that 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 2 votes the winner is...
GorefordMaximillion
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/30/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,317 times Debate No: 27659
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (24)
Votes (2)

 

thett3

Pro

As the affirmative, I will accept the burden of proof in proving the existence of God. My opponent can present his own arguments if he pleases, but he is under no obligation to do so. He is obligated however to attack my arguments in the 2nd round. My advocacy will be defending the conception of God as the powerful, sentient creator of the Universe, by showing that both scientifically and philosophically it is more probable that the Universe was created by God than that it arose naturally. If my opponent disputes this definition he should comment before accepting and we can work out an agreed upon definition there.

The debate will begin in round 2. Standard rules apply, no new arguments in the last round ect. Debaters are permitted to put citations in a separate debate to save space.
GorefordMaximillion

Con

I accept.

Thank you for the challenge!
Debate Round No. 1
thett3

Pro

I. The KCA

The Kalam cosmological argument advanced by Dr. Craig can be formulated as follows[1]:

P1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
P2. The Universe began to exist
C. Therefore, the Universe had a cause

1. is seemingly indisputable. As Craig put it, out of nothing, nothing comes! To deny this premise goes against reason and thousands of years of human observation and experience; indeed, to question it we must also question why things like a glass of orange juice or a cat do not just randomly appear out of nothing.

2. is more controversial, however there are good philosophical and scientific reasons to believe that the Universe did indeed absolutely begin at one point. On the scientific side, there is a startling and rapidly growing pile of evidence indicating that the Universe began to exist from literally nothing at the big bang. This theory is supported by repeated observations such as red shift showing that the Universe is still expanding from the big bang, and thermodynamics. On the philosophical side, an eternal universe is impossible, because the number of past events must be finite. Indeed imagine for a moment if I took an infitine number of dollar bills and lined them up in order of serial number, then imagine that I took out all of the dollar bills with even serial numbers and lined them up in a seperate line, what would be the results? I would also have an infinite number of even numbered dollar bills--a logical contradiction since that would entail that infinity minus infinity equals infinity! But clearly this is absurd! The idea that infinity can exist in reality is simply philosophically bankrupt, causing the mathmetician David Hillbert to conclude[2]:

"The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite...is solely that of an idea..."

From these facts the conclusion logically follows. But what exactly does this conclusion entail? What could have possibly caused the Universe? We can logically deduce that whatever caused the Universe was outside of it (obviously, for nothing can logically create itself). The only things that can possibly be outside of the Universe are abstract objects such as numbers and minds. But since numbers cannot cause anything, the cause must therefore be a mind. Moreover, the cause does not exist naturally but rather supernaturally. It must be above time, above space, and imensly if not all powerful in order to iniate the creation of all things from literally nothing. It follows then from the Cosmological argument that you have a supernatural, timeless, spaceless, imensely powerful, personal mind. Clearly this strongly confirms the God hypothesis.

II. Fine tuning

As scientists discover more about our world and it's beginnings they are discovering more and more that the paremeters allowing life to evolve are incredibly narrow and specific. Boa & Bowman[3] explain that, for example, if the strong nuclear force was off by 1% the Universe would be either all hydrogen or contain no Hydrogen at all, if the gravitational force was slightly stronger stars would be "so hot that they would burn out too quickly and unevenly [for life]", or if the electromagnetic force was weaker electrons would fly away before the could be bound into molecules, or if slightly stronger atoms would not be able to share, again leading to no molecules and thus no life. And so on and so forth. Indeed, even the initial beginning of the Universe has been fine tuned for the existence of life! In fact, the mathematician Roger Penrose has calculated that if the initial expansion rate after the big bang was altered by the absurdly small degree of 1 in 10^10123[4], life would not exist. So remarkable is it that our Universe contains these sets of values that even Stephen Hawkins concluded[5]: "...the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life".

Since its been proven both scientifically and philosophically that the Universe must have had an absolute beginnng, the continued observations of the extremely specific conditions for life to exist strongly disconfirms naturalism.
even more absurdly specific. For example, to even have a life permitting galaxy certain conditions must be met, for example the galaxy likely must be a spiral[6],[7] and must be far enough away from other galaxies that they do not interfere gravitationally with one another. Any life permitting star must be on the fringe of a spiral arm so that they are not too close to other stars, or too far to obtain many heavy elements needed for the creation of planets[8], and the star must be the right size and right distance from other stars in order to sustain life. A life permitting solar system needs to have planets certain distances away, ect and any the individual planets must be certain distances from the star and other planets and have an atmosphere and orbit consitent enough to substain life constantly. All this for just life, let alone intelligent life which constitutes .00000001% of all the species on Earth[9], a number best described as 0.

Moreover since science has failed to give a reasonable explanation for the abiotic generation of life, the fine tuning of the Universe and the existence of life strongly indicate design from an intelligent and powerful mind. One can do no better than to once again quote Dr Craig: "The odds against the fine tuning occurring by accident are so iincomprehensibly great that they cannot be reasonably faced"

III. Metaphysics

Smith and Kendzierski explain that the fundamental question of existence is "why are there any existents at all, actual or possible?"[10] They argue further that the question continues to why are there two existents? Or three? Or any other number? The conclusion they draw is that existents exist because there is a cause. This seems to line up with human experience and mainstream philosophy, but the conclusion they draw from this is one profound but seemingly indisputable: "the cause of multiple being is uncaused"[11]. Indeed, how could it be anything else? The implication of this is enourmous, the fact that anything at all exists requires some kind of first cause, an uncaused cause from which all other existents, actual or possible, come into being.

Multiplicity (that existents exist seperately- even though two atoms may have the exact same numbers of particals, they are not the same existent, or else there would only be one atom) has to be caused-- possible existants (for example, any future children one will have) cannot actualize themselves, cannot bring themselves into being, or else they would be actual, not possible. They must be brought into being by a cause. Everything that did not at one point exist (including everything that physically exists) was brought into being by some cause ad infintum until we reach the final cause--the uncaused cause that brought all else into being. This strongly indicates an intelligent creator of the Universe, what else could have caused all other existents? An intelligent creator meets this criteria, nothing else does. The authors further explain that we can only fully indentify: "the cause of [existence], God. Short of God we only identify causes in the sense that they circumscribe the area...bad food makes on sick, but what is "bad" in bad food? Bacteria no doubt. But what is bad in them? So we go on. Thus the attempt to answer 'whodunit' is successful only to the extent indicated, but the demonstration that someboy or something within a circumbscribed area did the job can be successful, but the demonstration that God causes multiple existences is the only instance of complete identification of a cause." [emphasis mine][12]

A first cause, God, is the only explanation for multiple existents.

It therefore follows that God exists.

Citations:

http://www.debate.org...
GorefordMaximillion

Con

I. The KCA
"P1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause"
For the sake of argument, let us assume this is true for the moment as you are specifically applying this for P2.

" P2. The Universe began to exist"
I would offer two modifications to this statement:
"The Universe that we observe began to exist approximately 13.75 billion years ago"
The premise of this statement made in the KCA is still the same. To make any statements about what was before the Big Bang is purely conjecture however.

"Our prospects for finding out, furthermore, are quite dim, as " by its very nature " practically every model of cosmic inflation wipes out any information about the Universe that existed prior" and our Universe began."[6]

The models most scientist accept concerning the Big Bang leave no clues to find out what happened before inflation ended. Scientifically you cannot say whether what was before this point (or before the Big Bang), began to exist or not. Did what was before "begin to exist?" How do you know if it did?

"C.Therefore, the Universe had a cause"
I must modify this statement also:
"Therefore, the Universe that we observe began to exist approximately 13.75 billion years ago had a cause."

""out of nothing, nothing comes!"
Science has shown this to not be true in Quantum Mechanics. When applied to the universe, you cannot show me that there was "nothing" before the universe we know came into existence 13.75 Billion years ago.

""Universe did indeed absolutely begin at one point" from literally nothing at the big bang."

This is not accurate.

"Classical general relativity predicts the universe began with a singularity, but it can"t prove anything until after the Big Bang." [1]

"the Standard model cannot be extrapolated that far back." [2]

"" Hawking and Penrose admitted that there was no singularity because their calculation" had not taken into account quantum mechanics"I do not know of a single working cosmologist today who says the universe began with a singularity" "No result derived on the basis of classical general relativity can be used to derive anything truly fundamental, since classical general relativity isn't right. You need to quantize gravity."" [3]

"Steven Hawking"s no-boundary proposal which states that the universe simply had no beginning (A Brief History of Time, p. 136). " just as there is a limited amount of time in the universe, but try as we might" nor will we find a "beginning" or "end" of time" this doesn"t help with the apologist claim that the universe came from nothing."[2]

" "[T]he state of "nothing" cannot be identified with absolute nothingness. The tunneling is described by the laws of quantum mechanics, and thus "nothing" should be subject to these laws. The laws of physics must have existed, even though there was no universe." So, the concept of "nothing" painted by Vilenkin"s hypothesis is very different from the concept of "nothing" as preferred by Craig which seems to be synonymous with the absence of all material reality." [2]

"On the philosophical side, an eternal universe is impossible, because the number of past events must be finite."
This is an improper statement.

"An eternal universe is not the same as an infinite universe. Time is the number of ticks on a clock. In the eternal universe that number is endless, not infinite. Counting backwards in time, the eternal universe has no beginning -- not a beginning an infinite time ago. The time interval from any moment in the past to the present is finite. So an eternal universe is mathematically possible." [3]

You can also argue this logically:
The only result of pure cause and effect logic is an infinite series of causes and effects. In order to claim there is an "uncaused first cause," you must first abandon the very logic you used to say there is a need for a cause. An "uncaused first cause" is illogical because of the logic of cause and effect.

"infitine number of dollar bills"
The problem with this example is that you are creating a scenario which cannot exist. Since this example cannot exist, anything you do to it cannot happen, and won"t make sense... because the infinite number of dollar bills cannot exist. (Don"t tell the Federal Reserve!)

"From these facts the conclusion logically follows."
An "uncaused first cause" breaks the logic of cause and effect, therefore it is illogical.
There is no thing that can logically be infinite: without beginning, but you have claimed this in your dollar bill example.

"The only things that can possibly be outside of the Universe are abstract objects such as numbers and minds."
How do you draw this conclusion?

"Moreover, the cause does not exist naturally""
You have made further extrapolations without logic or proof. If there is no infinity, being "above time" would imply something that has existed for an infinite amount of time. Also, all powerful implies infinite power. According to your own logic, infinities are not possible, yet you are claiming two infinities in your explanation?

" It follows then from the ..."
In fact, all your arguments have attempted to prove that the infinities you are proposing are not possible. If infinities are possible, why can the universe not be infinite then? You have added an additional layer of complexity that cannot be logically explained, in order to logically explain the universe. All of your assertions have come from scientific misunderstandings and illogical explanations.

II. Fine tuning
"...the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life".
I would add "life as we know it." From there, the arguments lie in the probabilities.
What are the odds of you existing? An interesting though experiment shows: 1 in 10^2,685,000 [5] (I would agree that this is somewhat of an approximation, but consider the magnitude of this number)
But, despite these odds, you exist? Despite the odds of anything else happening besides what has actually happened; what has actually happened" is what took place. In fact, what are the odds of anything at all happening? What are the odds of anything at all happening the way they did? What have these incredible odds of everything happening proved? That odds are cannot be used to prove anything. If they are, I have just proved you don"t, or shouldn"t, exist, yet you do.

"constitutes .00000001%... a number best described as 0."
This number is actually best described as ".00000001%." If it were truly 0, there would be no intelligent life on earth.

"science has " abiotic generation of life""
There have been many breakthroughs in this area. Just because we do not know the complete and full answer yet, does not mean that we will not find out and does not mean a reasonable explanation is what you have described as God.

III. Metaphysics
There may be no "reason" at all as to why we exist. Any speculation as to why we exist is purely that" speculation only. It cannot be used as proof.

"Multiplicity ". the uncaused cause that brought all else into being""
Again, an "uncaused first cause" is illogical. You have continually pointed out that everything requires a cause. You have also said there can be no infinities. To explain everything that exists you then are claiming that there is a "God" which does not need a cause and is infinite in many ways.

"This strongly indicates an intelligent creator of the Universe""
An intelligent, infinite creator cannot meet the criteria of the reason he must exist.

You said:
1. "I will accept the burden of proof""
2.""more probable""

I contend that:
1.You have not proved the existence of God.
2.To show mathematical certainty in your assertion, you must give me two values:
a.The probability that the universe arose naturally
b.The probability that the universe was created by God.

The premise and logic of your arguments are flawed.

[Sources: http://debate.org...]
Debate Round No. 2
thett3

Pro

Thanks to Con for his acceptence.

1. KCA

Con accepts premise one.

Premise two stands as well. Against it Con argues that the "Universe that we observe began to exist approximately 13.75 billion years ago". First since Con fails to show you any other Universes that exist, you extend the premise because all we have to speculate on is the physical Universe. Secondly Con makes no substantive response to the philosophical argument against an infinite number of past events, any and all Universes are finite. Nonetheless, Con concedes that our Universe *did* have a cause. Con doesnt give any logically coherent explanation for this cause (more on this later).

Cons only response to the impossibility of infinity doesnt actually address the issue. He misunderstands the nature of time comparing it to "ticks on a clock"--but this wasnt the argument. Obviously time as humans describe it is merely the interpretation of the proximity of events, and while individual time units are just conceptual non existent entities, events certainly do exist and thus are finite. Moreover the very nature of this argument (Cons citation 3) is nonresponsive--first turn this argument because it describes time as beginning at the start of the Universe ("Counting backwards in time") but moreover, this is misrepresenting the nature of "time" I presented, "time" is not defined just as the number of seconds or years but rather is defined metaphysically as the number of events in the past. Events have to be finite or else everything would have already happened, our Universe would not be expanding and would be in a state of equilibrium.

Cons only objection to my infinity argument regarding the dollar bills is that I'm "creating a scenario which cannot exist.", but this was precisely the purpose of the thought experiment, to elaborate on the absurdity that is the infinite. Con makes no attempt to explain how infinity is possible--indeed given that he conceded that our Universe did exist and the fact that the Universe is not in a state of equilibrium (heat death) currently strongly indicates that there is no infinity. Thus the problems posed by infinity stand and essentially destroy any naturalistic explanation for the beginning of the Universe save for something definitionally outside of the constructs of time, like God. If theres another explanation Con must offer it, if not you vote Pro.

Con argues that I havent shown what existed before the big bang and cited several scientists who argue against an absolute beginning of the Universe. First, so far as the philosophical proof holds true, the argument still stands. No appeal to authority can disprove a necessary truth (like infinity being impossible), but moreover Cons response that Relativity breaks down when we enter the quauntum world is flawed because it doesnt hold given new breakthroughs in cosmology. Craig writes[1]:

"...
something of a watershed appears to have been reached in 2003, when three leading cosmologists, Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary.

What makes their proof so powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description of the universe prior to the Planck time. Because we can’t yet provide a physical description of the very early universe, this brief moment has been fertile ground for speculations. (One scientist has compared it to the regions on ancient maps labeled “Here there be dragons!”—it can be filled with all sorts of fantasies.) But the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is independent of any physical description of that moment..."

In fact Vilenkin himself is quite blunt about the implications of this: "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning"

My opponent pre-empts this argument by arguing that Vilenkins thesis doesnt refer to nothingness as Craigs does,but the problem with Con here is that I'm not obligated to advocate everything about Vilenkins thesis, but its proof of an absolute beginning is what is relevant. No one, not Con nor Vilenkin nor Hawkins has explained how the quantum world could exist in literal nothing (not quantum nothingness) and thus you prefer the cleanly extended philosophical proof from Craig.

Therefore, the Universe both scientifically and philsophically did have an absolute beginning. Hawkins and many of the others my opponents cites are great minds and scientists, but they embarass themselves here. The idea that the Universe could somehow bring itself into existence out of nothing is just absurd--to cause itself to exist, it would've had to previously existed.

Con then also argues against the "uncaused cause" by saying it breaks the logic of cause/effect...except it simply does not. All that needs to be understood is that the first cause was definitionally uncaused; and indeed given that the law of cause/effect is valid and Con condeded that the Universe was caused, the cause literally could not be anything except uncaused.

Con tries to dispute that since infinity is impossible infinite power is impossible but I have two responses: 1. I'm not advocating a God of infinite power, and 2. Even if I was there's no contradiction because "power" in the sense that describes God cannot be understood or quantified so it's irrelevant.

From you can cleanly take from this argument that there is an uncaused cause that is beyond the physical universe. A powerful and intelligent mind explains this reality far better than any solution offered by Con.

2. Fine tuning

Con drops almost all of the specific values I offered and gives no explanation for life occurring naturally, you can extend these and affirm.

He does however offer an interesting thought experiment and one I admit I struggled with for a while, but ultimately I have to agree with Con that my existence can be attributed simply to chance, but this has no relation to the argument because God can explain this abnormality but more importantly it only really to the Universe because, unlike people, the Universe only had one beginning and one chance to be life sustaining. This argument is somewhat nonresponsive because the finetuning argument is not explaining why a particular possible universe out of many trillions won, but rather attempting to explain why a finely tuned universe exists. That is, while its equally improbable that any specific possible Universe (or person to use Cons experiment) will exist, it is incomprehensibly more probable that a Universe that is not finely tuned would come into being than one that is. I'm not trying to say what the odds are that THIS PARTICULAR universe exists, but rather why a life permitting Universe exists. Given the values listed in my previous round, the odds are absurdly small.


3. Metaphysics

Cons only response to this argument is to say that I contradicted myself, but it's been explained above why the attirbutes contributed to God such as causelessness and power are not contradictory. Take this as an implicit concession, and extend this argument because Con makes no response to the substance. God, the first cause, explains why multiple existents occur. Con gives no secular explanation for this, so you automatically prefer the worldview that explains these things--that is, theism.

Thus you affirm.

Sources:

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

GorefordMaximillion

Con

Thank you again to thett3 for such an excellent challenge!

Summary of flaws in Pro"s argument
1.Pro asserts that infinity is impossible, then "solves" the problem with" an infinity.
a.A "God" must be infinite in
i.Time
ii.Power
iii.Knowledge
iv.Other
2.Pro claims the universe came from "absolutely nothing" yet we cannot know what came before a few moments after the big bang.
3.Pro tried to further explain the universe with something more complicated that cannot be understood. This is not an explanation; this is Occam"s razor at its finest.
4.Pro attempts to use the complexity argument to justify something that is infinity complex.
5.Pro claims there is a mind in some abstract existence with no possible proof, empirical evidence, or even an explanation as to what the "mind" is.
6.Pro tries to use the law of cause and effect to say everything needs a cause; then "defines" a "First Cause" that violates the law.
a.Why can"t the universe before the big bang not need a cause instead?
b.Why does it have to be a "mind" that is intelligent?
7. Why doesn't it have to follow logic, or science, or (assuming infinite power) math when everything else does?

When you propose a solution that doesn"t need to follow logic, not only is the solution itself illogical, your proposal is also illogical.

Arguments submitted by con not responded to or challenged by pro:
1.Scientifically you cannot say whether what was before this point (or before the Big Bang), began to exist or not. Did what was before "begin to exist?" How do you know if it did?
2.Pro: "Universe did indeed absolutely begin at one point" from literally nothing at the big bang."
a.Con, "This is not accurate."
3."The only things that can possibly be outside of the Universe are abstract objects such as numbers and minds."
a. How do you draw this conclusion?

"Con accepts premise one. "
What I said was, "For the sake of argument, let us assume this is true for the moment as you are specifically applying this for P2."
This is not full acceptance; it is temporary to make points.

"Premise two stands as well" because all we have to speculate on is the physical Universe."
This was to show that the causality argument you make can only be empirically demonstrated to shortly after the big bang. Anything before that is conjecture. Anything before that is, by your words, "speculation."

" Secondly Con makes no substantive response to the philosophical argument against an infinite number of past events, any and all Universes are finite. "
Again: an eternal universe is not the same as an infinite universe. Your argument against infinities only argues against your infinite "God."

"Nonetheless, Con concedes that our Universe *did* have a cause."
I temporarily accept P1 to make arguments. I then offer a modification to P2 which I accept. You cannot possible come to the conclusion that whatever was there, moments before the big bang, was an intelligent, all power God that defies all logic.

" Con doesn't give any logically coherent explanation for this cause (more on this later). "
Although I have indeed offered several proposals from respected scientists in the field, it is not my obligation in this debate to offer answers, only to challenge yours.

"Cons only response to the impossibility of infinity doesn't actually address the issue..."
Again, you merely excuse "God" from your infinity argument by stating he is "timeless." If this makes no sense in terms events, this makes no sense in terms of "God."
If God is timeless, when did he decide to start the universe?

"Cons only objection to my infinity argument" Con makes no attempt to explain how infinity is possible ""
Exactly correct. An infinite "God" is just as absurd. I"m not trying to prove infinity, you are trying to disprove it. But you are then claiming an infinite God.
So, does infinite exist or doesn"t it?
If it does, then whatever universe existed before 13.75 billion years ago could be infinite.
If it doesn"t, God, by definition of the infinite argument, cannot exist.

" Thus the problems posed by infinity stand and essentially destroy any naturalistic explanation for the beginning of the Universe save for something definitionally outside of the constructs of time, like God. If theres another explanation Con must offer it, if not you vote Pro. "
Fair enough, I will propose one.
I define the universe (the totality of existence) that was before the point 13.75 billion years ago, to be outside the constructs of time. Furthermore, we cannot ever understand it or measure it or prove it was there due to the nature of the Big Bang that this universe spawned off. This universe has all of the same qualities you attribute to God (no cause, outside the constructs of time, infinite power) except for being Sentient.
I repeat: This universe I"m "defining" has all the qualities you attribute to "God," except sentience.
I have now offered an explanation that is entirely as reasonable as yours.

"Con argues that I haven't shown what existed before the big bang"the argument still stands."
You cannot show what existed before the big bang. You can only "speculate," as you have said.

"(like infinity being impossible)"
Infinity being impossible = infinite God being impossible.

"but moreover Cons response that Relativity breaks down""

Extrapolating relativity back in time results in a singularity and doesn"t factor in Quantum Physics, this is why it is flawed.

"Therefore, the Universe both scientifically and philsophically did have an absolute beginning""
Unless the God you propose is infinite, which you claim is an impossibility, "God" had to have an absolute beginning. Then we must again ask:
"If there is a "God" what caused this "God?"

"it simply does not. All that needs to be understood is that the first cause was definitionally uncaused; and indeed given that the law of cause/effect is valid and Con condeded that the Universe was caused, the cause literally could not be anything except uncaused.""
Again, I will "define" the universe before the one that began 13.75 Billion years ago to be uncaused. There was a cause immediately before 13.75 billion years ago.

"I'm not advocating a God of infinite power""
Power is energy per time or "Energy / time."
You move the time value to infinite and anything other than infinite energy goes to zero. This is not philosophy, this is science and math. An infinite God must have infinite power for infinite time. (Two infinites)

"2. Even if I was there's no contradiction because "power" in the sense that describes God cannot be understood or quantified so it's irrelevant."
If you are proposing something that "cannot be undersood, then why bother proposing it? What can it possibly explain? Nothing. If it cannot be understood, how are you trying to explain or propose it? You cannot understand it by your own admission.

"He does however offer an interesting thought experiment and one I admit I struggled with for a while, but ultimately I have to agree with Con that my existence can be attributed simply to chance,"
Agreed.

"but this has no relation to the argument because God can explain this abnormality but more importantly it only really to the Universe because, unlike people, the Universe only had one beginning and one chance to be life sustaining""
The universe we observe. Despite the odds, everything that has happened, happened.

"Con gives no secular explanation for this, so you automatically prefer the worldview that explains these things--that is, theism.""
It is the way it is for no "reason" at all. There doesn"t have to be a reason. Call it random chance. You can even attribute the remarkable odds to Quantum Physics and a possible "Multi-verse" that expresses all other possible scenarios. Whether I have an explanation or not, the lack of my explanation does not justify your explanation. This is why you have the BOP, not me.
Debate Round No. 3
thett3

Pro

thett3 forfeited this round.
GorefordMaximillion

Con

Thank you to thett3 for a challenging and wonderful debate!

None of these statements are new arguments, per round 1 rules. This is merely a summary of the debate from a round 1 perspective.

Round 1 notes:
"I will accept the burden of proof in proving the existence of God."
Pro has not met her burden. Not only has her burden not been met, but her very definition of God is flawed and illogical.

"My opponent can present his own arguments if he pleases, but he is under no obligation to do so."
Despite this rule, pro challenged me to offer another explanation, which I did:
Pro: "If theres another explanation Con must offer it, if not you vote Pro"
(See round 3)

"My advocacy will be defending the conception of God as the powerful, sentient creator of the Universe, by showing that both scientifically and philosophically it is more probable that the Universe was created by God than that it arose naturally."
The power and sentience per pro"s definition were shown to be fundamentally flawed. Also, scientific "proof" was countered with my scientific "proof." I showed pro it was impossible to know what was before the big bang.

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 4
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by thett3 3 years ago
thett3
understood. Sorry about the forfeit :(
Posted by GorefordMaximillion 3 years ago
GorefordMaximillion
We've both put a lot of time in this debate...

I think we've each had almost 8000 characters every time LOL...

There's no new arguments in final round either?

I've been studying for finals myself all day. lol.

Plus I waited till the last possible second to submit my round 3 to give you as much time as possible.

I'd be inclined to accept a rematch but I don't feel I can abandon this debate like that.

Plus, it seems like you've made all your points already.

I'm sorry thett3, you're a really great debater!
Posted by emospongebob527 3 years ago
emospongebob527
I don't like people who ask for a tie because they are sore losers.
Posted by thett3 3 years ago
thett3
Would you accept a tie on this debate? I don't have time to do anything but homework :(. We can pick it up later over Christmas break!
Posted by GorefordMaximillion 3 years ago
GorefordMaximillion
I have a final tomorrow myself! lol
Posted by thett3 3 years ago
thett3
Thank you! I will hopefully be able to post tomorrow... stupid pre finals week
Posted by GorefordMaximillion 4 years ago
GorefordMaximillion
I waited till I had 45 seconds left! LOL.

I hope that is enough thett3 :) hahahaha
Posted by GorefordMaximillion 4 years ago
GorefordMaximillion
thett3, you have removed all doubt...

That it take some time to write a rebuttal.

LOL
Posted by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
Thats fine thank you!, and of course I will, just let me know when/if you want me to!
Posted by GorefordMaximillion 4 years ago
GorefordMaximillion
I'd be happy to oblige thett3... A reasonable request from a strong debater...
(And I don't want to try and win an important debate on a technicality!)

I can't stop the clock, but I'll run it out some.
:)
(It will no doubt take some time to write a rebuttal anyway lol.)

I'll aim for posting sometime after 12 hours left. (gives you 2.5 days). Let me know if you'll need a little more... maybe I can do it with 6 hours left.

(I trust you would extend the same courtesy... right? lol :) )
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Cometflash 3 years ago
Cometflash
thett3GorefordMaximillionTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Is unfortunately that PRO could not finish the debate. I give PRO source for using sources other than this site, CON argument for PRO inability to counter. I didn't take conduct since PRO did his best to communicate with CON about his issues.
Vote Placed by philochristos 3 years ago
philochristos
thett3GorefordMaximillionTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: It is most unfortunate that thett3 forfeited. He was winning, and I would've given arguments to him. But I can't give arguments to him since he failed to address Con's final arguments. I read the comment section where thett3 asked to tie the debate. Con refused, and I think that's fair.