The Instigator
Con (against)
14 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

RESOLVED: Philosophically, the Christian God is more likely to exist

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Judge Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/29/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 950 times Debate No: 62409
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)




Okay, so I've been talking to people on DDo, and they have, apparently, provided me a list of "good" judges, who hopefully, would vote from a rational perspective, without any prejudices, on such a controversial issue.

With this said, let us move onto the debate present at hand here!

RESOLVED: The Christian God is More Likely to Exist


Christian God- A tri-omni like figure, whose powers include the following three qualities; omnipotence, omniscience, and omnivolence.

Philosophically-Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.

Likely-In 51 or more of the possible worlds

Debate Format:

Con R1. Introduction
Pro R1. Opening Arguments

Con R2. Rebuttals, and Presentation of Arguments
Pro R2. Rebuttal

Con R3. Counter Rebuttals
Pro R3. Counter Rebuttals

Con R4. Counter Rebuttals
Pro R4. Concluding Remarks

Con R5. Concluding Remarks
Pro R5-Waives

Good luck, and have fun! ;)



This debate will not precisely focus on providing evidence for God's existence, but establishing the philosophical groundwork for why God is likely to exist. I won't be using the Ontological, Cosmological, moral, or Intelligent design arguments. I'm going to be intellectually honest and admit that i see fundamental flaws in each argument. The Ontological argument fails mainly because it is based on reason alone and neglects observation and experience. First, i think that the Ontological argument is entirely subjective. The argument is focused on perfection and conceiving the greatest being to exist, but what is the greatest being to exist? You defined it as God with his attributes. In other words, you defined him into existence. The Cosmological argument also is flawed as it states that everything has a cause and that cause was God. Nothing leads us to believe that it was the Christian God or even a god at all. The moral argument assumes that all morals must have a moral lawgiver when nothing also leads us to believe that morals need a being to exist. Morals can arguably be simple social constructs coming from humans and not God.

I move on to my next point in which God himself is not extraordinary. The concept of God has been around far longer than the ideals imposed by the Enlightenment and secular humanism. God existed since the dawn of humanity. Science has not proven nor provided a solid natural explanation for God. For this debate, I will present a relatively new argument still controversial among philosophers. This argument won't prove that God exists, but that he most likely exists simply by making inferences and conclusions on what constitutes existing in this realm. I think we can agree that we cannot be certain of the existence of reality, thus we will speak in terms of probability. I will present evidence for the Bible's reliability, but I will not be in depth as this is in the field of Philosophy. I may also compare it with other religions and attempt to make the Christian God the most likely explanation by ruling out all others. That being said, let's begin.
Debate Round No. 1


Objections: None

Arguments from Substance-Mode Relation

This argument is mainly based upon substance-mode relationships. A substance here is not a scientific substance, but a philosophical one; one which requires one and only one substance to conceive. Modes are matter that requires another mode or substance to be conceived; the conception of each depend on "attributes" Henceforth, a mode is a dualist matter, whilst the substance is a monist matter. [5]

With this said, let us affirm the following propositions:

Proposition One: There cannot exist two substances with the same nature

For if a substance is of the same nature of another, then that substance would have the same attributes, leading to the conception of that substance requiring another substance. This would make the so-called substance a "mode" because it has the ability to be conceived by another substance.

Proposition Two: Substances are necessarily infinite

If substances are not infinite, then they would have to exist as finite substances. However, if a substance is finite, then it is necessarily true that the substance, via definition of infinite (something greater can be conceived), would have to be limited by a substance of the same nature, and that, as proven in the first proposition, cannot be true. Henceforth, substances are necessarily infinite.

Proposition 2.1: Modes is finite

This should be self evident from proposition Two, for if a mode were infinite, then it would be a substance, for something greater than it would unable to be conceived, which would make it a necessarily dualist entity.

Proposition Three: Infinity is Greater than Finity

This should be a self-evident fact.

Proposition Four: God is necessarily a substance

Since God is the Greatest, then it would follow that God is infinite, not finite, for finity is less great than infinity. A substance is the only type of matter, as we have proven, to be infinite, and it would follow that no modes are infinite; which would the lead inevitably to the conclusion that God must be a substance, for he is infinite.

Proposition Five: The Physical World can conceive God

This is a self-evident fact, for if humans cannot conceive God, then this debate would be non-existent.

Proposition Six: The Physical World is either a mode of God, or God a mode of the Physical World, (P∨G)

As humans can conceive God, then it would follow that all substance are different in conception. Henceforth, it would since follow that since attributes are matter used in the conception of a substance, and since no substance has the same attributes, when an attribute is conceived by another seemingly attribute, the attribute is either a (1) non-attribute/mode, or (2) a mode of the substance. Henceforth, it would seem clear that since God can be conceived by the physical world, then the physical world is either his attribute, or God is an attribute, a mode, of the physical world.

Proposition Seven: If God is a mode, then he is not the greatest and non-existent,

For as was already proven, God has to be a substance, and non-existent. For if God were a mode, then he would be a finite entity, which would allow him to be conceived by something greater than him; however, God is via definition, the greatest. So henceforth, if something greater than God could be conceived, He would not exist.

Proposition Eight: The Physical World is Not a Mode

First Proof: Then let us make the assertion, that the physical world is not a mode, but a substance. Henceforth, the understanding of the physical world can be understood through one substance only. Let us firstly assert that the universe is infinite; since the universe is always expanding, then the universe is necessarily infinite. The expanding universe theory has proven that the universe is most likely infinite, as the force of gravity would either pull the universe down, and planets would be unable to float. We know the universe is expanding because, as Edwin Hubble demonstrated, the distance between a cosmological object was always further, which seemed to prove that the universe was always expanding, for it has been further proven that the visible cosmological objects are, as of current, non-existent, due to the speed of light to earth, which seemed to prove that they were not moving; but the universe is expanding. Something infinite is only a substance, not a mode. [1]

Second Proof: Then let us affirm that the physical world was indeed finite; if the physical world was indeed finite, then it would necessarily be a mode of another substance. However, if the physical world were indeed a mode of another substance, then that substance would also have an attribute of similar finite attribute, a provable one, outside of the physical world. Or henceforth, another world outside of the physical world would necessarily exist; however, let one prove this false by denying the only way that this quality of non-physical worlds can come into existence. Let us call this "other attribute" a multiverse, or a parallel universe. The theory is called the Many-World Interpretation, or philosophically, Modal Realism. Modal Realism is one of those theories whose empirical validity cannot be induced. When a theory has no conclusions that could be induced, then it would be necessarily true that the system with less assumptions would be correct. Modal Realism lays its postulates on several false axiomatic conclusions; the main postulate is that an infinite amount of possible universes exist. (Note here that I have used Modal Realism instead of MWI because Modal Realism is more philosophical) [2]

Third Proof: There is also another proof that needs to be considered. The body-mind dualism, or more specifically, Cartesian Dualism, should be taken into account here. Cartesian dualism states that the body and the mind are separate, so that if the physical world were the "body" then it would require the mind to be conceived, and the mind could be conceived only via God. So henceforth, body-mind dualism apparently disproves the monist character of the physical world. But there arises many objections to this theory. That the material cannot create the immaterial, vice versa, is a true fact indeed. For take this as an example; can the physical body create a ghost-like figure called the soul? Consciousness is wholly created by the brain and neuron activity, with the interaction of both causing this "substance" called the soul. Then how is it so, that once the brain dies, the "soul" goes away? For both entities are dependant of each other. [3][4]

Proposition Nine: The Physical is a Substance, then God is a Mode

This is also self prevalent from proposition seven.

CONCLUSION: If God is a mode, then he is non-existent

Arguments from Morality

This argument will derive two conclusions; that God's existence is made unlikely due to the fact that absolute morality doesn't exist, and evil does.

Proposition One: Tabula Rasa for Complex Moral Representations are Necessarily True

Let us look at this case more clearly; by complex moral representations, I mean to describe the ones that are not self prevalent from the laws of natural selection. Dealing with this first, it comes to mind that through the virtue of Kin Altruism, the laws of natural selection has indeed made some innate impressions of what is "moral" or not. For example, "killing is immoral" is a universal maxim, made via natural selection; for killing implies that the number of population in one species' is decreasing, making it more likely to be overthrown via an increasing number of population in another species. This proves that God did not indeed create innate moral judgments, but humans did, via virtue of natural selection.

With this said, the human mind makes a much more difficult notion when dealing with complex moral representations; for example, "abortion is immoral" is a widely debated issue. The mind comes as a blank canvas for these complex moral representations, and matters and decisions are made on them only due to assent, and not anything else. If they were innate, then the human mind would have agreed on the abortion issue, and there would be no disagreement via assent.

Proposition Two: God is all Good

This should be a self prevalent fact from the definition of God.

Proposition Three: If God exists, then absolute morality is innate

For if God exist, his idea would also be an innate idea. And his existence would make absolute morality innate; for if God created man upon his reflection, then God would, via virtue of omnivolence, create absolute morality to all man.

Proposition Four: Absolute Morality is not innate

But God has not done this, since absolute morality is not innate, and often assented to. An example has been given about abortion.

Conclusion: God does not exist, due to the fact that absolute morality is not innate

Extension to the PoE Arguments: Evil Exists

Why do you lock your doors at night?

Proposition Five: If God is all-Good, then Evil cannot Exist

This classic formulation is an analytical proposition from the virtue of the definition of God; let us adopt Epicurus' argumentation in order to prove this point, and of God not existing. If x entails z, and z consists of a,b,c and if a fundamentally contradicts with y, then y would not exist if entity x does. But y exists. Then entity x is not a, or if he cannot prevent y, he is not b, or if he does not want to prevent y, then he is not c. If a,b and c are disproven via the existence of property y, then henceforth z is disproven. But x entails z, but z is non-existent. It would of course only follow that entity x is not-existent.

I sincerely hope the opposition will post a little more than one of his sophist tricks in the next round, which is supposed to be refuting the opposition. The resolution, for now, is negated.



I am not a Spinozist, albeit I have used his terms. God is not nature.


Con states that God is the greatest, but the greatest is subjective. The philosopher Immanuel Kant in his work "Critique of Pure Reason" states that existence is not dependent on attributes (1). Furthermore, the Scriptures state that God is infinite not because of attributes, but because he is (2). This breaks down Con's argument.

Con proposes two possibilities: 1) God can be conceived by the physical world and hence the universe is his attribute 2) God is an attribute of the physical realm. He goes on deducting his argument following the second proposition, but fails to address the first one. The universe is an attribute of God because he spoke it into his existence (Gen. 1).

The Scriptures don't actually teach that morality is absolute. There are two types of morals (Rom. 2:12-15) those held by the Gentiles and those given to the Jews. That being said, there are many definitions of good and evil. Con cites no evidence to prove that humans derive morals from natural selection. Thus, it cannot be concluded that morals were not induced by God.

The Problem of Evil argument has faulty logical approaches to God. No definitions were given as to what constitutes good and evil in God's eyes. In order for there to be a logical contradiction, you would need to present at least two opposing morals taken to be true at once. Since existence is not dependent on attributes, hypothetically, God can be evil and still exist. It's also faulty to assume that God would eliminate all evil from the start as no where in Scripture do we find this concept. The ability to commit evil and consequences following in Genesis 2-3 shows that God did not create the world morally perfect. It doesn't follow that God has to stop evil in this present state we are in. That being said, no contradiction in God's nature can be found as he can choose the time he wants evil to be eliminated.

It's simply a misunderstanding of how God works that makes Con's arguments invalid concerning the Christian God. These arguments fail to disprove God's existence.

My terms are as follows:

Reality - The universe as it exists objectively

objective - based on external truth through observation and logic, not dependent on personal opinions and feelings

subjective - derived from personal opinions, experiences, thoughts, etc.

Truth - conformity with fact or reason

Evidence - anything observable that can be used to support a position

Know - to perceive with the mind an understanding of Truth through observation, experience, logic, or evidence.

Experience - personal encounter or observance with something external

Divine experience - Personal encounter with the divine in some way, shape, or form

Mind - the consciousness that perceives, thinks, feels, senses, etc.

Illusion - something deceiving and leading to a false conclusion of reality

Physical - of pertaining to that which is material

Spiritual - pertaining to that which is spirit

I will begin by saying that it can be since it can be agreed that absolute Truth cannot be attained by humans with limits, we will simply discuss the best approaches to the existence of God. Before we do that, i will explain why my argument is just as logically sound as concluding reality exists.

1. A divine experience proves God's existences
2. Therefore God exists

Of course, you are already assuming that the experience is divine. However assuming certain things about reality doesn't imply that it's false, simply that the argument is derived from those assumptions. I take the position that we assume the existence of the universe. We can't prove it or otherwise, we would be using circular reasoning.

Humans have conflicting concepts of what reality and illusions are. Simple examples would be:

P1: Ghosts are a reality to Human x
P2: Reality is known by only experience
P3: Human x has seen a ghost
P4: Human x infers ghosts exist
C: Ghosts are a reality to Human x

That being said, any attempt to change Human x would be futile as he already accepts that ghosts are real and anything contradicting his belief is an illusion. An opposing idea can be done with another human.

P1: Ghosts are an illusion to human y
P2: Reality is known purely by evidence
P3: Human y has never seen evidence for ghosts
P4: Human y infers ghosts probably don't exist
C: Ghosts are an illusion to human y

Using this logic, we can infer that human x and y's beliefs inductively apply to all humans. Can we know absolutely know who's right and who's wrong? Not really. I take the position that knowledge is subjective depending on the axioms you take on the world.

I propose there are several methods in knowing God's existence:

1. Evidence - Evidence coming from various fields such as science, history, archaeology, etc. which can objectively know the physical aspect of reality rather than rely on pure experience and relies on inductive reasoning to gain it's knowledge of truth.

ex: Doing a scientific study on the effects of weed on humans by testing select volunteers.

The limits of this method is that it's not absolute. It's inductive, but does not always apply to all circumstances.


P1: All humans are mortal
P2: Human x is immortal
C: Not all humans are mortal

2) Experience - we only have our senses and mind to gain knowledge of truth and reality

ex: concluding humans exist by observing them

The limits of this is that although it's on direct observation, it cannot be applied to gain objective and truthful knowledge of reality.

ex: I cannot use my experience of an alien abductions to prove to you that aliens exist

3) Logic - You can deductively come to a logical conclusion from premises.

Ex: If Larry is sick, then he will be absent.
If Larry is absent, then he will miss his classwork.
Therefore, if Larry is sick, then he will miss his classwork."

The limits of this is that it's all subjective in the mind and requires objective experience on observations on reality

ex: You get from observations that absence equals the missing of classwork because of how society is structured.

These can all be used to find God's existence provided that each one is used correctly which i will explain in full detail next round.



2. YHWH comes from the root Haya which means "to be"
Debate Round No. 2



I shall divide my argumentation into many objections upon the fundamental destructive groundwork of the opposition. He has failed to even remotely address my points with his reasoning. He is arguing as if this debate resolution stated that Biblically, the Christian God is more likely to exist. I have attacked this point in my scripture usage objection. He has also gone forward and has attacked logical reasoning. I must say I am disgusted. However, before I attack his points, I shall show the circular logic of his argumentation at small little points.

Furthermore, the Scriptures state that God is infinite not because of attributes, but because he is (2).

That is a fallacy of no proof and of circular argumentation.

The universe is an attribute of God because he spoke it into his existence (Gen. 1).

Do you let the Scripture override your usage of reason? The opposition has raised no points, and his groundwork are weaker than the soil accommodating the leaning towers of Pisa.

Objection One: Existence is dependent on attributes

§1 Affirm the following facts: (xΞ(a\wedgeb)) in the context of a God. Investigating the truth-values into this, it will necessarily follow that ~a or ~b necessarily necessitates ~x. This is a statement that necessarily holds true in regards to existence of a deity, whose results would necessitate the conditions defined in the beginning. For if x were in reality a and b, then one cannot say that since ~a is an affirmation, x can still be true.

§2 With this axiomatic (xΞ(a\wedgeb)) proven, then one would look in regards at (xΞ(a\wedgeb)) in context to this debate. Since x is the predicate, and a and b are conditionals, then the denial of the conditional would deny the predicate. As defined, God (the predicate) necessarily presupposes all-good and omniscience. Since the second nature of God cannot be sufficiently disproven, one should dismiss it. But the all-good quality of God, that God is good, necessarily denies the axiomatic conclusion of the nature of the statement. For the second part of the statement is a conjunction, and conjunction demands “and” as a condition.

§3 If I said “Jack and Jill went up the hill” but only “Jill” climbed the hill, does that necessarily affirm the proposition? Or if I said, "my homework exists if I did it and saved it on my computer" but in fact, I did do it, but forgot to save it on my computer, then isn't the proposition negated? This seemingly proves that existence, accordingly to definition, is dependent on the attributes of conception of the concept, or ways of perception.

Objection Two: On Scripture Usage

§1 Thomas Paine, in his pamphlet “Common Sense” famously articulated that:

“To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.”

How can the opposition simply believe that my arguments are refuted by what the scripture says? We are not in a church, neither are we in a Sophistic school. We are here debating. “The universe was created by God, according to the Bible” Then I ask you, what validity that Bible has in such a debate like ours.

Objection Three: Defending the Mode-Substance Argument

§1 How absurd it is to say that since a book says x, then x is real. As proven in my scripture objection, the scripture does not appeal to me. QUITE SIMPLY, I don't care about what the scripture says: if reasoning brings me to another conclusion, then I would simply have to follow that conclusion. With this said, lets analyze the claims of the opposition:

Proposition 1. The universe is an attribute of God, because God created it

Accordingly to what?

The Scripture

I fail to see how the Scripture is more credible than reasoning. For if the scripture said that 1+1=5, would you believe in it? Or if the word of God said the Earth is Flat, but every evidence proven states that the earth is round, would the scripture be correct? Departing from hypotheticals, the Bible states that Noah's Worldwide Flood is an actual event. Accordingly to what? The Bible. Why is it credible? Because it is the word of God. This is the logic the opposition builds on.

Objection Four: Defense of the Problem of Evil and Morality

§1 This comes back to the property, existence, and attributes dilemma. The opposition affirms that God did not create man perfectly “moral” and refers to Genesis 2-3. Then the opposition affirms that God may still be evil and exist; this is built upon two assumptions, that the definition of God did not include the all-good virtue, which is a lie. If the opposition affirms that the God he is talking about a God that may be evil, then we are not talking about the Christian God, which is the main point of this debate. The opposition has contradicted the definition, and if he were indeed trying to move the goalpost, then perhaps it would be sufficient to deduce the argumentation again, as it still remains thoroughly valid.

  1. 1. God is all-good
  2. 2. Evil exists
  3. 3. If Evil Exists, God either cannot stop (1) it from existing, (2) God does not want to, or (3) God does not know
  4. 4. If (1), then God is not omnipotent
  5. 5. If (2), then God is not omnivolent
  6. 6. If (3), then God is not omniscient

Existence is built upon attributes, or at least in this case, it is so.

§2 Again, the opposition has strawman-ed my argument. As all-good entails that morality is an innate priority, then it would be necessarily so that moral absolutist values have been given to us, before our birth, or by some divine being so good and great that it is infinite.

The opposition again cites the Scripture. So God is all-good? Yep. Why does evil exist? Because man was not perfect when created. But if God were all-good, isn't our brain hardwired to admit certain moral truths? But the Bible doesn't say that. Why do you let the Bible control your reasoning? Because it’s the word of God. Wait, why does God not prevent evil? Because he does not want to. Then is God all good?

This is the logic of the opposition's argumentation.

Objection Five: Divine Experiences

§1 How does one thing exist if someone has experienced it, and no one else? What proof does divine experiences provide us with? This question shall be addressed.

§2 Firstly, a divine experience gives us no proof of God. It gives us perceptions of God, but not the existence of God itself. It in itself is a fallacious pseudo-argument, via using the fallacies of anecdotal evidence and cherry picking. I have indeed experienced the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but how is that enough proof to say that He exists? Experience is not existence.

Secondly, the significance of “anecdotal evidences” is non-existent. If the anecdote proves that God exists to the opposition, then so be it, but I fail to see remotely how the opposition thinks that this horrible ontological argument will even appeal to anyone.

§3 Lastly, we shall do more to dismiss this horrible logical reasoning. I apologize to Aristotle for this syllogism on the behalf of the opposition. How can something, from one proposition, come to a conclusion when the proposition is not analytical?

Objection Six: On Certainty

§1 Perhaps it may suffice here to deduce some points that must be necessarily proven. How can one be certain at something? How can x be certainly true? Then let us take this argumentation. The nature of truth is subjective; the truth is not. Metaphysics, the study of the nature of a already deduced truth, i.e we exist, and our existence implies that we are living things, is naturally subjective. But that we live is objective.

§2 With this said, let us easily wipe all of the opposition's faulty reasoning and absurd argumentation. Let us consider the opposition's pseudo-argumentation on his ghost premise. His ghost premise talks about the limitations of logical reasoning. Yes, it is true than some people do believe in ghost, others do not, but say x believed in ghost, and y didn't. Henceforth, it would then follow (on the basis of Aristotelian logic) that:

P1. Some people believe in ghosts
P2. People who believe in ghosts are y
C. Some people are y

If this is an attempt to prove the limitations of logic, then the opposition is failing miserably. For logical reasoning, especially syllogisms, is built upon the basis of two previously affirmed notions. It would follow that logical reasoning is completely analytical, or at least, syllogisms. For we are expanding on the notions that are already presumably true.

§3 Apart from this, the absurdities of the opposition’s points are further raised up by the fact that he calls deductive logic inductive. He cherry-picks faulty syllogisms that shows nothing but the absurdities of his own reasoning. All his "logical arguments" are simply a set of propositions, not connected by each other, ready to be demolished by his further "attacks on faulty logic" that he conducts.

§4 After affirming that since a syllogism is analytical, shall I take the final step to say that anything analytical is a priori via nature? For example, "my gold mine yields gold" or "my pie is made of bread" are analytical. Does one need to go into a gold mine to prove that it yields gold? A pie, via definition, is made of bread, so would we need to have experience eating pie to know this fact? The true question here is synthetic a priori and the possibility of that.

Objection Seven: On Empiricism

What is the empirical? It is the reliance on science, on the studies of reality. What is the rational? The reliance on reasoning, and reasoning alone. If the opposition takes the affirmation of empirical evidences and how that can be the only proof of God, or of existence in general, then I wish him the best of luck. With this said, he makes the unscientific claim that God can be proven empirically, but does not follow it.


This resolution is negated. Appeals to emotion, circular logic, anecdotes and many other faulty sophistic reasoning provides for weak and absurd points.




"That is a fallacy of no proof and of circular argumentation."

Con doesn't state the fallacy that i committed, doesn't acknowledge my source, and doesn't demonstrate why it's circular reasoning.

"If I said "Jack and Jill went up the hill but only Jill climbed the hill, does that necessarily affirm the proposition? Or if I said, "my homework exists if I did it and saved it on my computer" but in fact, I did do it, but forgot to save it on my computer, then isn't the proposition negated? This seemingly proves that existence, accordingly to definition, is dependent on the attributes of conception of the concept, or ways of perception."

It doesn't because no where are there any attributes describing them as the "great." Existence is entirely based on your observation of Jack and Jill and your homework.

"How can the opposition simply believe that my arguments are refuted by what the scripture says?"

Your resolution is "Philosophically, the Christian God is more likely to exist", therefore we are forced to understand God through the Christian perspective. If you wanted no Scriptures, you should have stated so or otherwise simply state that "God" exists.

Con commits the strawman fallacy (1). No where is "because the Bible said so" in my set of logical propositions.

"Existence is built upon attributes"

Con provided no reasoning for this case. He ignores the other arguments refuting the problem of evil.

" I have indeed experienced the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but how is that enough proof to say that He exists? Experience is not existence."

Science isn't meant to discover the existence of things, but to learn more about the universe (2). If the Flying Spaghetti Monster is supernatural then Science will not be concerned with it.

"If the anecdote proves that God exists to the opposition"

Con falsely accuses me of anecdotal evidence when the resolution is "Philosophically, the Christian God is more likely to exist." I am not giving empirical evidence for God, simply stating why he exists.

"we live is objective"

Con gives no logical reasoning to deduce our existence. We live is an assumption that we hold.

"Yes, it is true than some people do believe in ghost, others do not"

Con already agrees with me that humans can reach different conclusions and that those cannot be affected unless one takes certain other axioms.

The rest of his points are irrelevant.

As i said, using logic and science wisely, we can calculate that God most likely exists. Before i get into that discussion, i must clarify a few things. All religions cannot be true at once as it would violate classical physics.

Science cannot "prove" God's existence.

P1: Science is concerned with what's physical
P2: God is spiritual
C: Science cannot study God

Does that mean it cannot be known that God exists? Not necessarily. What would be required to acknowledge the existence of another being? By simply examining how we treat other concepts.

For example, how do i know that you exist?

P1: Knowing requires objective observation
P2: Objective observation leads to Reality
P3: I can objectively observe you
C: You exist

Truth does not only consist of empirical evidence, but also experience and logic. I'll give an example.

P1: There will be consequences for your actions
P2: I rob a bank
P3: The police are after me
C: Therefore, there are consequences to my actions

Abstract concepts such as love also cannot be seen, but somehow believed on. In fact, cognitive scientists have found that even atheists believe in things you might consider "supernatural" (3).

In a scientific setting, Occam's razor states that the simplest explanation is often the correct one (4). If all other possibilities for other candidates of God can be ruled out then the God of the Bible can be demonstrated to be the true God.

Is the God of the Bible a human invention? No psychological, historical, or archaeological evidence would indicate so. Branches of science such as neurotheology do not attempt to explain his existence, but rather how religious experiences work (5). You could logically infer that God is simply a product of the brain, but the religious person is equally justified in arguing that God hardwired our brains to believe in him. Who is right? Scientifically, it's inconclusive.

It's easier to approach the monotheistic concept of God than polytheistic ones as they speak in absolutes.

Textual critics have found that very little changes have been found in the Old and New Testament of the Scriptures that do not affect a single doctrine (6). How is this possible? How is it possible for mere humans to write about specific concepts consistent with each other throughout time without any bias or corruptions introduced? What are the implications of this? That some form of intelligent being must be behind all this.

Now it doesn't imply that God exists or that he did it, but other possibilities are less likely such as aliens. for example biblical prophecies are precisely accurate predictions of the future. Aliens could not cause everything to happen in the Bible as it would require the ability to foresee the future which they don't have. Furthermore, there's alot of psychological factors in the Bible which directly relate to human nature which is something that aliens probably are unaware of or if they are, how did they become aware of it? How could they come to the Earth without us noticing? There are many possibilities which makes it extremely unlikely for aliens to have caused the Bible.

According to a mathematician, prophecy are mathematically very unlikely events (7). Thus, it's very unlikely for humans themselves to fulfill them alone and also for aliens without risking a time paradox.

That being said, once we analyze each possibility going against God and rule them out, the explanation of God becomes the simplest one.








Debate Round No. 3



I shall briefly dismiss the absurd points of the opposition and to point out several misusages of the word “fallacy”

Objection One: On Science

Obj. 1.1 Anything that can be experienced or conceived in the physical world has a physical explanation

Defense: For anything that studies reality, they necessarily study the existence of such realities; for anything that studies the nature of reality, they study an a priori cognition which allows men to build on, to rationalize, and this rationalization is seen in metaphysics, ethics, and epistemology.

Obj. 1.2 Existence cannot be rationalize

Defense: Let us first assume that all existence can be rationalized. If the existence of the object x can be rationalized, then object x both empirically and rationally exist in a possible world. But let us take the notion of color; a man has experienced many shades of blue except for a particular one. If existence could be rationalized, then the color or particular shade of blue that is missing from the man’s imagination would be an a priori cognition. However, the man would not even have any conceptions about this particular missing shade of blue, for all existence is solely based on a posteriori notions. If the opposition can prove to me that he could create something from nothing; that is, if he could create and prove the existence of something without any input to it, then he is mistaken. [10]

Objection Two: Fallacies

Obj. 2 This shall be short, and concise. The opposition accuses me of committing strawman. Need I quote the opposition’s own sophistic reasoning to demonstrate that it is he who has strawmaned his own arguments?

The universe is an attribute of God because he spoke it into his existence (Gen. 1).

The ability to commit evil and consequences following in Genesis 2-3 shows that God did not create the world morally perfect

Obj. 2.1 The opposition commits another error; moving the goalpost. The opposition has attempted to argue, “Theologically, the Christian God exists” not “PHILOSOPHICALLY the Christian God exists” Philosophy deals with reality, and the study of reality and the nature of it. Theology deals with other more complex religious functions that are of no interest to this debate.

Obj. 2.2 The opponent apart from that has cherry picked my arguments, ignoring what I wrote and just taking the points in which he finds absurd. If the opposition thinks I am arguing for solipsism, or if he is, then I appeal only to the reasoning of the judges to vote him down for ignoratio elenchi. [7][8] Apart from this, the opposition has committed "causation-correlation" fallacy. "If a theory correlates with reality, then the theory must be true" is a wholly false statement. The Flying Spaghetti Monster created spaghetti; does that mean he exists?

Objection Three: On Certainty

Obj. 3 Here is one of the points where my argument has been cherry picked. The opposition here thinks that syllogisms are an extraordinary case, where the truth can be derived synthetic a priori. However, this is not the case. In fact, the truth in all syllogisms is derived analytic a priori, which arises from some a posteriori impressions. For example, let us dismiss the opposition’s invalid unaristotelian syllogisms for more sound and valid ones.

P1. Some people rob banks

P2. All bank robberies are illegal

C. Some people commit illegal actions

This derives from the following:

P1. SiP

P2. SaP

C. SiP

This is a logically valid syllogism of the Dimaltis type, which builds upon the first premise to prove and the second premise, two a posteriori notions, to prove the conclusion. We can henceforth dismiss the fact that the opposition claims that pure reasoning can lead to truths, for pure reasoning can only lead to conclusions from established truths, or axioms, that we hold. [9]

Objection Four: Occam’s Razor

Obj. 4 Occam’s Razor is a simple theory that states that in the absence of provable and empirical evidence, the theory with the simplest explanations and without the most assumptions, would be the most scientifically valid theory. [6] The opposition talks as if we still lived in the 1500s, where we had a lack of information about the world. However, we do have concrete evidence for the non-existence of God, or at least the unneed for it. Let us take the following proposition for example:

"The universe was created from something "higher" entity" is another false statement. For if it were, then what caused God? If God were a free lunch (i.e God always existed) then that violates the cause-effect structure. If God was always there, then why not say the universe was always there? The Big Bang, the best explanation for the causations of the universe, was caused by quantum flunctuations which allowed for time, space and atoms to be formed. If the Christian God caused it, then the universe is 6,000 years old. In reality, that is a false statement, for there has been no proof, or definitive ones, of the universe being that young. [3][4]

Objection Five: God is a Human Concept

Obj. 5 God was created by humans, or by the human mind. Firstly, let us take the "natural dualist" explanations. It may seem indeed absurd to think the human "soul" will survive its own death. Human beings are natural dualists, firstly. Dualism is an innate structure, in which all humans were born with. However, as proven in the substance-mode argument, two substances of different nature cannot be the cause of one another; then how could the material and immaterial interact with each other? Nevertheless, since humans are natural born dualists, then without much reasoning, they would be dualists for the rest of their lives. If humans are natural dualists, then it would be more justifiable and reasonable to believe in God, that is, if dualism were true. [1]

Obj 5.1 God is also reasonable to believe in. But there are historical evidences that disproves God. All monotheistic religions, or at least many, derive from one group; the Jews. Accordingly to the Bible, the Jews are desert mongers who were drafted by the "pharoah" to build cities. Let us look at this in a more general perspective; the theory that someone human created the one-God theory historicaly is a very valid structure. There was one particular Egyptian Pharoah, Amenohept IV, who created the first monotheistic religion. Amenohept IV denied the many Gods theory, and much like the Chinese, he thought that he was the only God. The cult of Atens was henceforth create. Amenohept recruited "desert dwellers" (accordingly to the records) to build a new city, but soon died of plague, to be succeded by his son, Tutenkhamen. (Correlation much?) This theory then states that Amenohept recruited the "Jews" to build his cities, and in reality, the "Jews" were worshippers of the cults of Atens. Now, how could such an absurd theory be supported? The main concepts is that since Amenohept lived around the time Moses lived, and they simply talked about the same events that happened, then historically, there is no better explanation. What the Jews really called God was a human pharoah; this is psychologically valid too. The Emperor of Japan still claims divination over his people, and is accepted. So henceforth, we can come to conclude that the true origins of God was in a spoiled pharoah who created a cult that worshipped himself. [2]

Objection Six: Correlation/Causation

Obj. 6 Many cultures in the world are connected via flood myths. Nevertheless, let us take a detour into the discussion of the Old-New Testament for a brief period of time. The New Testament and the Old Testament is accordingly an anthology of all the works of major thinkers and philosophers of the time. It is a reflection of the thinkings of the time itself, not the word of divinity. The opposition claims that since there are correlations betwen both, they are both "divine texts" and God exists. However, how does the opposition account for the differences between both? More importantly, if it were truly divine, then why is it not accepted by the whole world? Apart from this, there are flood myths all over the world. If this were truly divine, then how could civilization itself account for all these Gods being true; an example is the conflict between Noah's Flood and the Chinese Flood myths, both if they were true, would easily be contradictory to each other. We have no evidence for a worldwide flood. [5]

Objection Seven: Existence is Dependent on Attributes

Obj. 7
Existence is dependent on attributes, or at least, in this case it is. The opposition uses my analogy and completely misinterprets it. Then let us talk about God in general, and how his attributes cannot ever be satisfied; the opposition still leaves my case fully affirmed through the Epicurean logic used. Nevertheless, God is via definition, all good. After affirming this, let us also affirm that he is omniscient. Then, using the axiomatic (xΞ(a\wedgeb)) proposition, then ~a or ~b would necessarily result in a negation of x itself. God cannot be all good, for he has killed people in the flood and evil still exists. God can be omniscient, but that is highly unlikely. Henceforth, God cannot exist in such a world where the conditionals of his existence are sufficiently negated.

All of my points remain more or less affirmed. They have been faced with piecemeal attacks from the opposition, and that is all. The resolution remains negated, and the cherries the opposition has picked are now rotten.







"Theology deals with other more complex religious functions that are of no interest to this debate."

Because the resolution is "..the Christian God is more likely to exist.." you have allowed for theology to be introduced.

"The Flying Spaghetti Monster created spaghetti; does that mean he exists?"

You are under the presumption that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist. If it can be shown that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does exist then we would accept it. Therefore i did not commit the causation-correlation fallacy.

"The universe was created from something "higher" entity" is another false statement. For if it were, then what caused God? If God were a free lunch (i.e God always existed) then that violates the cause-effect structure. If God was always there, then why not say the universe was always there? The Big Bang, the best explanation for the causations of the universe, was caused by quantum flunctuations which allowed for time, space and atoms to be formed. If the Christian God caused it, then the universe is 6,000 years old. In reality, that is a false statement, for there has been no proof, or definitive ones, of the universe being that young."

I can simply propose that God is the cause of everything as he is outside of space and time, thus it does not violate any structure. The universe wasn't always there because God caused it. The big bang does explain what caused the universe, but how it expanded from a single point (1). You also presume that the universe is 6,000 years old when you provide no Scriptural support. Therefore, you did not "disprove" God.

"as proven in the substance-mode argument, two substances of different nature cannot be the cause of one another; then how could the material and immaterial interact with each other? "

You did not refute my counter-arguments against that, hence your claim that God was invented by humans was not proven. Being justified to believe in God does not indicate God is not real.

Con argues that Jewish monotheism was derived from Egyptian theology under the assumption that polytheism is derived from monotheism. First of all, Neolithic societies were monotheistic. Second of all, by comparing and contrasting the two belief systems, we will see that no borrowing ever occurred.

1. There was no concept of salvation in Atenism. He could careless if you worshiped other gods. This is strictly forbidden in the ten commandments.

2. Atenism did not begin as monotheism, but as henotheism or the preference of one god over others.

3. Jewish monotheism is full of ethical practices and morality whereas Atenism is not.

In conclusion, Monotheism did not originate with Egyptian beliefs (2).

As for the great deluge, there are several things which must be taken into consideration.

1. The Bible does not say that the flood itself was global. On the contrary, it is local (3) based on the grammatical usage of the word "eretz" in Hebrew.

2. The fact that there are many myths is irrelevant, simply that each has their own version and interpretation of the flood.

These religions have died out while the Jewish/Christian concept of God has survived for thousands of centuries from oppression, corruption, and persecution. How can that be if not by divine intervention?

"God cannot be all good, for he has killed people in the flood and evil still exists."

God did not murder people in the flood, he brought divine judgement because of their wickedness (Gen. 6). I have already refuted the problem of evil earlier and my counter-arguments went uncontested.

In conclusion, Con failed to disprove God's existence. All the evidence points to the Christian God most likely existing.


1. "Although the big bang theory is famous, it's also widely misunderstood. A common misperception about the theory is that it describes the origin of the universe. That's not quite right. The big bang is an attempt to explain how the universe developed from a very tiny, dense state into what it is today. It doesn't attempt to explain what initiated the creation of the universe, or what came before the big bang or even what lies outside the universe."


Debate Round No. 4



Let us restate the definition of theology. Theology is the systematic and rational study of concepts of God and of the nature of religious truths. And philosophy (as defined in round one) is: the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.

Theology assumes that God already exists, whilst philosophy proves God. Theology is based upon Biblical values whilst philosophy is based on secular ones. Theology is, in short, not philosophy. The opp. is under the false delusion that it is. All his arguments regarding scripture usage are, in short, dismissed as ignoratio elenchi. The resolution is indeed NOT "the Christian God is more likely to exist" but "Philosophically, the Christian God is more likely to exist" The opposition has strawman-ed the resolution.

As philosophy is the study of reality and existence, then it would be more than logical to include history and empirical sciences in the dwindle.

Objection One: Moses and Monotheism

Obj. One
Moses was firstly the following:

Obj. 1.1. Moses was an Egyptian, not a Jew. Accordingly to Biblical Scriptures, Moses was supposedly picked up by an Egyptian princess from the Nile, who accordingly named him Moses, after the Hebrew-based word called "picked out" Firstly, this is an absurd thing, to claim that an Egyptian Princess knew Hebrew. Secondly, son is Egyptian is in reality "Amose" If it were really an Egyptian Princess he took care of Moses, then it would be most likely to say that Moses was in reality an abridgement of Amoses. [1]

Obj 1.2. Moses was also of noble origins, not of humble ones. Many ancient myths were often attributed to metaphors of what actually happened. Moses, as one would see, is part of this delusive never ending myth. Observe the following; in many cultures, there is a "hero myth" that includes the following factors:

1. Some hero put in a basket and thrown down some river or abandoned in some mountain
2. After being found by someone often with humble origins, the same baby grows up
3. After growing and meeting one's father through absurd adventures, he kills his father through or leads his people/followers to rebellion and takes control.

There are many people or myths whose origins follow this pattern. Oedipus, Romulus, and Sargon (not the judge of course) are some examples of this. However, if these myths were all true, then there would not have been the many differences that exists as of now. For example, if this myth originated from one source, then Moses would have married his mother, or Moses would have been the creator of Rome. However, as this is false, then there must be a more rational explanation for this. It henceforth concluded that this is a mere metaphor; Moses was in reality Egyptian nobility, whose "river myth" was based upon the womb. The mother is equated to the basket; the taking out of him is equated to the day when he was born. If the mother were really an Egyptian Princess, then there is no possibility that he is an orphan. It is common sensical to assume that. This is the logic that must be employed to rationally come to such conclusions. [2]

Obj 1.3. Moses was a follower of the Kult of Atens. This is a very true statement; as is proven before, Moses was a member of the Egyptian nobility. It was a custom for nobility to adopt the religion of the King worldwide. Moses lived during the rise of the Kult of Atens, and henceforth, he adopted the Aten-based religion. [2,3]

With this said, let us easily refute the opposition's points.

Obj 1.4. To say that since something is not present in another theory means that it is not based on it is inherently faulty. Christianity was based on Judaism, yet the former was much based on Jesus being the Messiah, whilst the latter teaches that Jesus might have been a prophet of God, but not a messiah. I am indeed no theologian, but one religion can be based in its basis upon another religion, and in its fundamental beliefs, but can differ in how it functions.

Apart from this, there can be adaptations of other beliefs/systems of beliefs that would modify the main doctrine; for example, socialism was adapted into a more nationalistic background and proved to have created fascism. The opposition simply provides differences between both; but it has already been proven that Moses was an Egyptian, a Noble, and a follow of the Atenist Cult. Henceforth, it can easily be said that the idea of Monotheism developed from a person, not divinity.

Objection Two: Flood and Other Theological Falsities Argued

Obj. 2
Flood was indeed global. Let us take the following point; eretz here does not refer to lands only, but the whole globe. The Hebrew Creation Narrative in Genesis 1 proves this; for the word "eretz" was used when the Hebrews said "God created the world" Accordingly, 87.5% of the word "eretz" were used to describe the other. For example, the word eretz was used when God created the seas, and gave the world light. If the opposition thinks that the flood is local, then he has great imagination. Unfortunately, imagination cannot yield the truth; if the flood was local, then the following would have happened. Noah would not have required an ark to escape it, and birds would have flown away to foreign lands. Noah, as a shepherd herder, would not have built an ark if the floods were local; he would have just simply fled the lands. It is more than clear that the floos are indeed global. [4]

Obj. 2.1 Let us take the YEC stance and prove that the Bible insists, via induction, not deduction, that the earth is 6,000+- years old. If we were to take the model used by Hebrew scholars, then one shall use the chronology Seder Olam Rabbah, a chronicle of events that happened "since the creation of the world" to prove it. The Seder provides a date of creation at ~3700BC and uses all the events that were present in the Bible to support it; it ends at Alexander's Conquest of Persia. Henceforth, it is easily said that the earth was indeed around 6,000AD. [5]

Obj. 2.2 Neolithic societies were indeed not monotheistic. The absurdities of such claim are false; neolithic societies worshipped women as godesses, and bulls as God. In Neolithic Europe, society was Goddess centered, where women were worshipped and their council taken for granted. We know this because of the plethora of statues of women and bulls and the seeming worship of them. For no sane civilization, especially after the Bronze Revolution, would have built and carved many statues of women without worshipping them. [6]

Objection Three: Misc

Obj. 3
Let us reply to the opposition's rebuttal to the "problem of evil" via a simple argument.

  1. 1. God is all-good
  2. 2. Evil exists
  3. 3. If Evil Exists, God either cannot stop (1) it from existing, (2) God does not want to, or (3) God does not know
  4. 4. If (1), then God is not omnipotent
  5. 5. If (2), then God is not omnivolent
  6. 6. If (3), then God is not omniscient
If this does not suffice, then shall we say the following; if the opposition argues for a God that may be evil, or not all-powerful, or not all-knowing, then he has misinterpreted the terms and is arguing for another resolution inherently. Henceforth, such arguments stating that God has no need to prevent Evil in modern times would mean that he is not all good. If God has no abilities to do so, then he is not all powerful etc. This is the main argumentation that remains affirmed.

Obj. 3.1 God murdered people worthlessly and mercilessly in the flood, even if the opposition affirms that such murders were just.

Obj. 3.2 Jewish-Christian religions have survived for thousand and thousands of years does not prove anything else but that the religions are persuasive and often optimistic. Hinduism has survived for much longer than Judeo-Christian religions, and is still of considerable size; does the opponent go further to say that Hinduism's survival is only due to the mere fact of divine intervention? Buddhism has done the same, and is now getting increased recognition; is this because of divine intervention? How absurd is it to assume that since something has survived for a long time should its needs be true.

Obj 3.4 Fallacies; throughout this whole debate, the opposition has cherry picked my arguments. He has strawman-ed my points, has ignoratio elenchi-ed his argumentation, and has affirmed his points through the usage of circular logic. He has committed causation-correlation fallacy in his argumentation about the Old-New Testament, has used anecdotes to prove his points, and has left all of my points affirmed, whilst claiming that I did not disprove his points. He has moved the goalpost, and his underlying logic throughout the whole debate is based upon circular logic. These are some of the fallacies that has been committed by the opposition and "philosophizing" that he further affirms in other rounds. [6]


1. The opposition has left my main argumentation, the substance-mode relationship arguments, thoroughly affirmed. He has attempted piecemeal attacks on some of the propositions, and does nothing to refute it.

2. The opposition has cherry picked my arguments. Unluckily for him, the cherry he picked are now rotten.

3. His argumentation barely argues for or against the resolution. He only affirms his philosophical beliefs about what certainty is.


The resolution remains negated!

Remember next round is a waive on pro's side as agreed in R1





In obedience to the rules for Round 5, i waive.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by 18Karl 3 years ago

Thing is, I've read zmike's and Tovy's stuff and they're just too good for me. I need quantificational logic training, and i'm barely through as demonstrate with prop. logic! :'( cri cri
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
I'll read through this and have a vote up in a few days.
Posted by UchihaMadara 3 years ago
Con, you should consider re-doing this debate against someone like Toviyah or Zmikecuber. They are more likely to give you a greater challenge than Con did here.
Posted by 18Karl 3 years ago

I have taken a modal realist perspective of 51+ of 100 worlds.
Posted by RoyLatham 3 years ago
The challenge seems poorly worded and should be clarified. I think it means, "The Christian God is more likely to exist than not." "Likely" means having a probability greater than 1/2. The reference to 51 possible worlds is confusing.
Posted by 18Karl 3 years ago
Haha you were on the judges leaderboard.
Posted by UchihaMadara 3 years ago
heh, I'm not completely sure what I'm doing on a list with people like Whiteflame, Bladerunner, and BoT, but thanks for the nom anyways :D
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both had proper conduct throughout. S&G - Tie. Both had proper spelling and grammar throughout, no major mistakes made by either side. Sources - Tie. Whilst both shared sources, I found issues with both - specifically the reliance on Wikipedia which in itself is not a direct source. Arguments - Con. Pro leaned to heavily on poking holes in the wrong places, as well as letting Con control the tide of this debate. Pro relied heavily on "fallacy-pointing" yet Con flipped them right back effectively. Pro left a few of Con's challenges uncontested, and in other areas refuted irrelevent points which additionally hurt him in affirming the resolution. This was a good debate, but Con comes out as the winner for me.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I never really see any responses by Pro to Con's arguments. Moreover, the case he builds for the resolution appears to interpret "philosophically" loosely at best, as he rarely engages in a logical argument over whether this god is likely to exist. In fact, much of his argumentation seems to be based in showing that there's no way to know. Even if I bought that, it's Pro's burden to show that "the Christian God is MORE LIKELY to exist." Establishing equal likelihood is not enough. But I'm not buying that. Much as I felt that Con's arguments had a lot of decent points that could be attacked, it's left so firmly standing by the end of the debate that it is by far the strongest philosophical argument in the debate. And he's winning it thoroughly, despite a few lackluster objections. Ergo, I vote Con.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Though I don't normally take Wikipeadia as an acceptable source I will give 18Karl the source points for him having more sources in the debate. I also feel as though many of Con's points went unrefuted and because of that the resolution is thus negated and the argument points go to Con.
Vote Placed by UchihaMadara 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: There isn't much to say here... Virtually all of Con's arguments went over Pro's head; he barely even attempted to address the Substance-Mode argument, only weakly objecting to a couple of its premises with statements of his opinions and appeals to authority (e.g. "Kant said so"). But more importantly, Pro's arguments were completely refuted, with Con showing that all of them were based in blatant logical fallacies (especially circular logic) and unproven assumptions. Clear win for Con.