The Instigator
Truth_seeker
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Mikal
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Resolved - God exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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...
Mikal
Voting Style: Judge Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/20/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,312 times Debate No: 60689
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (47)
Votes (4)

 

Truth_seeker

Pro

Lets get this going. Your on top of the debate leaderboard, so i hope you prove there's more to your rank than just mere numbers. I trust that the judges will exhibit an unbiased judgement and show their votes aren't just mere votes. Overall, i hope your not just a waste of my time.

Terms:

Reality - state of being real

objective - based on external truth not on personal opinions and feelings

subjective - influenced by personal opinions, thoughts, etc.

Truth - conformity with fact or state

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

Absolute Truth - the state of knowing everything about the Truth

Know - to perceive with the mind truth

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

Hope your not intimidated just because i spew forth a bit of "a few words of intellect" and not back out in fear like the rest of the people on this site. You can muster up the courage to stand your ground can't you?
Mikal

Con

Your not a waste of my time he says

You braided your hair to tight this morning homie. First rounds on you. I accept
Debate Round No. 1
Truth_seeker

Pro

Intro: Epistemology is the study of knowledge. What is the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge? What are it's sources? limits? etc. (1) There is more than 1 way to gain knowledge, but regardless we will always have limits to our knowledge. Because of this, i will describe the pros and cons of each different kind of method to create a coherent "self-correcting" system and gain further knowledge.

Is truth objective or subjective? Both, we can only subjectively know the truth based on our natural senses and experiences. Science is subjective because in order to discover a scientific answer, you are required to restrict yourself to using the scientific method.

How do we know truth? 1) Evidence from fields such as science, archaeology, etc. 2) experience 3) logic.

1. Evidence - Evidence which comes from various fields such as science can be used to be a bit more objective than 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 truth. It's inductive reasoning, but does not always apply to all circumstances.

Ex: You can infer that all humans die, but if you have find one immortal human, your conclusion is false.

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. (2)

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.

Definition of God:

Which God? How should we evaluate which religion is "right"? Logically, all cannot be right.

1. Monotheism claims there is only one God
2. Polytheism claims there are many gods
3. Conclusion: neither can be absolute truth

Compared to "God", our limits have been set so that we cannot know anything beyond this physical realm. We can only use evidence, logic, and experience to gain knowledge. Although this may not apply to all religions, it applies to some. For example, if the Christian God created the universe, everything in the universe must harmonize with him. If we find something to disprove his "Word" (Bible) or demonstrate that a particular religion is derived from another, he would be contradicted (ex. Mormonism is derived from the Bible, so it's likely to be fabrication). When we encounter an experience of a specific deity (Revelation, voice, vision, miracle, etc.) that we would not previous know, it then becomes something i call a "divine experience." It then becomes clear that the existence of that specific deity exists and his Word is truth (Bible,Koran. etc.)

There are two ways to get in contact with the divine 1) Anticipating an experience with the supernatural 2) Practicing the religion's method of discovering God in order to find his existence (ex. Bible implies we reach God through faith and prayer) 3) Finding evidence within a particular religion to make an inference that the supernatural is at work (ex. finding that biblical prophecies have been consistently fulfilled. If the cause cannot be identified, it leaves God as the simplest explanation.)

I will list a few counter-arguments people present against God's existence

1. "There are many cases of people 'feeling' that unicorns exist, it doesn't imply that we should believe in God." Depending on the kind of perception you have God, if it is more direct than "feeling" unicorns, you have more certainty that it's true.

Ex: I had a revelation from God as i heard a voice with a presence causing me to recognize him as God tell me that Jesus was the only way to salvation. That's more direct experience involving a voice, revelation, presence, etc. than just "feeling"

2. Some try to use evidence in an attempt to explain away the supernatural directly, however in order for you to do that, you must have extensive knowledge of how those explanations would work in natural situations.

Ex: You cannot do a psychological diagnosis on God if he is immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient.

3. Can we all come to the conclusion that God exists? Is there any sort of experience or evidence to demonstrate it? Yes, my family all come from a Christian background, but have split in half. One half is Christian and the other atheistic/agnostic. However, we all have had divine experiences. One family member who's identity shall remain hidden openly admits that she knows that God exists based on hearing his voice and knowing more of his attributes (ex: love, benevolence, etc.) Does that imply that anyone who knows God exists will automatically convert? No, she knows God exists, but she did not convert for personal reasons and not agreeing with the Bible's system of morality. Just as i know that you exist, but just because i know you exist, doesn't mean that i have to befriend you and acknowledge your existence.

I have plenty more to say on the subject, but for now, this is my opening argument.


Sources:

1. http://plato.stanford.edu...

2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Mikal

Con

The first thing I want to start with is the BOP. The BOP in this case is on Pro to prove that "God Exists". This is an affirmative statement and it is on him to back up this claim. He cannot show that God may exist, that it is probable God exists, or that there is a possibility God may exist. He must actually show that God exists. This is his BOP, and you can note by his first round that he is no where near fulfilling it. I will start out with some contentions, and offer rebuttals in this round and latter rounds.


R1) Experience does not necessitate truth.

Pro's first claim is that experience can entail truth. This is a fallacy in the highest regard, because he is saying if someone experiences something that it is real. Thing about states of mind, or when people are on drugs, or people that are just generally insane. When its dark outside and people often get scared, they can correlate sounds and events and propose paranormal activity exists. When people are mentally unstable they will often see people and things that are not really there. When on certain types of drugs, you can actually begin to hallucinate and see stuff that is not within reality. The point being is that there are countless types of ways people can experience something and what they are experiencing is actually false or not real. It may be real to them, but it does not objectively exist. It only exists in their mind and because they allowed it to exist to them. For something to objectively exist, it would exist outside of someones mind. It would exist whether they believe it or not.


R2) Empirical Truths

Pro is claiming our minds, and experience are the only way to gain knowledge which in a way is true. I would almost direct you to a debate between whiteflame and ajab for this as it is a good read and is entirely relevant to this debate [1]. While sense are our primary means of leaning and understanding, just because we experience an act does not mean it is necessarily an objective truth. It also means that it may be a necessary truth as well. There are certain laws that govern life that we have learned through using science, rational, reason, mathematics, and our senses. But these laws exist even if someone does not want them to exist. The same is not true of God. Take how we understand gravity. Without someone altering the foundation of it or a drastic change, if we take a pen and drop it. It will almost certainly always fall to the ground. There are ways this changes but only if it manipulated ie we are in space, or certain people change certain fields of it. In general without someone altering the variables, gravity will always operate the same. Anyone reading this can grab a pen and drop it and it will fall. This is an objective truth in regards to gravity. Now if someone drops that pen and it falls, and they believe it floated for any given reason. That truth may be true to them, but it is not objectively true. The pen still fell to the ground and that is the result of an iron glad empirical fact.

The reason i'm stating this is to address pros claim that someones experience necessitates empirical fact, because that is a false claim. Empirical laws and facts do exist, but because someone experiences something does not necessitate what they experience as an empirical fact.

Because someone "experiences God", that does not necessitate the fact that God exists, no more than someone who saw that pen fall and believed it did not fall necessitates that the pen did not fall. Just because they experience something does not mean it actually is real , did not happen, or actually happened. For something to be empirical it has to be empirical in all senses. So any argument Pro brings up about him or others "experiencing God", we can discard because it is entirely faulty and relies on non verifiable evidence.


R3) Breaking down faulty syllogisms

There are a variety of syllogisms pro uses to try and solidify his argument that are just wrong. I'm going to briefly address this because most of his case was not even a case, but I would like to show why his logic is wrong.

He uses this as a way to state that logical deductions can entail truth, but is wrong when he trying to push that logical deductions necessitate truth. Just because something could or should happen does not mean it will happen. Look at the one below

(p1) If Larry is sick, then he will be absent.

This is assuming if he will actually be absent. He could come to school sick

(p2)If Larry is absent, then he will miss his classwork.

Again an assumption that someone will not bring him his classwork and he will not be able to do it

(c) Therefore, if Larry is sick, then he will miss his classwork

The p1 or p2 arrive from a logical deduction that may or may not be true, and both have to be true to come to this conclusion. That does not necessitate the conclusion as true because for it to be true both p1 and p2 would have to be true via a priori. IT would have be occur in the way pro states and have no other way of occurring. I was going to touch the God syllogism because that is faulty as well, but there is no reason to at this point.



______________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Contentions


C1) Possibility and probability are not enough

This is just redirecting the judges back to the BOP. I really have to do nothing this entire debate (I still will but the BOP is on him). He cannot simply show that through experience or certain means that there is a possibility that God exists, he has to show that God exists empirically and is verifiable which he has failed to do. He tried to use experience as a way to justify God and as I have stated above, this is entirely false. He needs to show that God exits even outside of peoples experience. Look at it this way, if we removed humanity God will still have to exist objectively in order to fulfill the BOP. He has not shown that God is an empirical fact.


C2) No need for a God

One of the biggest arguments for Christians is that God created the universe but even that is false now. Through science we can now see that the universe could create itself. Most people would try to assert that energy cannot be created or destroyed or that you need a God in order to explain how the universe began. This is false so now let's review why

To arrive at the fact energy cannot "pop" into existence, we have to address what is nothing and if there is energy out there that we cannot see or know about. We have to address what is observable and what is not observable and the types of nothing. All laws came into existence at the time of the big bang, so anything prior to that is not observable. In addition most people lack the understanding of what something from nothing means. It is essentially saying confinement, causes a lack of stability and 1 can become 1+ 1. I will address this below.


The first thing we must look at in regards to the universe creating itself is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle .

" The position and momentum of a particle cannot be simultaneously measured with arbitrarily high precision. There is a minimum for the product of the uncertainties of these two measurements. There is likewise a minimum for the product of the uncertainties of the energy and time. " [2]





The statement itself is not questioning the accuracy of measuring instruments but stating that there will will always be uncertainty in nature. The next thing we need to address is confinement energy [3]. This is basically when you try to contain a particle into a smaller volume.

" If you compare the confinement energy for an electron in an atom to the energy required to hold it in a nucleus, you find that you can't hold an electron in a nucleus. "[3][4]










So basically when you try to think about trying to trap a particle into a smaller particle, the system is unstable. Via einsteins equation E= MC2, if you put enough energy into any given system it can produce particle-antiparticle pears. What that is basically asserting is that particle-antiparticle pairs can actually be created from "nothing" at least in some regards.





"So particle-antiparticle pairs can be created from "nothing", that is from no particles to two particles, but energy must be provided, so these particles can be viewed as having been created from the energy. And that required energy is not "nothing", so a vacuum that produced particles would nevertheless require available energy to convert into the particles."[4][5]


Now touching on the fact that the entire universe can be created from nothing.

Note : Quantum Realm - [5]
Note : Quantum Mechanics - Operating below the scale of atoms [6]

The basic stance is that gravitational potential energy is 0, and as the universe expands it becomes less negative. With the case of our universe being flat or nearly perfectly flat, due to gravitational potential energy becoming negative upon expansion , with our universe being flat it will approach 0 flat. This would eventually cause confinement, and due to the lack of stablity meaning the 1 to 1+1 point would arise , and something could essentially come from nothing. Nothing again meaning 1 to 1+ 1


Conclusion

Pro has not met his BOP and has shown that God empirically exists. I have refuted his case and showed why there is no need for a God



[1] http://www.debate.org...
[2] http://www.aip.org...
[3] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
[4] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://plato.stanford.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
Truth_seeker

Pro

"The first thing I want to start with is the BOP. The BOP in this case is on Pro to prove that "God Exists". This is an affirmative statement and it is on him to back up this claim. He cannot show that God may exist, that it is probable God exists, or that there is a possibility God may exist. He must actually show that God exists. This is his BOP, and you can note by his first round that he is no where near fulfilling it. I will start out with some contentions, and offer rebuttals in this round and latter rounds."

Con did not tell us the kind of "proof" that he's looking for and fails to acknowledge that i gave an argument for why you can figure out God exists. Sometimes, it's not required for the person who has b.o.p to bring "proof", however they can lead you to the actual being just as someone can bring you to a specific place where the "proof" of the being is found. For example, i can tell you "come with me and i will show you where to find an alien spacecraft" based purely on first-hand experience.

"Thing about states of mind, or when people are on drugs, or people that are just generally insane"

"When its dark outside and people often get scared, they can correlate sounds and events and propose paranormal activity exists. When people are mentally unstable they will often see people and things that are not really there. When on certain types of drugs, you can actually begin to hallucinate and see stuff that is not within reality. The point being is that there are countless types of ways people can experience something and what they are experiencing is actually false or not real. It may be real to them, but it does not objectively exist. It only exists in their mind and because they allowed it to exist to them. For something to objectively exist, it would exist outside of someones mind. It would exist whether they believe it or not."

Con's argument is invalid. To them, those experiences are "real", but to us, we know generally we are not on drugs nor insane. People can propose that paranormal activities exist based on their sensory input but 1) Con did not present a specific example in which we can analyze 2) This does not compare to something as specific and supernatural as the resurrection of Jesus Christ in the Gospels. Con fails to realize that reality and illusion are entirely based on experiences. To me, God is reality and to you, he's an illusion. What is reality and what is illusion? We simply agree that the observations of the universe we make as "sane" people will lead us to reality and know that these hallucinations are false based on our biased perceptions of reality, but we cannot rule it out. Con left out that we are subjective individuals.

"While sense are our primary means of leaning and understanding, just because we experience an act does not mean it is necessarily an objective truth. It also means that it may be a necessary truth as well."

Con failed to point out that i already acknowledged this earlier "The limits of this is that although it's on direct observation, it cannot be applied to gain objective and truthful knowledge of reality."

"There are certain laws that govern life that we have learned through using science, rational, reason, mathematics, and our senses. "

In science, there is no such thing as a "law", only a hard proven theory. According to wiki, it says "a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and may be found false when extrapolated" (1). Gravity is not absolute. Con did not explain why the same is not true of God. Although con brings up gravity as an example in which we can all agree works, it doesn't necessarily have to work that way. Our perceptions are subject to bias whether we like it or not. Evolution is a proven theory, but to some including scientists, it's not reality, but an illusion. Con implies that someone can "explain away" the existence of God, but you can explain away the existence of anything that contradicts your views. It doesn't imply that it's not real.

1. If God acts upon an individuals life then the individual comes to the conclusion God exists
2. The individual can deny it, but the fact remains that God acted upon the individual

"The reason i'm stating this is to address pros claim that someones experience necessitates empirical fact, because that is a false claim. Empirical laws and facts do exist, but because someone experiences something does not necessitate what they experience as an empirical fact. "

You just used the example of someone dropping a pen to the ground and it falling to support your claim that gravity is a law. That is pure observation, thus con contradicts himself. What he used was not scientific because he leaves out formulating a hypothesis, gathering data, doing repeated experiments, and integrating those observations into research (2). Based on what con said, it logically follows that experience necessitates empirical fact.

"Because someone "experiences God", that does not necessitate the fact that God exists, no more than someone who saw that pen fall and believed it did not fall necessitates that the pen did not fall"

Con makes a mistake

1. An experience caused by God is independent of belief
2. Having faith in God is essential to having a relationship with him (ex: 1 John 5:4)
3. someone believing the pen did not fall is doing just that, believing that the pen did not fall when it did

"any argument Pro brings up about him or others "experiencing God", we can discard because it is entirely faulty and relies on non verifiable evidence. "

Con makes a few mistakes

1. God is immaterial
2. Science only deals with what is testable and observable (3)
3. Con agrees earlier that experience brings truth in R2 "Empirical Truths" but then resorts to bias when it comes to God and now claims that empirical evidence is needed. There is no reason to require evidence for the natural and reject the supernatural, therefore it is not faulty.

As for logical deduction, con brings up irrelevant points. While yes, we do agree that we are making assumptions and that it does not in reality have to follow, logical arguments only stay within the confines of the premises and from that a conclusion is drawn.

"He cannot simply show that through experience or certain means that there is a possibility that God exists, he has to show that God exists empirically and is verifiable which he has failed to do. He tried to use experience as a way to justify God and as I have stated above, this is entirely false. He needs to show that God exits even outside of peoples experience. Look at it this way, if we removed humanity God will still have to exist objectively in order to fulfill the BOP. He has not shown that God is an empirical fact. "

I never said that it's possible God exists, i said that through our subjective minds, we can objectively reach the conclusion that God exists given we follow the proper methods. Con is once again biased in choosing to accept the natural realm without any empirical evidence and to reject God, demanding physical evidence.

"One of the biggest arguments for Christians is that God created the universe but even that is false now. Through science we can now see that the universe could create itself. Most people would try to assert that energy cannot be created or destroyed or that you need a God in order to explain how the universe began. "

1) You have not disproven that God created the universe and i will explain

a. God is outside of the cosmos and is the direct cause
b. the big bang is a physical act
c. God is still the cause and the effect is the universe

2) Con said "We have to address what is observable and what is not observable and the types of nothing" which is false. The big bang theory does not state that nothing caused everything, but describes how the universe came from a single tiny dense point (4). Therefore, even scientists agree that the universe came from something.

3) No where is ex-nihilo found in the Hebrew Bible (5), but rather that there was an absolute beginning.

Conclusion:

An experience is more than enough to demonstrate God's existence. As i have stated earlier, i have listed the strengths and weaknesses of each method (experience and evidence), con assumes that the universe exists based on experience and does not demand evidence, but when it comes to God, he is quick to require it for a being that is completely out of human comprehension and beyond natural laws.

Sources:

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

2. http://science.howstuffworks.com...

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

4. http://science.howstuffworks.com...

5. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Mikal

Con

R1) BOP

Pro assets that I did not tell us what kind of proof I was looking for. This statement is belligerent and the sign of pro having no idea how formal debate works. He asserts something about a spacecraft that is a non sequtiur and overall just makes baseless assertions. Assuming something exists based on your own personal experience does not necessitate it's existence. It is own him to provide empirical proof that God exists. Again I refer you to the resolution. He has to prove that God exists empirically not that he may exist or could exist. Anything could exist in that regard, but that is not the resolution nor the topic of this debate.


R2) Experience does not necessitate truth.

His rebuttal to this literally makes no sense and he misses the entire point. The point of the premise is that despite what people think they believe or hear, it does not make it an empirical fact. I can believe anything, but that does not mean I am right. I can believe gravity does not exist, but it does. Actually pro even concedes this point

" To them, those experiences are "real", but to us, we know generally we are not on drugs nor insane "


This is how I perceive my adversary. To him his experiences are real, but I know he is wrong. Just because he believes something does not necessitate that it is true. He concedes this point.


R3) No such thing as a law

I just had to respond to this. My adversary has no concept of science, and is just babbling non sense at this point. There is a such thing as scientific law, despite what my disillusioned adversary thinks[1].

A scientific law entails

1) An empirical generalization; a statement of a biological principle that appears to be without exception at the time it is made, and has become consolidated by repeated successful testing; rule (Lincoln et al., 1990)

2) A theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by a statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present (Oxford English Dictionary as quoted in Futuyma, 1979).

3) A set of observed regularities expressed in a concise verbal or mathematical statement. (Krimsley, 1995).


Then he asserts gravity is not absolute. If i took my adversary and dropped him from the top of the empire state building 1,000 times. You can insert any value here. He would die that amount of times. Gravity is an absolute and the only way it varies is dependent on location or if it is manipulated. It is a basic principle that operates the same and without exception without any violation of variables. There are a few things that hold true to this. The law of conservation of energy, the law of thermodynamics, the law of planetary motion, the law of cosmic expansion, and even the law of universal gravitation.


He then asserts this

" Evolution is a proven theory, but to some including scientists, it's not reality, but an illusion "

Yes those people are generally considered morons. Evolution is accepted as a fact, not just because of all the evidence that supports it but because it literally explains the origins of life to a ti and fills in and is verified with million examples of verifiable evidence.


He then goes further to assert this

" 1. If God acts upon an individuals life then the individual comes to the conclusion God exists
2. The individual can deny it, but the fact remains that God acted upon the individual "

I can spend an entire round destroying the validity of this statement but it goes without saying this is entirely false. God acts on this person so God exists. Any example that my adversary thinks of where God acted upon an individual can be ascribed to any given value, person, or being. Where he says God acted on him, I could assert that it was a magical pony in the sky. The statement is just as valid and is backed with as much evidence as his initial claim. Just because he thinks God acted on him or someone, that does not necessitate that God did act or in fact exists.


R4) Pen example

Again my adversary concedes the point. I refer you back to the example. If we drop a pen it will always fall to the ground. It will always drop to the ground even if people claim it did not drop the ground. Someone can drop a pen and see it drop but believe it did not drop, that does not change the fact it did indeed drop. This goes to show that there are objective principles that act and will continue to act in a given order as expected such as gravity. I asserted it was an empirical fact, so my adversary concedes this point, but I was asserting that it was an empirical fact to show that just because someone believes that it not an empirical fact does not change the fact it is. Just because someone "believes" there is a God does not necessitate that God is real. Just as much as them believing a pen was suspended in air after they dropped it necessitates that as a fact.


R5) WTF syllogism


1. An experience caused by God is independent of belief
2. Having faith in God is essential to having a relationship with him (ex: 1 John 5:4)
3. someone believing the pen did not fall is doing just that, believing that the pen did not fall when it did

This is so incoherent it hardly warrants a response. None of the premise follow to reach the conclusion. Like I generally have no idea what this babble is.

(p1) This is if God existed. If god existed this is true, but it is own my adversary to show that God exists. For this to even be a valid premise he would first have to win this debate before he could make the assertion. We are debating the fact that God exists, and he is using a premise that requires him to win the debate in order for the premise to be true. This is literally invalid

(p2) This is nonsense lol and absolutely pointless to the debate. He just cites a bible verse

(c) How does he even arrive at this. Let me re write this syllogism logically to show you how absurd this is.



(p1) experiences caused by God are Independence of us
(p2) faith in God is an essential part of a relationship
(c) Not believing in God does not mean he does not exist.


None of this logically follows, is not verified by any actual evidence, and to eve consider the (p1) In order to get to the other nonsense that does not logically follow he has to first win the debate and prove that God actually exists.



R6) God is immaterial

He basically asserts because god is not a sentient being , he is not testable.

He actually asserts that god is "Immaterial" or "spiritual", something that is "spiritual" is founded by "personal belief". Personal belief does not necessitate something is in real. He has to provide evidence to support this. Saying falls under the realm of things that cannot be tested, so he exists is an invalid argument

You can literally insert an possible value in place of God and have the same outcome. There is a magical fairy that is sitting on my computer. That is as logical as the claim he just made. That is not saying that the claims are impossible, but stating there is no evidence to support either claim.


R7) Back to bad logic and faulty syllogisms.

I am frankly getting tired of refuting nonsense at this point. I would advise my adversary to take a science class before he starts mumbling non sense about stuff that he has no concept of. I am refuting the same thing over and over at this point.


a. God is outside of the cosmos and is the direct cause
b. the big bang is a physical act
c. God is still the cause and the effect is the universe


let's break down why this is horrible logic, and even a logical fallacy

(p1) For this to be true you have to show God exists, not that God needs to exist. For this to even be considered God would need to exist. The argument I presented negates the need for a God, so God does not need to exist

so logically

(a) God has not been proven to exist so this argument assumes something that is not necessarily true. Again my adversary would first have to win this debate and show God exists in order to make this claim, or

(b) In order to even consider this God would need to exist, which he does not need to exist. I explained why the universe can create itself already.

This invokes Occams razor to some degree, but when you have a verifiable explanation it is more logical than assuming an explanation that has no verifiable evidence.

(p2) Sure its a physical act this statement does not necessitate a God either. I have showed how it can happen without a God

(c) God is the cause of the universe.

Again see above. This does not mean that God is the cause because God is not needed to create the inverse nor is their any evidence to support this claim. As I stated earlier, that magical fairy on my computer could have created the universe under this logic and would still be as logically valid as my adversaries stance.


This is so jacked up version of the KCA. It's like he read the KCA and has no concept of the actual premises that the KCA is stating.


___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Contentions

He did not even bother to refute my contentions. They stand in whole



Conclusion

I usually would write a conclusion but read the debate and draw your on. This is one sided at this point





[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 3
Truth_seeker

Pro

"Pro assets that I did not tell us what kind of proof I was looking for. This statement is belligerent and the sign of pro having no idea how formal debate works. He asserts something about a spacecraft that is a non sequtiur and overall just makes baseless assertions. Assuming something exists based on your own personal experience does not necessitate it's existence. It is own him to provide empirical proof that God exists. Again I refer you to the resolution. He has to prove that God exists empirically not that he may exist or could exist. Anything could exist in that regard, but that is not the resolution nor the topic of this debate. "

Wrong, the example i gave is something con fails to realize the implications of. For the resolution, con did not make it clear that God had to be scientifically proven. Therefore, he leaves the debate open to more than one way to fulfill the burden of proof outside the realm of science. Allow me to further explain my argument:

1. our senses can only be subjective
2. We sense the world around us through subjective means
3. We can only show that the world exists if all are subjectively in agreement

It's the same with God and since i had a divine experience and just gave an argument for how you can figure out if he exists, not only do i as a person with subjective experiences know God exists, i have essentially fulfilled my burden of proof. I did not concede, on the contrary, con concedes that experience does lead to truth (logically proven by him assuming the natural realm exists).

Con resorts to using the argument by repetition (1) as he keeps talking about empirical evidence for God which i already refuted.

"His rebuttal to this literally makes no sense and he misses the entire point. The point of the premise is that despite what people think they believe or hear, it does not make it an empirical fact. I can believe anything, but that does not mean I am right. I can believe gravity does not exist, but it does. Actually pro even concedes this point"

He did not explain why it makes no sense and once again fails to understand my argument. Why would gravity exist but aliens and paranormal beings not exist? Why is your perception of what is "natural" correct and when it comes to beliefs of the supernatural, their perceptions are incorrect? You can cite empirical evidence all you want for gravity, but you as an individual never proved that it exists, you just accept it as scientific, proving that you go by experiences not necessarily always by science.

Yes you can believe anything, it doesn't make you right but neither does it make you wrong depending on what it is. I stand my case: You can believe God does not exist, but once he causes you to have a supernatural experience and reveals himself to you, his existence becomes truth.

"This is how I perceive my adversary. To him his experiences are real, but I know he is wrong. Just because he believes something does not necessitate that it is true. He concedes this point. "

The same argument can be made against you. However we are essentially in agreement that anything that interacts with us in the world (ex. trees, humans, etc.) exists. I doubt con believes in what he says because even though we cannot see God, we can still gain knowledge of his existence philosophically.

1) Essentially, the natural senses do not objectively demonstrate existence. When we say "humans or trees exist because we can see them" what we really mean is "if it stimulates my senses, it exists." Lets say that God interacts with someone's mind and speaks to them. If con believes that the mind is natural then the requirement for God's existence has already been fulfilled since he stimulated your natural senses. If con believes the mind is immaterial but can still act on the world then he admits that God can exist because God is immaterial and can act upon the world.

2) Humans do accept abstract truths such as "there is a consequence for your actions." We cannot prove that scientifically because it's not testable, we simply assume the statement true and universal. We also accept concepts such as love, compassion, honesty, forgiveness, etc. exist even though they are not physical. There is really no correlation between say protecting your girlfriend and equating it with love. You simply assume love exists from the start. If that's the case, once God shows his divine love, compassion, forgiveness, and so forth, you would then have to accept that he exists.

3) Finally, we accept that methods such as logic, philosophy, and science will lead us to truth without demonstrating that it is absolute. We simply assume that if something is logically or scientifically true, it applies to everything else in the universe. If that's the case then God can simply state "Jesus is Lord" and we would have to accept that as knowledge of reality, thus showing his truth.

Con did not explain why i am wrong and i will explain the definition of belief later (even though it's not really relevant). I have presented ways in which we can know of God's existence just by logically deducing how we interact with the world around us.

Con failed to realize that there are several different theories on Gravity once again proving that a scientific law is not absolute. Con apparently missed the part in the article in which it says "Like theories and hypotheses, laws make predictions (specifically, they predict that new observations will conform to the law), and can be falsified if they are found in contradiction with new data."

There is Einstein's theory of gravity and then there is Newton's theory of gravity (2). Con simply groups them all together.

"Yes those people are generally considered morons. Evolution is accepted as a fact, not just because of all the evidence that supports it but because it literally explains the origins of life to a ti and fills in and is verified with million examples of verifiable evidence. "

You call them morons simply because they do not agree with your views. Just by pointing out scientists who have different views shows that bias exists even in the scientific community. Human bias simply cannot be erased.

"Where he says God acted on him, I could assert that it was a magical pony in the sky."

You could, but that can be done with anything including our own universe. We could assert that aliens created this entire universe. I can also go on refuting your arguments for the complex causes of God, but it's irrelevant to speak of what we do not know outside the limits of our knowledge. It stands that you believe your looking at DDO and that your sure that you and i exist based on experience while i am also sure God exists based on experience.

"If god existed this is true, but it is own my adversary to show that God exists."

Wrong, i am only using this logical argument in response to your claim that evidence is needed to support God and explaining why science can never do such a thing.

I cite the Bible verse to show the difference between faith and knowing something exists. Having faith in God does not strictly mean to assume he exists, but to trust that his will shall be accomplished in your life. Con ignores the part i said about science being only able to test the natural realm.

" This does not mean that God is the cause because God is not needed to create the inverse"

Just because he's not needed doesn't imply that he did not create it.

", that magical fairy on my computer could have created the universe under this logic and would still be as logically valid as my adversaries stance. "

Is your magical fairy physically detectable or purely spiritual? How can we figure out if she exists based on either our experiences, logic, or/and evidence? You did not say.

Conclusion: My opponent commits the fallacy of repeating his arguments and ad hominem (ex. " I would advise my adversary to take a science class before he starts mumbling non sense") (3). Even though i showed that science can only look at what is naturally observable, he still imposes that we should always follow science and denies that in order to do that, we need to experience it (using our senses to learn about science through textbooks and the sort). I have presented a logical argument for why God exists and how humanity can know.

Sources:

1. http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...

2. http://science.howstuffworks.com...

3. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
Mikal

Con

R1) BOP

Resolution - God exists.

Pro states this

" For the resolution, con did not make it clear that God had to be scientifically proven "

God exists, is clearly the resolution. Like that is literally typed verbatim.

Check back to cons r1 where he himself defines what real is in a given way

" Reality - state of being real "
" objective - based on external truth not on personal opinions and feelings "

My pros on definitions he has lost this debate. His entire debate is a case that is based on subjective concepts like experience and feelings, instead of an objective empirical stance about the existence of God. He has provided no proof in the existence of God, but only has shown that a God may exist. Just stating a God may exist is not enough, and even if this debate was based on the preponderance of evidence it is totally lopsided because his entire case is based on subjectivity and personal experience.


Let's review a seekergasm. That is what is what I'm going to start calling this nonsensical syllogisms that he is spitting out.

(p1) our senses can only be subjective
(p2) We sense the world around us through subjective means
(c) We can only show that the world exists if all are subjectively in agreement

WTF did I just read. I mean you literally have no concept of what you are saying at this point. The world exists objectively even in spite of how we perceive or view it. Everyone does not have to subjectively agree that the world exists to show that it exists. The world exists objectively despite what everyone thinks. Just because enough people believe something does not make it an objective fact. That is a classic ad populum, but this goes further because it's an ad populum that is literally non nonsensical.


Congrats on the new number 1 statement for the weekly stupid.



R2) IDGAf at this point

Like these responses are so incoherent , that I literally have no idea how to respond to what he is asking because I have no idea what he is asking. It's like he snorted shrooms before he wrote this round.

" He did not explain why it makes no sense and once again fails to understand my argument. Why would gravity exist but aliens and paranormal beings not exist? "

Gravity exists because I can drop a pen and have it operate the same way 10,000 times in the same manner. That is an objective fact to support gravity. I can't go high five an alien, or sex up a ghost. I can think I see them, but there is nothing to verify this with empirically and is routed in subjectivity based on personal experiences that can be altered and that varies depending on the situation.

A1) Coming out your mouth with that blah blah blah

" Yes you can believe anything, it doesn't make you right but neither does it make you wrong depending on what it is. I stand my case: You can believe God does not exist, but once he causes you to have a supernatural experience and reveals himself to you, his existence becomes truth. "

GOD CANNOT REVEAL HIMSELF OBJECTIVELY. He has never did this, never will do this, and there is no evidence to prove other wise. Just because you think he revealed himself does not mean that he actually did. If you walk outside and see a bush on fire, you can try to do the Moses and be like praise the lord. That does not change the fact that someone probably set that sht on fire with match. Just because you equate a situation or personal experience and try to correlate it with God does not necessitate the fact that it actually does correlate with God. It also definitively does not necessitate that a God actually exists.

A2) Turn around boy let me hit that

" The same argument can be made against you. However we are essentially in agreement that anything that interacts with us in the world (ex. trees, humans, etc.) exists. I doubt con believes in what he says because even though we cannot see God, we can still gain knowledge of his existence philosophically. "


I can touch a tree, I can make love to humans, I can kiss my dog, I can bone a beaver, and all of this can be verified. I can test gravity, I can test air, I can even test dark matter, God exists outside of this and is non verifiable. This entire argument can be made for any variable in place of God.

At this point pro is just saying (x) exists. He is saying God stimulates his senses therefore he exists, I can claim that my magical fairy stimulates my boner, but that does not actually equate to any viable form of logic.


Conclusion



" Is your magical fairy physically detectable or purely spiritual? How can we figure out if she exists based on either our experiences, logic, or/and evidence? You did not say. "


He just conceded this debate by stating that and does not even realize he conceded it. There is no point refuting the last few lines by him as he is saying the same thing over and over after I have refuted it 2 or 3 times

All of my contentions stand



I would like to point out some of the statements pro has made


(a) There is no such thing as a scientific law
(b) Experience necessitate a God
(c) The then says you can;t prove a fairy exists because of personal experience which is the same thing he is using to justify his points


this debate is so horribly one sided at this point, that I literally am lost. He has missed everyone of my contentions, is making false claims about science because he has no formal knowledge of it, and just asserting random properties to things that do not actually exist or make sense.




Debate Round No. 4
Truth_seeker

Pro

There are different degrees of knowledge that each individual knows of. I may know more about the Bible than you do and you may know more about science than i do. Amateur or scientist, at the end of the day: all must bring forth arguments to support their positions. Now with the way the resolution is structured, i can only assume you mean "can we objectively know that God exists?" as if to say that it can be scientifically proven he exists. This approach will never work for the following reasons:

1. Science is not the only way leading to absolute truth - You are not born a scientist. Science is not built into your nature and by using science, you are not invincible. No matter how much evidence you present, your ultimately still a human with your own personal experiences, feelings, opinions, and nature. You began that way without science. If you want to underestimate your experiences and logic, you would have to completely use science 24/7 which is essentially impossible.

2. Knowledge is subjective - Sure, you can argue "well we can sense trees, humans, etc. thus it's objective" In reality, it's not. Just because you have knowledge that the big bang is theoretically proven does not mean that all humans have that knowledge. That's why we have to "bring the evidence", proving that knowledge is not completely objective. What you then have is not an absolute truth, but a distorted concept among all humans of "reality and illusion." A scientists word on the matter can be no more reliable than an amateur's on his/her experiences. We all then have different groups of people who experienced many different things and from that, conclude that a particular being or reality exists. The resolution can then be objectively approached through different subjective ways as i stated above. If i say "come with me and i will show where to find X so that you will know that X exists" that is just as valid because you are testing it to see whether it is a reality or not. The fact that i, my family, and a few others including on DDO have had an experience of God is more than enough to show that he exists.

Now what about Zeus? Krishna? Magical ponies? etc. I present an argument to rule out those possibilities.

1. If a supernatural figure takes a physical form then that implies that they are observable and science can be used to determine whether they are God or not. Take for example Zeus, he is characterized by his control over nature and supposedly lives in mount Olympus. No one has ever observed Zeus on mount Olympus, thus that possibility is eliminated. Same with magical ponies and many other gods. If they are physical then they are subject to the natural limits of the universe and therefore not gods. Now what about an omnipotent and absolute being such as Allah?

2. I have presented a model on how to test the validity of each religion in my 2nd round. If you refuse to test it then you deny God's existence.

"The world exists objectively despite what everyone thinks." Con made no distinction between what naturally happens and what supernaturally happens in the world. Con didn't show that beings such as God, demons, angels, aliens, ufos, ghosts, etc. did or did not exist, therefore if we can perceive them then con would have to admit that they exist as well based on experiences and/or evidence, constituting as objective truth. Con falsely claims that it is ad populum when i never said anything about "most people agree that X exists" (1). In reality, there is really no such thing as objectivity. How much is being objective? two people? three? or all humans? You can only inductively reason that objectivity exists by inferring that as a subjective individual can have certain experiences. The answer to God's existence can then be justified based on one person's experience.

"GOD CANNOT REVEAL HIMSELF OBJECTIVELY. He has never did this, never will do this, and there is no evidence to prove other wise"

Con cites no sources for his claims and commits the fallacy of the appeal to ignorance stating "God never showed himself because there is no evidence to prove otherwise" (2). In human thinking, we can know combined together with evidence, experience, and logic that God is the only possible solution to the universe. I will give an example

Dark matter is something that is scientifically unseen but scientists are still able to infer it's existence because of the effects it has on physical matter (3). Therefore, once we examine every possible solution we can think of using evidence, logic, and experience taking the assumption that God will always be in harmony with the universe, we can discover God is the only plausible solution. For time purposes, i will not delve into that right now, but i will cite a source which explains the divine inspiration of the Bible and we can infer God's existence (4).

" Just because you equate a situation or personal experience and try to correlate it with God does not necessitate the fact that it actually does correlate with God"

Con gave a poor example. Of course i'm not going to look at a burning bush and correlate it with God because God has not been presented as solely the only explainable cause. However if i die, go to heaven and see Jesus then he brings the immaterial essence of my life force back to life, you cannot apply the principles of science to explain away this phenomenon because 1) It cannot be tested 2) It's beyond natural reach.

"Gravity exists because I can drop a pen and have it operate the same way 10,000 times in the same manner"

Con resorts to circular reasoning (5), he's saying that Gravity exists because it exists. You cannot use what your trying to prove as proof that it exists. Science is more concerned with how Gravity works, not it's existence (6).

"I can claim that my magical fairy stimulates my boner, but that does not actually equate to any viable form of logic. "

1) You did not clearly define a magical fairy 2) You did not present an argument for how we can test to see if your magical fairy exists or not 3) I have never interacted with your fairy and there are many possibilities to explain away it's existence because of it's humanoid characteristics (7). With an immaterial God of the Bible, this cannot really be done.

"this debate is so horribly one sided at this point, that I literally am lost. He has missed everyone of my contentions, is making false claims about science because he has no formal knowledge of it, and just asserting random properties to things that do not actually exist or make sense. "

1) You ignored my sources explaining why scientific law is not absolute 2) You commit the fallacy of incredulity evidenced by your claim of it "not actually existing or making sense" (8) 3) you commit ad hominem fallacies with remarks such as "seekergasm" 4) You once again failed to remove bias and cling to the belief that science is somehow absolute.

I note probability and possibility:

You cannot always assign degrees of certainty to all phenomenon in the universe. Just because the sun generally comes out, does not mean that it will come out the next day. There is no 97% or 60% chance essentially. Either it comes out or it doesn't. Even if most of the time for example people die, if we find one person who does not die then that is still truth even though it's unlikely. Same with God, when he acts, you can only be certain of his existence. To come up with possibilities of the effect or experience is to deny the experience itself based on perception. You cannot disprove God's existence no matter how much evidence you bring. Likelihoods are irrelevant when it comes to what is absolute.

"I can touch a tree, I can make love to humans, I can kiss my dog, I can bone a beaver, and all of this can be verified"

In closing, this is all circular reasoning. You have not verified anything, you simply assumed it's existence and somehow your perceptions of those things vs. "supernatural" things is correct. As i stated earlier "feeling" something exists (ex. ghosts) is quite different from an actual experience of God such as God directly speaking to Moses from the burning bush.

Conclusion:

I have presented all of my arguments to "prove" that God exists using the methods listed in round 2. I have listed the limits and advantages of each one and explained why it would be wise to skillfully use each one in harmony without overemphasizing the other. I have experienced God and know others including atheists and agnostics who also acknowledge his existence. With this, i rest my case that God exists.

Sources:

1. http://www.nizkor.org...

2. http://www.logicalfallacies.info...

3. http://science.howstuffworks.com...

4. http://www.goodreads.com...

5. http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...

6. http://science.howstuffworks.com...

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

8. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
Mikal

Con

R1) Science is not the only way to validate something

I would challenge my adversary to name one thing science can not validate or teach us truth about. Science by definition is the study of something. Science is the study of anything within the natural world. God exists outside of the natural world , therefore he cannot be studied. That is basically what my adversary is saying . The issue with this, as I have stated 1,000 times already is that can be applied to any variable. I can change God to any possible variable and the same argument would be valid because there is no way to proof whether he does not does not exist. The fact that you cannot prove this by my adversaries concession, is literally the end of this debate. He has the BOP to show God exists, yet is saying that you cannot prove this because he exists outside the natural world. This debate is over at this point.


R2) Knowledge is subjective but objective truths exist outside our own knowledge

The title of the rebuttals sums this up. Just because we perceive stuff and gain knowledge does not mean we are correct. People believe in God and they are wrong, just as people thought the earth was flat when it was round. Even though the entire world at one point assumed the earth was flat and this was based on personal experience and perception did not change teh fact that the earth was in fact objectively round. That was an objective fact in spite of what people believed. The same is true with God. People assume God exists without any proof or scientific evidence, just because enough people believe something does not validate it as a truth. That is a classic ad populum and a appeal to the masses.

R3) Correlation to God and experience


he says this

" Con gave a poor example. Of course i'm not going to look at a burning bush and correlate it with God because God has not been presented as solely the only explainable cause. However if i die, go to heaven and see Jesus then he brings the immaterial essence of my life force back to life, you cannot apply the principles of science to explain away this phenomenon because 1) It cannot be tested 2) It's beyond natural reach. "


This argument is just invalid. This has never happened and claiming when people die they go to heaven is something that cannot be observed or studied or even proven to be true. Its entirely speculation based on no actual evidence.


R4) Gravity exists

Gravity does not exists because it exists, and if you had the abiility to form a thought or would read what I typed you would see what I claimed.

You are in fact claiming God exits because he is exists without giving any evidence to support it saying that personal experiences justifies God then in the next paragraph saying personal experience is invalid. You are destroying your own arguments for me by conceded points

I'm saying gravity exists because it operates the same way 100 percent of the time unless it is altered. That is why its a scientific law. Again this is scientific law.




1) An empirical generalization; a statement of a biological principle that appears to be without exception at the time it is made, and has become consolidated by repeated successful testing; rule (Lincoln et al., 1990)

2) A theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by a statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present (Oxford English Dictionary as quoted in Futuyma, 1979).

3) A set of observed regularities expressed in a concise verbal or mathematical statement. (Krimsley, 1995).

Gravity exists due to empirical generalization and operates the same way without exception due to the results of repeated and successful testing.

Saying gravity exists because it exists is a failure to read what i'm typing, its not even hard but you just don't want to read it. However you are saying God exists because he exist. You even are claiming that you cannot prove that the exists because he is immaterial. At which point you have conceded the debate




Conclusion

This debate was over rounds ago, and I will walk you through why.


(1) Pro says God exists because of personal experience.
(2) Then when I flip this and say anything can exist this way (my fairy) he says personal experience is not valid
(3) He claims there are no objective laws in science which is false
(4) He claims that god is immaterial so he cannot be proven to scientifically exist or empirically exist
(5) By saying he cannot prove that God empirically exist, he has lost this debate, as the resolution is God exists. View his own definitions for this. He says God exists in reality and then defines reality, and then in the actual debate argues that you cannot empirically verify God because he exists outside of reality altering the resolution and dropping the debate.
(6) none of his syllogism logically follow and prove nothing


(7) HE HAS NOT REFUTED A SINGLE ONE OF MY CONTENTIONS. READ THE FIRST ROUND, NOTHING I CLAIMED WAS EVEN TOUCHED. He did not bother to refute anything I said which left to me rebuttal all of his points and leave them in shambles.

(a) He has the BOP so the margin at which I destroyed his arguments awards me the debate
(b) He did not even touch my contentions so everything I stated is still standing


I would go into this further, but this is a pretty cut and dry debate

Pro had the BOP to show that God exists, and has failed to provide any rational reason, logical reason, or any evidence of fulfill his BOP. This debate is proof of objective truths, because he without a doubt objectively lost.


Debate Round No. 5
47 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
Just for context. Because you type alot of sentences does not make it a valid RFD. Shadows vote should show that
Posted by debatability 2 years ago
debatability
i cry so hard bc horrible rfd's make me sad
Posted by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
and another vote that is going to get removed
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
@SKS:

1, that would, indeed, fulfill the presumptive BoP, barring a rebuttal from the opposing side that rebutted it sufficiently so as to make the argument go away.

2. I'm not sure if you were referring to me or to Mikal with your "sweetheart" comment, but let me assure you I, at least, can demonstrate other occasions I have found fault with insufficient RFDs--particularly and specifically source points, in fact. Which is not to say that I go out and search for votes to argue about--it's not worth my time to do so. Yet, if it comes up (as it did when you asserted your RFD was sufficient, when it was objectively not, and I happened to see your comment), then I'm going to note that.
Posted by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
By the way shadow when you get a chance can we talk about your salvation. I sincerely believe your future is in jeopardy and you could possibly burn in hell
Posted by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
Premise 1 - I like my cat

That BOP is subjective because all you have to do is say you like your cat. The BOP is based entirely on your own perception of your cat which cannot be proven because it is relevant only to you.

By the way you are dumb, posting a picture of you hugging your cat does not equate to you loving your cat. Unless you are assuming that every time you hug something or someone you love it. That is a logical fallacy. The only thing you have to do is openly state you love your cat , and we would have to assume its prima facie true based on the subjective nature of the BOP

____________

Saying something does or does not exist is literally an entirely situation as you are assuming the burden of proof, meaning you have to objectively show it does or does not exist. Showing it may or may not exist is not enough. Stating a sentient being like God exists requires empirical proof, not probability. This is not based on the preponderance of evidence but on a empirical claim

The hugging statement is literally so incoherent it hurts my brain
Posted by ShadowKingStudios 2 years ago
ShadowKingStudios
Not everyone articulates their reason behind awarded sources points. Make sure you vilify anyone else who does the same, sweetheart.
Posted by ShadowKingStudios 2 years ago
ShadowKingStudios
BoP is defined: the obligation to prove one's assertion.

Premise: I like my cat.
BoP: I post picture of me hugging & cuddling my cat Mr. Winkle Diddle-de-Do.
I fulfilled my burden aka obligation--to prove my assertion: I like my cat.
Posted by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
The Mod of the site removed your vote, The president said your vote was objectively bad. Your RFD literally had nothing to do with this debate.

They hypocritical statement behind your post is mind blowing "fluffers", says the guy that awards a source point without even justifying how or why its valid. That by definition is fluff. Bossing someones points without warrant or cause to help them win.
Posted by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
Also a note

A philosophical argument does not equate to you saying "God exists"

Your philosophical argument was basically unicorns prove God or something. BOP literally means burden of proof. You have the burden of proof to show that God exists. This does not change from any debate, especially when you are in the affirmative
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by mishapqueen 2 years ago
mishapqueen
Truth_seekerMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was the better debater, but he did use certain fallacies (e.g. circular reasoning, and ad hominem) and did not disprove Pro's argument about how God is like dark matter in his effects. I gave conduct to Pro because Con used some language, ad hominem attacks, and over confident behavior that were not pleasant. Overall, this debate was well done. I found it confusing, so I'd appreciate if you guys would try to keep things clear in future debates. Thank you!
Vote Placed by Pfalcon1318 2 years ago
Pfalcon1318
Truth_seekerMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
Truth_seekerMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
Truth_seekerMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I hate to agree with any BoP argument, but I kept waiting for the proof to come. The point of the debate is to prove the greater validity of your side, not use up the character limit. Side tangents about inferences being proof (then not presenting them) and not all Gods can be valid, only weaken the case. Saying con is wrong is vital, but only after you prove yourself right.