The Instigator
CiRrK
Pro (for)
Winning
23 Points
The Contender
Microsuck
Con (against)
Losing
18 Points

SPinko Tournament: God probably exists. (Rd. 1)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 10 votes the winner is...
CiRrK
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/23/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,488 times Debate No: 23790
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (35)
Votes (10)

 

CiRrK

Pro

This will be a Rd. 1 debate for the SPinko Summer tournament

**Cirrk v. Micro**


Resolved: God probably exists



Definitions

1. God: an intelligent entity which is atemporal, aphysical, omnipotent, omniscient

2. Probably: have a higher probability than the alternative

Rules

1. No semantics

2. Forfeit will be an auto-loss

3. No new arguments in the last round


*Rd. 1 is for acceptance - Rd. 2 will begin the debate
Microsuck

Con

Accepted. Good luck in the tournament.
Debate Round No. 1
CiRrK

Pro

Resolved: God probably exists

Ob. 1: We are bound by our epistemic limitations, i.e. we only know in the status quo what we know. In having this debate it is necessary to understand that when analyzing the arguments we are bound by our knowledge now. That is what science is – a process of reduction supplemented with a process of invalidation. For example, Newtonian physics was believed to be correct, next than supplemented by relativity and now supplemented by quantum mechanics. This is important because when analyzing the resolutional term "probably exists" then we are using our status quo knowledge – both logical and scientific. Thus, my opponent and I are bound by logical and scientific laws at this moment; we are not bound by arguments which do not exist at this point in the development of man's knowledge.

==C1: Thomistic Argument of Motion==

This argument posits that God's existence can be demonstrated through one's observation of motion. The term motion refers to states of change, i.e. from the potential to the actual.

1. Motion is clearly observed in the natural world (things change)

2. Nothing can put itself in motion unless acted upon by another force. Namely things cannot go from its potential to its actual without another actual force changing it.

Aquinas demonstrates this with an example of wood, heat and fire. Fire, which is an actually hot substance, moves (changes) a piece of wood, which is potentially hot to being actually hot.

3. Nothing can itself be both the mover (the changer) and the moved (the changed). For example, the wood cannot itself change from wood to fire without first the fire being the mover.

4. Since there is movement (change) in the universe than each thing must be moved from something prior to it. However, this cannot go on forever because then no beginning movement could have occurred to cause the movement.

5. This first mover is functionally necessary to explain this line of movement. This must be God.

==C2: Thomistic Argument of Efficient Causes==

1. Contingent beings exist. This means that there exists stuff which could not have existed, namely its existence isn't explainable through itself (i.e. we don't have to exist) but we do.

2. These contingent beings cannot be spanned infinitely backwards, because removing the initial cause would necessitate the removal of the subsequent effects.

3. There must exist an entity whose nature causes its own existence – this must be God.

I look forward to an exciting round! :D
Microsuck

Con

Thank you for your swift reply. Note that I am going to use several footnotes. Please read it.
I am going to divide my argument into two sections: 1) Case for weak atheism; and 2) Case for strong atheism.

PART 1: A CASE FOR WEAK ATHEISM

Weak Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. [1] This differs from strong atheism as it is the positive (or affirmative) belief that no gods exist. [2]


1. ATHEISM IS THE DEFAULT POSITION

A. WHAT IS THE NULL HYPOTHESIS?

The null hypothesis is the "practice of science involves formulating and testing hypotheses, assertions that are capable of being proven false using a test of observed data. The null hypothesis typically corresponds to a general or default position. For example, the null hypothesis might be that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena or that a potential treatment has no effect., [3]
Basically, the null hypthesis demands evidence. Unless you provide evidence for your assertion, the null hypothesis basically states that it is best to reject such an assertion.

Examples

You would do this on a daily basis. If I said to you that God spoke to me last night and called me to be His prophet, you would have every reasonable right to reject my assertion until I provide evidence that God called me to be His prophet.

Next, let's say that your wife has cancer and I have a magic sandwitch that will heal her and I'll give it to you for $50,000. You'd be a fool to pay the money and neglect medication for something which has no effect on cancer. [4]

Formulation

1. If a claim is extraordinary, then in the absence of extraordinarily strong evidence in its favor, the claim may be considered false.
2. The claim that a God exist is an extraordinary claim.
3. Therefore, in the absence of extraordinarily strong evidence in its favor, the claim that God exists may be considered false.
4. There is no extraordinarily strong evidence for the claim that God exists.
5. Therefore, the claim that God exists may be considered false.

What evidence has my partner brought forth for the existence of God? None. As we will see in my rebuttals.

So, what is an extraordinary claim? An extraordinary claim is any claim that contradicts accepted physical laws or our common sense, everyday experiences of the world.[5]

As we see, atheism is the default position. My partner does not believe that Muhammad split the moon [7] or that the Egyptian god Isis exists.[8] Or even better yet, that St. Genevie ordered a cursed tree cut down and monsters sprang from it. [9] Why is that? Simply because there is no evidence.

PART 2: A CASE FOR STRONG ATHEISM

As defined above, strong atheism is the affirming belief that no gods exist. Why can we be confient about such a claim? Well, there are many reasons why though I will bring the argument from non-belief.

C2) THE ARGUMENT FROM NON-BELIEF.

It is an undeniable fact that humans disagree on issues regardding religion (indeed, we wouldn't be having this debate if that were not the case). Moreover, it is equally undeniable that in Theism, there is differences between mythology. Because all religions contradict each other, they cannot all be logically correct.

Doug Krueger formulates it this way: [10]

Let set P be defined as the set of the following propositions:
(a) There exists the god of theism.
(b) The god of theism loves humanity, and
(c) This being wants each person to be saved by having certain
beliefs sufficient for salvation, such as beliefs P1...Pn.

Beliefs P1...Pn represent whatever beliefs in addition to (a) and (b) would be required for salvation on any given version of theism. One may add to set P as members of P1...Pn any additional propositions such as "Jesus died for your sins," "Jesus rose from the dead," or similar propositions. Let us stipulate for the sake of simplicity that anyone who believes the propositions in set P is saved, and anyone who does not believe them is not saved.

This simplified argument from nonbelief, then, is the following:
1. If god exists, then god wants what is best for each person.
2. What is best for each person is that he or she is saved.
3. Therefore, if god exists, then god wants each person to be saved by having the beliefs of set P.
4. If god wants everyone to be saved by having the beliefs of set P, then everyone would have the beliefs of set P.
5. Not everyone has the beliefs of set P.
6. Therefore, god does not want everyone to be saved by having the beliefs of set P.
7. Therefore, god does not exist.

PREMISE 1: IF GOD EXISTS, THEN GOD WANTS WHAT IS BEST FOR EACH PERSON.

IF god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent (which I presume is also what you mean by 'god', also given that you are a Christian), then by moral definition and requirement, God will want what is best for each person.

PREMISE 2: WHAT IS BEST FOR EACH PERSON IS THAT HE/SHE IS SAVED

Also uncontroversial. The Bible tells us that God is not willing that ANY should perish. (2. Peter 3:9) and he desires a personal relationship with each and every one of us.

PREMISE 3: THEREFORE, IF GOD EXISTS, THEN GOD WANTS EACH PERSON TO BE SAVED BY HAVING THE BELIEF SET P.


As defined above, the belief set p is on represent whatever beliefs in addition to (a) and (b) would be required for salvation on any given version of theism. One may add to set P as members of P1...Pn any additional propositions such as "Jesus died for your sins," "Jesus rose from the dead," or similar propositions. Let us stipulate for the sake of simplicity that anyone who believes the propositions in set P is saved, and anyone who does not believe them is not saved.

Support once more comes from the Bible as Jesus "is the way the truth and the life" (Jn. 4:6); hence we cannot be saved apart from the belief in God. God desires us to believe in him for Salvation.

Out of room.

__________________


Footnotes and Sources

1. http://wiki.ironchariots.org...;
2. http://wiki.ironchariots.org...;
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...;
4. The magic sandwitch is a term coined by Thunderf00t on his "magic sandwitch show" to show the folly of faith. It is basically a tongue-in-cheek parody of religion. Just like atheism, no one has been able to provide PROOF and EVIDENCE that the lack of believe in sandwitchism is accurate and correct. The only logical VIEWPOINT is to conclude that it is correct. It also parodies that anyone who neglects to give the magic sandwitch and pay the 50k to someone dying of cancer is a moral monster because it may have healed him. To see more, see http://rationalwiki.org...;
5. This definition was provided in the Kruger-McHugh debate on the same topic. He also formualted the syllogism provided for the argument. For more, see http://www.infidels.org...;
7. This was one of many of Muhammad's "miracles" that are left without evidence. If you look at the Muslim claim of evidence for the moon split, it isn't much different than Christian's arguments for the resurrection! See http://www.answering-christianity.com... more information.
8. Today, people still worship the pagan gods of the myths such as the Egyptian and Greek/Roman mythology. It is preserved today in the Wiccan tradition and in pagan mythology. See http://www.wicca-spirituality.com...;
9. You can read more about this story in Richard Carrier's essay Why I don't buy the Resurrection Story. "As David Hume's puts it, 'Why don't these things happen now?' http://www.infidels.org...;
10. This is from the Doug Krueger - McHugh debate. URL founded in source 5

Debate Round No. 2
CiRrK

Pro

So my opponent doesnt do a direct refutation of my case, but instead only presents his own case. As will be evident in my rebuttal his case is mostly irrelveant. This rebuttal will be short.

Null Hypothosis

This argument isnt an arument but rather a type of argumentation/evidence observation. The only way that this matters in this debate is if my opponent can refute my arguments presented, which he has not done so at this point in the debate. Thus, this argument can only be accessed as a reason to vote Con unless there is zero reasons to have Pro.

Extraordinary Claim and Evidence

This is simply the impact of the null hyppthesis - in order to prove an extraordinary claim one must produce extraordinary evidence. Though theres a problem with this prima facie analysis:

First, why is God's existence an extraordinary claim? What is the brightline for this? Essentially he argues that it is claims which violate physical laws or common sense. The link he provides doesnt open correctly so Ill let him re-present that source. I would argue this isnt a justification for an extraordinary claim since people go through life believing God exists. Now my opponenmight try and say, but thats an ad populum fallacy. However the issue with that in this case is that to determine or link into the definition my opponent provided deals inherently with peoples perceptions, i.e. their common sense - for the vast majority of the world their common sense tells them otherwise. For them it is not an extraordinary claim. I could easily say his argument is a fallacy as well - appeal to an authority. Moreover, saying God exists violates no physical laws since positing God exists is something aphysical, not anti-physical. Miracles on the otherhand would be in violation of physical laws, but the debate has nothing to do with miracles. [1]

Second, at what point does evidence become extraordinary? Clearly this is an unfair burden without clear and expressed guidelines to follow in order to meet this extraordinary burden. But I would say further that evidence is evidence regardless, if it holds for the round its a game-winner, if not its a game-loser.

Case for Strong Atheism

This argument is precluded by the definition I provided of God, which my opponen accepted. The premises rely on the omnibenevolent characteristic, which is not mentioned in the defintion of God. My opponent made the assumption, since Im a Catholic, I would be using this characteristic (but I am not). Thus you can ignore this whole part of the case for strong atheism. Moreover, he uses Christianity specifically for a part but no where in the guidelines is it the Judeo-Christian God.

I look forward to the actual refutation by my opponent.


[1] http://www.adherents.com...

Microsuck

Con

I want to thank my partner for this debate. I will first refute my partner's arguments and then defend my own, if space and time permits. Note that both of my partner's arguments came from Thomas Aquias "Five Ways."


I. THE ARGUMENT FROM MOTION

1. Motion is clearly observed in the natural world (things change)

2. Nothing can put itself in motion unless acted upon by another force. Namely things cannot go from its potential to its actual without another actual force changing it.

Aquinas demonstrates this with an example of wood, heat and fire. Fire, which is an actually hot substance, moves (changes) a piece of wood, which is potentially hot to being actually hot.

3. Nothing can itself be both the mover (the changer) and the moved (the changed). For example, the wood cannot itself change from wood to fire without first the fire being the mover.

4. Since there is movement (change) in the universe than each thing must be moved from something prior to it. However, this cannot go on forever because then no beginning movement could have occurred to cause the movement.

5. This first mover is functionally necessary to explain this line of movement. This must be God.

Begging the Question

This argument begs a few questions:
  1. If everything needs a mover aside from God, then why couldn't the universe had come into existence based upon its own force?
  2. What motivated God to make his "first move"? Either he has been moving from infinity or has been moving ever since.
  3. What then is the source of God's energy?
  4. Why does the God have to be the God you defined? For example, the God that caused the first move can be:
    1. Not omnipotent;
    2. Not omniscient; and
    3. Not aphysical. [1]

Premise 2 is wrong

This argument basically states that something cannot come from nothing. However, we know this is wrong in light of quantum fluctuations which are random and uncaused. Talk Origins notes:

From quantum field theory, we know that something does indeed come from nothing: to wit, "vacuum fluctuations". In the simplest case, an electron, a positron and a photon can appear effectively out of nowhere, exist for a brief time and then annihilate, leaving no net creation of mass or energy. Experimental support for this sort of effect has been found from a number of different experiments. [2]

Premise 3 is wrong

Based upon quantum fluctuations, we know that premise 3 is also wrong. It is both the mover and the moved.

II. ARGUMENT FROM EFFICENT CAUSES

1. Contingent beings exist. This means that there exists stuff which could not have existed, namely its existence isn't explainable through itself (i.e. we don't have to exist) but we do.

2. These contingent beings cannot be spanned infinitely backwards, because removing the initial cause would necessitate the removal of the subsequent effects.

3. There must exist an entity whose nature causes its own existence – this must be God.

Like the above argument, there are some flaws that I am going to point out. The argument, like the one above, cannot determine the attributes of God. Consequently, my partner has failed to meet his Burden of Proof.

I accept partially that anything that exists is caused by another. However, as seen in quantum fluctuations above, that isn't entirely true. Once more, you are using the assumption that there can be no infinite regression. If this is correct, then doesn't God have to have a cause?

According to Einstein's equation e=mc2, matter can indeed be converted into energy and energy can be converted to matter. Logically, we can suppose that matter and energy could have been into existence for eternity. My theory is that the universe is indeed infinite in age, but has evolved over time; the last major event occuring c. 15 billion years ago in the Big Bang.


Conclusion


None of my partner's 2 ways hold any water. They cannot determine God's attributes, contradict the conclusion, and fail in light of quantum fluctuations.

DEFENSE OF MY ARGUMENTS!

I apologize for the strong atheism case. I will drop that argument and bring a new one up in its place.

A CASE FOR WEAK ATHEISM

I argued that atheism is the default position making a case for weak atheism (lack of beliefs in Gods). [3]

My partner asked why is God's existence an extraordinary claim? This is a good question and I'd like to review the definition of an extraordinary claim:

"An extraordinary claim is any claim that contradicts accepted physical laws or our common sense, everyday experiences of the world."

God's existence is certainly most extraordinary. First, let's look at some examples and ask yourself “which one do you immediately reject, and why?”

1) I am a member of Facebook,

2) I won the multi-million dollar lottery, and

3) I own a transportation mechanism that transports you from point A to point B in under 1 second.

Which one do you immediately reject without further ado, and why? If you guessed point 3, you would be correct—and totally justified in rejecting proposition 3. Allow me to explain why.

According to Facebook stats, Facbeook currently have 350,000,000 members [4] hence, to claim that I am a member of Facebook is not unheard of, nor is it an extraordinary claim. Claim 2 is certainly more extraordinary than the first; however, people have won the lottery before so it is not unheard of—in order for one to accept this claim, one may need to look at just my lottery ticket, or the numbers on TV. However, claim 3 is quite different. In order to accept claim 3 with just my word, you will have to:

1) Change your current views on the technology of today,

2) Change your views on how people transport from point A to point B, and

3) Change your perspective on the person making such a ridiculous claim (and ridiculous is quite appropriate).

So, you see, extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence. So, what type of evidence is there for God? I contend that there is no evidence; it will be my partner's burden to prove so. In the words of Keith Augustine: "God, as conceived by the major religions, does not exist. I hold this neither dogmatically, nor as an article of faith. Rather, I think the existence of the Judeo-Christian/Islamic God is as improbable as the existence of Zeus and the plethora of Olympian gods. I am simply more consistent in my skepticism. I have the same amount of evidence for the existence of Yahweh, Jehovah, or Allah as I have for Zeus--none." [5]


Next, what is an extraordinary evidence? Once more, great question! Extraordinary evidence is any evidence that proves the extraordinary claim or makes the caim more probable than not.

Out of room.
___________________________
Footenotes and Sources

1. The questions 1-3 are from http://patas.co.... Moreover, God can exist and be phsycial. There is nothing in God's nature that can prevent that. Moreover, we soon see that God's attributes cannot be known from this argument.
2. Evidence for the Big Bang Theory: http://www.talkorigins.org...;
3. This is different from agnosticism."Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates...it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you without regard to any other considerations. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend the conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable." For more, see http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net...;
4. http://www.digitalbuzzblog.com...;
5. From the debate http://www.infidels.org...;(note: this is the link that didn't work for you in the previous round).
Debate Round No. 3
CiRrK

Pro

Opponent’s questions

First, why couldn’t the universe come into existence based upon its own force/motion?

Answer: The question negates itself. It is not possible for the universe to not have existed, and then based on its own force (non-existent force) create itself. Remember, the argument presented by Aquinas tells us that existence and essence are separate qualities. In order for an entity to be the “first mover”, its essence must factually entail its existence. However, the universe’ essence is made up of contingent parts, and is not wholly simple which would be a condition necessary for the essence and existence to be the same. However moreover, my opponent already concedes that the universe did have a cause; the big bang (albeit he implies that there could have been preexisting energy, but that would still need to hold to logical principles)

Second, what moved God?

Answer: Nothing. As opposed to the universe which is made up of contingent parts, God is not – as such his essence implies his existence. This is the only way by which factually there can be movement and contingent existences. But moreover, God is outside the realm of our physical law – the universe is bound by these principles, but that does not mean God is.

Third, what is the source of God’s energy?

Answer: Same as #2.

Fourth, why are we going by your definition?

Answer:….Cause that’s what you agreed to?

Argument from Motion

My opponent argues premise 2 is wrong because quantum fluctuations exist, and he provides a card from talkorigins. There are a few issues with this: first, this piece of evidence misunderstands the fact that quantum fluctuations exists within the context of a quantum vacuum. Quantum fluctuations are not caused without prior conditioning, which is what the argument from motion posits. In order for motion and change to exist there must be a prior conditioning. Thus, if you remove the vacuum then you take away the conditions needed for quantum fluctuations.

Second, quantum fluctuations are simply indeterminate. This means that there is no serious theory which posits the quantum fluctuations exists from “true nothingness” but rather the cause at this point is indeterminate and cannot be measured. Due to the limits of our mechanics we cannot accurately pinpoint what causes these fluctuations because the rate at which they occur are too fast and interfere with direct measurement.

Third, quantum fluctuations affect only the micro and not the macro. If quantum fluctuations could have the ability to create whole masses of universes then it would be probable that on a macro-level our universe should have been interfered with from the amount of quantum fluctuations occurring ever micro-second.

Argument from Efficient Causes

My opponent argues that I haven’t proven the attributed of God. This was never my burden. The resolution says to prove existence, not qualities or attributes.

My opponent says what about God having an infinite regress? This has already been addressed – the Thomistic conception of God posits that this infinite regress does not hinder whether God exists or not, because existence is within God’s essence. God and the universe are not analogous entities – one is made up of contingent parts, the other is not.

Voter

Now that my opponent has clarified his observations about extraordinary evidence and claims, here is my voter for the round:

Both my arguments presented have not been at all refuted by my opponent. My opponent uses false-analogies to try and pin the arguments for the universe onto God. However as evident above, this analogy philosophically misunderstands the Thomistic conception of God. The universe which is made up of contingent parts cannot have its existence within its essence since it isn’t a simple entity. The Thomistic conception of God on the other hand prima facie clears the analogy since it’s a simple conception of God which is factually necessary for motion and efficient causes. The only real rebuttal my opponent presents is that of quantum fluctuations. However, refer to my 3 arguments above why that holds no weight in refuting the propositions.

Since it is the last round do not let my opponent bring new evidence to the debate, since there is no way I can response. Thank you :D

Microsuck

Con

I want to once again thank you for this challenge and to Spinko for organizing this tournament. I will not add any new arguments and revise my "strong ateism" case because this is the last round. However, I will refute my partner's arguments thus far.

MY OPPONENT'S ARGUMENTS


I. THE ARGUMENT FROM EFFICENT CAUSE


I argued in the last round that it begged a few questions that needed to answered. He attempted to answer the questions and I will be refuting his answers.


Begging the Question

Question 1: Why couldn't the universe come into existence based upon its own force/motion?

My opponent argued that it negated itself because it isn't possible fo the universe to not have existed, and then based upon its own force created itself. However, my opponent commits the fallacy of special pleading by arguing that, although the universe needed a prime mover, God did not.

I also argued that it was possible via the argument from quantum fluctuations. Moreover, I have presented a theory that the universe is indeed eternal, but has changed forms over time.

Question 2: What created God?

My opponent once again makes the fallacy of special peading. He states that God is not contingent, yet I argue that he is. For one if I argue that God exists, there is nothing that cannot prevent him from not existing. To flip the question around, "Why is there God rather than no God." Moreover, one may argue that God is necessiary, yet you cannot define a being ino existence without begging the question/circularreasoning.

Question 3: What moved God?

See above

Question 4: Why are we going be your definition?

I agreed that it was what we were arguing for. However, as pointed out above, the argument cannot prove that it is the God that you defined. Therefore, you haven't met your BoP.

Premise 2/3 is wrong

Not refuted.

II. ARGUMENT FROM MOTION.

Quantum fluctuations

I argue that it is still creation ex nihlo.

"In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of classical physics. But in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion." (Davies 1983: 162) [1]



So my hypothesis, which hasn't been refuted, is that the universe began as a quantum fluctuation. In fact, the modern understanding of physics still allow for such an idea:

"Once our minds accept the mutability of matter and the new idea of the vacuum, we can speculate on the origin of the biggest thing we know—the universe. Maybe the universe itself sprang into existence out of nothingness—a gigantic vacuum fluctuation which we know today as the big bang. Remarkably, the laws of modern physics allow for this possibility." (Pagels 1982: 247) [2]

So, the universe does not require a God and it is reasonable within the realm of modern physics for the universe to have began as a qunatum fluctuation.

MY ARGUMNT


My defense to the weak atheism case has not been refuted. Therefore, I urge a con vote

CONCLUSION

My partner has not met his burden of proof. Moreover, it has been shown that it is possible for the universe to have been created ex nhilo which negates both argumens. Moreover, God is contingent. Even if God exists, it is possible that he does not.

Finally, I argue for weak atheism. Without PEARL there is no reson to believe. Has he given us the PEARL (Phsyical Evidence and Reasoned Logic)? I believe he has not. As such, I urge a vote for the negative.

Resolution negated.

__________________________


Sources/Footnotes


1. Davies, Paul. 1983. God and the New Physics. London: J. M. Dent & Sons. Quoted http://www.infidels.org.... It s also arguable that there is no such thing as true "nothingness." However, because it is the last round, I will not bring that up and it is irrelavent.
2. Pagels, Heinz. 1982. The Cosmic Code. Toronto: Bantam. Quoted in the above URL.
Debate Round No. 4
35 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
MrParker- "Also, TUF, I don't think it's fair to say that Con didn't attack Pro's case "until Pro called him out on it". Con decided to make his own case in Round 2 instead of simply negating the entire time. There isn't anything wrong with that, although granted it isn't the route I would have taken."

That is true. Con only has the burden of refutation, however presenting ones own case is good form as well. Anyways, he still did alright. Didn't want to make too big of a point out of it anyway.
Posted by buckIPDA 4 years ago
buckIPDA
Also, to con, thank you for the footnotes on your sources! Your evidence was well documented, and it made the round clearer for me.
Posted by buckIPDA 4 years ago
buckIPDA
Before anything, let me say that this was a fantastic debate! The grammar on both sides was great, and both debaters where exceedingly civil.
that said I will offer comments for both the Pro and the Con, and then explain my BOP.
Pro-
+ I'll admit I was nervous when you used the Thomistic argument for God's existence, but you upheld it throughout the entire round. I would have liked to see a source which fully offered Aquinas's argument, but I understood well without it
+ I love your framework arguments, it's a shame you didn't extend them throughout the round, it would have stood as a fantastic refutation in rounds 3 and 4.
+ I really like the refutation of the quantum fluctuation, it would have been nice had you flipped th extraordinary claim/extraordinary evidence argument here for the Micro v Macro argument. I would have also like to see that argument sooner

Con-
+ Good choice in dropping the strong Atheism argument, had Pro attacked it before you had dropped it it wouldn't have been pretty
+ I would have liked a more thorough extension of the null hypothesis, that was your biggest argument for me and you never mentioned it after the second round.
+ Your biggest mistake was offering weak atheism as an alternative. The resolution doesn't give you a reciprocal burden, and in the end you made your workload harder. And even if it is weak atheism, it still makes a positive claim that you don't believe a god exists because of lack of evidence. If you're absolutely set on offering an alternative, then in the future I suggest agnosticism.

RFD:
The resolution's wording was a huge deal for my vote. It doesn't make an absolute claim, so at the end I had to weigh the Thomistic argument against weak atheism. I end up voting for the Thomistic argument based on both Pro's Framework and the Quantum Vacuum flip in round three.

Feel free to PM me concerning any specific question to the RFD.
Posted by buckIPDA 4 years ago
buckIPDA
This will be a long read, but I look forward to it~
*pulls out flowpad*
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
You two are neck in neck with votin only half way done.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Edit: forgot to give sources to con
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
To summarize:

> pro failed to meet the bop, con failed to convince me he deserved args
> conduct because con seemed to try more
> round to was pros weak point and almost made me vote con (this decided conduct, though)
> 3-0 con based on insignificant problems by pro, other then that tied
> sources cause:
A) had more
B) seemed more reliable

Done
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
Lol! Now that's an insult! (Considering my name is an insult to Microsoft!)
Posted by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
lol Microsuck someone called you Microsoft.
Posted by Apollo.11 4 years ago
Apollo.11
1. Rebuttals of Extraordinary evidence
Pro assumes people's beliefs are in concordance with common sense. It is, despite Pro's acknowledgment, still ad populum.
Pro's weird "appeal to authority accusation. I didn't quite understand that.

2. Pro fails to justify why an infinite chain cannot exist. Specifically, he fails to justify the implied (by necessity) assumption that the universe is comprised SOLELY of contingent parts. This is just problem of induction.

3. Con assumes the existence of God contradicts known fact. This is a key assumption that needed to be justified for Con's call for extraordinary evidence to have any cogency.

4. Pro never meets BOP.

Criteria for Pro to fulfill:
1. intelligent
2. a-temporal
3. a-physical
4. omnipotent
5. omniscient

Even assuming his arguments' veracity, not all of those criteria are met.

"My opponent argues that I haven't proven the attributed of God. This was never my burden. The resolution says to prove existence, not qualities or attributes."
With all due respect, this makes absolutely no sense. If I claim that I have a red car and then proceed to prove I have a car, I have not met by BOP.

So really, neither side did a very good job (not that I could have done any better). Pro's arguments were insufficient to meet the BOP, and Con's rebuttals were weak.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by buckIPDA 4 years ago
buckIPDA
CiRrKMicrosuckTied
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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Comments
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
CiRrKMicrosuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never met the bop but con never refuted his argunments well, hence in attampt to be fair I tie this. Some of pros rebuttals made no sense and Microsuck seemed constrained to say all he wanted to say in 8000 characters. So args tied. Round 2 (good args but no substance) by pro on any argunment left me unimpressed. The motion and cause args where good but unsupported (at least round 2 wise). Con seemed to put more effort. I wanted to vote con for that round only. Rest in comments
Vote Placed by innomen 4 years ago
innomen
CiRrKMicrosuckTied
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: Although I don't find first movement to be a very convincing argument, it did sort of prevail without effective negation. Were I con, I would have been more about refutation than taking any BoP, but the nature of the resolution paints con into a corner.
Vote Placed by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
CiRrKMicrosuckTied
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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: The argument from first motion sealed the deal-- Con did not properly respond to that, given that the quantum fluctuations require conditioning to occur. It follows that God must have been the first mover from this. I rarely give source points, but Cons sources were so excellent that it's warranted.
Vote Placed by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
CiRrKMicrosuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by ceruleanpolymer 4 years ago
ceruleanpolymer
CiRrKMicrosuckTied
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 Checkmark--1 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: Even though I disagree with theism I think the debate was clear. The only good argument microsoft had was the quantum fluctuation argument but he never directly addressed Pros arguments about context and indeterminacy. So arguments for Pro. Also Im giving spellingand grammer cause it was hard to follow the clumps of arguments Con presented.
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 4 years ago
KeytarHero
CiRrKMicrosuckTied
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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources go to Con for his use of them. Pro only used one source throughout the entire debate. Detailed RFD in the comments. I took the two additional points away since Mr. Parkers at least offered a better RFD.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
CiRrKMicrosuckTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: This will be kept short. The arguments seemed to be more speaking past each other, so there's little there to be said. However, Micro refuted CiRrK's argument effectively. Sources points are given for obvious reasons.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
CiRrKMicrosuckTied
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: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Mrparkers 4 years ago
Mrparkers
CiRrKMicrosuckTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD explained in comments