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

Team Debate: God Exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
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 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 5/29/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,386 times Debate No: 75872
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (44)
Votes (1)






This is a team debate. We (Team Con) thank Team Pro for accepting and having time to do this debate. Please do not accept this debate until the 29th of May, 2015. There is an Elo restriction of 2,000 to vote on this debate. There shall be 72 hours per round, with 4 rounds and a maximum of 10,000 characters per round.


Team Pro

salam.morcos []
lannan13 []
creationtruth []

Team Con

tejretics []
n7 []
Subutai []

Full Resolution

God likely exists.

BoP is shared.


God: the immensely great, omnipotent, omniscient, intelligent, transcendent cause of the universe.

Likely: probably; >50% chance of.

Exist: have physical or metaphysical, objective reality.

Note that Pro must attempt to prove God as defined exists, and Con must attempt to disprove it; thus, an argument saying "you cannot ascribe properties to a being unless it exists" is irrelevant.


1. No forfeits.
2. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be in an external link or within the debate.
3. No new arguments in any rounds except the opening round.
4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere.
5. No trolling.
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution).
7. No deconstructional semantics.
8. The BoP is shared -- Pro must argue that God likely exists, and Con must argue to the contrary.
9. Pro must present their case in round one and waive the final round.
10. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.

Debate Structure

R1. Pro's case
R2. Con's case, Pro rebuts Con's case
R3. Con rebuts Pro's case, Pro defends, rebuts Con's case and crystallizes
R4. Con defends, rebuts Pro's case and crystallizes, Pro waives


...again to Team Pro for accepting our challenge.


We want to thank our opponents for this challenge. We look forward for an engaging debate.

Contention 1: Pool Table Argument

The Pool Table Argument for the existence of God was created by Salam Morcos, and it goes as follows:

1. P1: Every cause was either caused or uncaused (Null Hypothesis)
2. P2: There is a finite number of past causes.
3. Let n be the number of past causes and let C be the set of all causes that ever existed: c1, c2, c3 ... cn
4. Now choose any cause cx from the set of causes C.

Using Recursive process

5. Does cause cx have at least one preceding cause causing it?
6. If the answer is no, then cx is an uncaused cause. End of proof
7. If the answer is yes, then cx has at least one preceding cause causing it
8. Let cy be any of the causes that caused cx
9. Remove cx from the set of all causes C. Now the size of C will be reduced by 1
10. Now make cx = cy and repeat steps 5 to 10

The recursive process will loop until either:

a. An uncaused cause is found in step 5; or

b. After a maximum of n-1 iterations, the size of set C will become 1. At that point, there's only one cause left in the set. There are absolutely no other causes available that can cause it. Therefore, this single cause must be an uncaused cause. End of proof.

Conclusion: The logic above, if the premises are true, concludes that there must exist at least 1 uncaused cause. There's no escape.

This is called the Pool Table argument because one could argue that it’s possible to know where each ball in a pool game will end up being, and could be traced backwards. The problem is that it’s impossible to know how the white ball would be hit.

For Con to refute this argument, they must either challenge the premises or challenge the validity of the logic. Con may argue that P2 that "there's a finite number of past causes" is not necessarily true. In order to keep this discussion concise, we would like to first ask Con if they agrees with P2. If not, we will show in the next round why this premise is true.

Now that we proved that there must exist at least 1 uncaused cause, let's examine some of the properties of an uncaused cause:

1. An uncaused cause must have behaved in a certain way that's not predetermined. Such a cause couldn't have been naturally caused!

2. The cause acted freely. If it wasn't free, then what made it act this way? The answer is nothing.

3. A cause that acted freely must have some form of intelligence. By intelligence I don't mean cleverness, but I mean a being with the ability to apply knowledge and skills [1].

An unnatural, free and intelligent cause that existed before all other causes is God.

Contention 2: Kalam Cosmological Argument

The Kalam Cosmological Argument (which I'll start referring to as the KCA in order to save space) was created by William Lane Craig and is a simple argument that goes as follows:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. [2]

The first premise is highly uncontroversial. If a car begins to move, one would argue that this didn’t happen by itself and for no apparent reason. That would be incoherent! Something must have caused this movement. When an apple fell from a tree, Newton thought that something must have caused it to fall (even though it can’t be seen), and that’s how he discovered gravity [3]. We argue that science is a great defense of P1.

The second premise is backed by scientific evidence. The Big Bang theory has shown that the universe had a beginning 13.74 billions years ago [4]. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem proved through the use of Redshift that the universe is expanding, and that any universe that is expanding must have a beginning [5].

Now at this point you're probably arguing: What does this have to do with God? Well, let’s examine the implications of this conclusion:

- This cause must be outside of space and spacetime which began with the Big Bang [6]

- It must also be non-physical because it’s outside of space.

- One has to be extremely powerful in order to create the universe.

- It’s non-abstract (like number 7), because abstract things don’t cause anything.

Therefore, a cause that is non-physical, non-abstract, extremely powerful, outside of space and spacetime and is the creator of the universe... if this is not God... then God help us (pun intended!)

Contention 3: Fine Tuned Universe

The universe is governed by many constants. For example: π = 3.14159…, G (Gravitational constant) = 6.67384… × 10-11 and many like those. What's interesting is that if these constants were slightly different, the universe wouldn't come to existence as we know it. By that, we mean there will be no stars, no planets and certainly no life. In order to start off the universe in a state of low entropy, so that there will indeed be a second law of thermodynamics, the factors must be within 10^10^123 [7]. This number is insane! If the gravitational constant was off by 1 over 10100, the gravity force would either be too strong and the universe would collapse on itself, or it would be too weak and not form any stars [8]. Please don’t argue that this is random, because that’s just not reasonable.

You may argue however that these numbers are just what they are. They don't need some God to monkey with the numbers, similar to number 2 or number 1,000,000. They are what they are. However, scientists disagree. They argue that "the physical universe does not have to be the way it is: it could have been otherwise" [8]. In other words, these values didn't have to be what they are and they are not unique in any special way.

We argue that this argument strongly corroborates the argument that the universe was intelligently designed which supports the God hypothesis.

Contention 4: Intelligent Design

Argument from Genetic Information

The cells of all organic life forms contain information in the form of genetic code. The chain of genetic code known as DNA harbors the amino acids which themselves contain no semantic meaning, but when combined together, can be readily utilized in forming every phenotype known to biology. [9]

The living cell demonstrates a system of communication, particularly between DNA and proteins. DNA codes for proteins which go on to form every part of a creature, including the very DNA from which it was coded.

DNA contains 4 chemical basis: A, G, C ad T. Human DNA consists of 3 billion bases [9]! The order, or sequence, of these bases determines the information available for building and maintaining an organism. The most important property of DNA is that it can replicate. It’s basically a language system in which communication occurs between a sender and receiver. Basically, DNA holds true information.

As we have demonstrated, this process is highly complex. We argue that it’s impossible, or at the very least, extremely implausible for such a process to have occurred naturally.

Argument from Irreducible Complexity

Irreducibly complexity system is a system that “cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional” [12] So if it can be demonstrated that such a system exists in organisms which cannot be reduced further, this would render the naturalist claim as impossible.

Naturalists argue that life began on Earth naturally through a very gradual process called natural selection [11]. We’ve already demonstrated the complexity of the DNA, and its information. But that’s not all. Cells have superbly efficient molecular motors, such as the ATP synthase, a complex protein which makes an energy-rich compound ATP. It synthesizes ATP via a motor (not kidding) from smaller chemicals [13]. These rotary motors in the membranes of mitochondria (the cell's powerhouses [14]) turn in response to transmembrane proton motive force (pmf) [15]. Each of our trillions of cells has many thousands of these machines spinning at over 150 rounds per second (9,000 rpm) [15].

Basically, ATP synthase is made by processes which all require functioning sources of ATP such as the unwinding of the DNA helix with helicase to allow transcription and then translation of the coded information into the proteins that make up ATP synthase. Manufacturing of the 100 enzymatic machines needed to achieve this require ATP as well! And making the membranes in which ATP synthase sits needs ATP, but without the membranes it would not function [16]. This example of ATP synthase exemplifies the common chicken-and-egg problem many molecular machines exhibit. Which came first the ATP synthase which requires ATP or ATP which requires ATP synthase?

The same applies to DNA and its information. DNA can't work without many molecular machines already in-place. Karl Popper mused, "What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated [...] [But] 'the machinery by which the cell translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA.' Thus the code can not be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code. Thus we may be faced with the possibility that the origin of life (like the origin of physics) becomes an impenetrable barrier to science, and a residue to all attempts to reduce biology to chemistry and physics" [17].


We argue that these arguments, which are logical, rational and based on valid logic and supported by scientific evidence strongly support the God hypothesis and renders the naturalistic claim as speculative at best. While anyone could basically argue anything (there are some who still believe the Earth is flat! [18]), but that doesn’t mean that every argument is a sound one.

Sources in comments

Debate Round No. 1


We thank Team Pro for accepting. We shall present our case in this round, and rebut in the next.

C1) Transcendental argument against God

For the first contention, we present the transcendental argument against the existence of God, formulated by analytic philosopher Michael Martin, the Professor Emeritus at Boston University [1]. If the universe was caused by an omniscient God, it is natural to suppose that God created logic and the physical laws within the universe. This would mean the universe, logic and science are contingent on God’s existence, i.e. a proposition that God is necessarily existent is entailed from the idea of an omniscient cause of the universe.

Consider logic. Logic presupposes that its principles are necessarily true, but if God caused logic, then logic cannot be philosophically necessary as it is contingent upon the existence of God. If logic is contingent upon God according to deistic assumption, then using logical reasoning to justify God naturally begs the question. “And if principles of logic are contingent on God, they are not logically necessary. Moreover, if principles of logic are contingent on God, God could change them. Thus, God could make the law of noncontradiction false; in other words, God could arrange matters so that a proposition and its negation were true at the same time. But this is absurd. How could God arrange matters so that New Zealand is south of China and that New Zealand is not south of it? So, one must conclude that logic is not dependent on God.” [2]

Physical laws and science presuppose the uniformity of nature via. special relativity, thus there cannot be violations of such laws. The property of omnipotence violates the uniformity of nature by allowing supernatural actions that violate such physical laws, thus challenging the core assumption of science. If this core assumption can be challenged, there is no reason to believe science can argue for God [3].

Thus, any justification for the likelihood of God’s existence, philosophical or scientific, would be impossible as God’s existence would challenge the validity of necessary logic and the uniformity of nature. This makes it incoherent to state “God Exists” too, as that statement presumes facts about logic that cannot be changing.

C2) A caused universe is incoherent

a) Requirements for Causation

Physicist Sean Carroll notes two features that allow us to coherently talk about any form of causation whatsoever [4].

i. Time & the arrow of time (determined by entropy)

ii. Physical laws

Time and the arrow of time are naturally required to speak of causation. Without an arrow of time, it is impossible to coherently speak of a ‘process’ of anything, or a ‘beginning’ of something. The beginning would have to have a fixed point in the arrow of time, without which it is impossible for anything to coherently ‘happen’ over a period of *time* (because there is no time).

For something to ‘occur’, it has to occur with a principle supporting its possibility. Possibility is incoherent without physical laws, as objective properties or actions are incoherent without limitation. It can be illustrated by the paradox of the stone, which admittedly does not disprove omnipotence, but illustrates how physical laws are necessary for anything to coherently have a ‘cause’ or beginning.

Prior to the origin of the universe, there were neither physical laws nor time. Sans these essential features of the universe, to speak of causality is incoherent. That the universe was caused is the primary assumption of deism, and without these properties, a caused universe is incoherent.

b) Eternalism

Another reason why the universe must be uncaused is the truth of Eternalism. For something to come into being, there must be a state in time where it first doesn’t exist [5]. Under Eternalism change doesn’t ontologically happen and therefore neither does causation [6]. William Lane Craig writes, “[o]n a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction.” [7]

Furthermore, the B-theory and eternalism entail lack of coherent temporal ‘change’. J.M.E. McTaggart writes, “Changes must happen to the events of such a nature that the occurrence of these changes does not hinder the events from being events, and the same events, both before and after the change. Now what characteristics of an event are there which can change and yet leave the event the same event? (I use the word characteristic as a general term to include both the qualities which the event possesses, and the relations of which it is a term -- or rather the fact that the event is a term of these relations.) It seems to me that there is only one class of such characteristics -- namely, the determination of the event in question by the terms of the A series.” [14]

According to general relativity, space is ‘stretchable’. This was confirmed by the Friedmann observations and Hubble’s Law, that were used by Georges Lemaitre to propose the Big Bang theory, that states the universe is expanding, which is shown via. the cosmological redshift [8]. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem, derived by Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin, further supports the theory that the universe is expanding [9].

General relativity also yields ‘eternalism’ or block universe, where the past, present and future are all equally real, and the passage of time is illusory via. the B-theory of time. General relativity models time as a ‘fourth dimension’ of space itself, allowing for the block universe theory to be likely true. Causality cannot be stressed on unless one assumes the presentism ontology of time, which is dubious in light of scientific discoveries supporting eternalism, especially special and general relativity. “Many [scientists and philosophers] have argued against presentism on the grounds that presentism is incompatible with the theory of relativity.” [10]

If eternalism is true, causation is incoherent. In special relativity, each observer has their own ‘plane of simultaneity’, a small section of three-dimensional space where all events are simultaneous [6]. “Special relativity suggests that the concept of simultaneity is not universal: according to the relativity of simultaneity, observers in different frames of reference can have different perceptions of whether a given pair of events happened at the same time or at different times, with there being no physical basis for preferring one frame's judgments over another’s. ... So, in special relativity there can be no physical basis for picking out a unique set of events that are all happening simultaneously in ‘the present’.” [11] This entails eternalism. Therefore, temporal change and, thus, causation, are incoherent.

Experiments from quantum mechanics have also vindicated Eternalism. Photons have been entangled through time [12]. An experimenter can choose to entangle photons even when they don’t exist in the present anymore. Other experiments show time is an emergent phenomenon. An outside observer would view the universe as static [13].

C3) Omniscience is an incoherent property

There is reason to believe Eternalism is true via. God’s nature. God is omniscient, he knows everything possible about the past, present and future. As philosopher David Kyle Johnson argues, for God’s knowledge to be true, there must be the event which makes it true [15]. God’s knowledge about something like, say, a cup on the table is made true by an existing cup on the table. If God’s knowledge had no truthmakers, then his knowledge would be false. What then, makes God’s knowledge about future or past events true? It would have to be the future or past event. However, since the future is causing God’s knowledge it must exist. If the future is non-existent, there are no properties about the future. Making it impossible for God to know anything about it. This entails the future must exist, as well as the past.

Eternalism is therefore implied via. God’s omniscience. As we have shown above, eternalism and a caused universe cannot coexist. Making God’s property of omniscience incompatible with his property of being a creator.

C4) Non-cognitivism of ‘greatness’

With the argument from non-cognitivism, I will attempt to demonstrate that the term ‘God’ does not refer to a coherent concept. The property of ‘greatness’ is inherently subjective, with qualities that determine greatness dependant on the subject.

One requires a standard for this conception of God to be considered omnipotent, i.e. all-powerful, where ‘power’ is the inherently subjective term, or ‘perfect goodness’, where objective perfection must be justified, and, in this case, greatness. For example, in a universe consisting of only a pencil, one cannot call the pencil a ‘sharp’ pencil, since the pencil lacks a standard to be justified objectively as sharp. Similarly, a property such as ‘maximal greatness’ requires a standard to be justified objectively, and sans such a standard, the concept of God as defined is incoherent. Thus, ‘greatness’ faces two basic problems:

1. A standard is required for the term ‘greatness’ to become meaningful.

2. ‘Greatness’, and what basically constructs it, is inherently subjective.

For a being defined according to being great, the initial problem renders God meaningless unless an objective standard is present for greatness to be coherent. The latter renders God’s very nature a matter of subjective decision, thus God’s objective existence is not rationally justifiable, while “existence” depends on objective reality.

An objective standard derived for God must either be (a) internal to God, or (b) external to God. The former begs the question and leads to God being self-defined, the latter is incoherent since God is transcendent, and sans the universe there is nothing which has objective reality except God (if he exists).

Sources in comments.


Rebuttal 1: Transcendental argument against God

First, Con argues that if an omniscient God exists, then it follows that God must have created logic. This is non-sequitur (doesn’t follow). We didn’t assert that God did or did not create logic because that would be a bare assertion, and we wouldn’t make such a claim. After all, logic could be eternal, or could have been created. Unlike Con, we won’t argue unfalsifiable claims.

Second, even if logic was created by God (we like to accommodate our opponents), Con’s argument still fails. Con argues that if “God caused logic [...] then using [logic] to justify God [...] begs the question.” This is fallacious and outright ridiculous! If “God exists” is the premise, then why are we even arguing! The premise must be the null hypothesis (i.e. God may or may not exist). Let’s illustrate this:

P1: God may or may not exist. (Null hypothesis)
P2: Logic exists.
P3: If God exists, then God created logic.

With these premises alone, you can’t prove that God exists. This is not a circular argument (doesn’t beg the question). Even if you provide a fourth premise:

P4: If Logic exists, then God exists.

This argument would conclude that God exists, but it’s still not a circular argument. It doesn’t even need P1 or P3. You will end up with a biconditional argument [1] (not circular) “if and only if God exists then logic exists”.

Third, Con argues that God can change logic and “could arrange matters so that a proposition and its negation were true at the same time” But this argument is even worse! Let’s illustrate Con’s logic:

P1: If God exists then God created Logic A
P2: According to Logic A, proposition and negation cannot coexist
P3: God can change Logic A to Logic B where a proposition and a negation can exist!
P4: But since a proposition and a negation cannot co exist, then P3 is false
C1: God can’t change Logic A to Logic B (P3, P4)
C2: God doesn’t exist (P1, C1)

But if you look carefully, P4 is ridiculous! Con judged the properties of Logic B according to the properties of Logic A! But you can’t do that, because Logic B has its own logic, which you cannot validate according to the presupposition of Logic A.

Third, Con argues that supernatural actions violate the laws of nature, “there is no reason to believe science can argue for God” Again, the logic is non-sequitur (doesn’t follow). God being the creator of the universe and the laws of nature, why can’t these laws of nature lead back to Him? And if God created them, why can’t God change them? It’s only reasonable that if God created natural laws that God has the capacity to change them. Not the other way around.

Con’s contention is dead. Rest in peace.

Rebuttal 2: A caused universe is incoherent

2.a Requirements for Causation

First, Con states that causation can only occur in the physical realm, and couldn't possibly occur in the metaphysical realm. There's absolutely no reason to assume this bare assertion as true.

Second, Con argues that causation requires time. But why does God need time to process? Why couldn’t He do things timelessly? There is no reason to believe that it’s not possible.

Finally, Con argues that there was no time before the universe. But that’s another bare assertion. There’s no reason to assume that there was absolutely no time prior to the universe. Even Sean Carroll (who Con uses to support his contention), as well as many other physicists and cosmologists have begun to consider the possibility of time before the Big Bang [2].

This argument fails to disprove that God doesn’t exist.

2.b Eternalism

Eternalism is a philosophical theory that argues that there is no past, present or future; they are all equally true. It's very similar to a movie, and we are watching different frames. Someone could be watching the last scene, and you could still be reading the FBI warnings. Con is arguing that Eternalism proves that causation is incoherent.

There are several problems with Con’s argument. First, Con is suggesting that Eternalism is true because special relativity appears to be incompatible with Presentism. However, this claim has been disputed [3][4]. It has even been argued that Einstein's theory of relativity actually refutes Eternalism! [5] Why should we choose one over the other?

Second, if Eternalism is true, then all causation (not just the beginning of the universe) is incoherent. How can the effect be caused if they both exist simultaneously (or simply are “just there”)? This means that there is no cause and effect. It also suggests that the very well known, proven and tested theory that "every action has a reaction" [6] is not true either. We find this unreasonable! Why? To deny scientific facts for the purpose of proving a philosophical claim is unreasonable and ad hoc.

Third, John Lucas, philosopher, argued that, "The Block universe gives a deeply inadequate view of time. It fails to account for the passage of time, the pre-eminence of the present, the directedness of time and the difference between the future and the past." [7]. He raised three key issues with Eternalism.

1. We apparently fear death because we believe that we will no longer exist after we die. However, if Eternalism is correct, death is just one of our temporal borders, and the forms of the world you live in would continue to exist even as one consciously moves forward through time toward dissolution

2. You are about to go to the dentist, or you have already been. Common sense says you should prefer to have been. But if Eternalism is correct, then a resemblance of you in the future is already feeling better

3. When some unpleasant experience is behind us, we feel glad that it is over. But if Eternalism is correct, there is no such property as being over or no longer happening now

But even if Eternalism were true, how does this imply that God doesn’t exist? God could have created an eternalistic universe. Eternalism is a problem to that naturalist who can't explain how this eternal universe exists. Proponents of Eternalism argue that the universe is just "there", was always "there" and will always be "there". Just like a movie, you can reverse and forward all you want, but the movie itself never changes. But this begs the questions: What made this movie? Who were the directors, producers and crew? Why is it just simply there? And why is it this special way? Naturalists just assert that it's there! Even the atheist Sean Carrol (Sorry for using your own guy again against you) takes a humble position on what happened before the Big Band and states “We just don’t know [what happened before the Big Bang]” [2]. It's unreasonable for Con to claim a truth claim that there is absolutely nothing beyond this eternal universe. However, this is not an issue to the theist because there is no reason to claim that God couldn't have created a universe of this type.

Rebuttal 3: Omniscience is an incoherent property

Con claims that if God knows the future, then the future exists (implying Eternalism). But this is non sequitur (doesn’t follow)! God could have the knowledge of what will happen before it happens. This is compatible with omniscience. If a ball was struck, and if someone is all knowing, this person could tell you exactly where the ball will end up at. Con’s claim should be dismissed.

And we’ve already shown that even if Eternalism is true, it doesn’t disprove that God exists.

Rebuttal 4: Non-cognitivism of ‘greatness’

Con argues that for something to have a meaning, a standard must exist. We agree with Con. However, Con argues that “greatness” is inherently subjective. But why is that the case? Con fails to provide a valid explanation for this. Why can’t “greatness” be objective? It’s interesting that Con argues with unfalsifiable claims as truths, which is a great disservice to the reader.

Con makes additional absurd claims. Con argues that a “standard is required for the term ‘greatness’ to become meaningful” and therefore “renders God’s very nature a matter of subjective decision”. But this conclusion is non-sequitur (doesn’t follow). If anyone can use any incoherent logic, we could argue that “I want God to exist therefore He exists!” Any sane person would think we are silly. Con’s argument is of this nature and should be dismissed.

Con also states that “existence” depends on objective reality. We agree. However, how does this mean that God doesn’t exist objectively?

Con then claims that objective reality cannot be set by God? Why not? If objective values do exist, then God definitely exists, regardless if these objective values are internal to God or external to Him. Even the atheist Mackie of Oxford University stated: “If, then, there are such intrinsically prescriptive objective values, they make the existence of a god more probable than it would have been without them. Thus we have, after all, a defensible inductive argument from morality to the existence of a god” [8]. So again, why can’t God set the objective reality if He is the creator?

And let’s assume (just for the sake of the argument), that greatness is subjective. What does this have to do with God’s existence? If Gandhi is subjectively great, does that mean he didn’t exist? We ask Con again: Did Con forget that their burden of proof is to show that God is less likely to exist?

Finally, if God created the universe, He must be greater, more powerful, more knowledgeable, than anything He created. One cannot demand the defining of a great God before that of an existing God as His existence as Creator is necessary for the understanding of His greatness.


Con failed to present any arguments to show that God is less likely to exist. Con presented several arguments, but even if they were true, it doesn’t reduce the possibility of God’s existence. Our team on the other hand has shown empirical and philosophical arguments that are logical, reasonable and well thought of that show that God is more likely to exist. We ask the reader to dismiss Con’s claims.

Source in comments

Debate Round No. 2


R1) Pool table argument

Objection 1: The ‘Law of Causality’

The pool table argument attempts to demonstrate that there is one uncaused cause (UC). The question that follows is obvious--this uncaused cause is a cause of what? This objection holds that the UC may be a cause of anything, but not the universe. The universe having a cause lacks coherence, since causality itself is implausible sans time, since the passage of time is required for anything to coherently ‘happen’. Eternalism also renders temporal change incoherent, since change does not ontologically occur in eternalism, thus time cannot have been caused.

Objection 2: Free Will & Intelligence

Pro asserts that the UC “act[ed] freely”, asserting that there was nothing prior to the cause, thus it had to act freely. This is based on the assumption that the uncaused cause is the cause of the universe, which is dubious in light of objection one. Thus, some aspect of natural laws must have influenced the cause, thus the cause cannot have acted freely or did not necessarily have a form of intelligence.

Objection 3: Predetermined Cause

Pro then argues that, the UC must be free, as the cause cannot be predetermined. The problem is that, Pro is only taking into account predetermination by external causes. However, if the UC is predetermined by its own nature, then there doesn’t need to be anything external to UC. Therefore, the first premise of the subargument is false and by extension the second one is too.

R2) Kalam cosmological argument

a) Causal Premise

Pro’s defense of P1 commits the fallacy of composition, viz. the assumption that since all things within the universe have causes, the whole universe must have a cause. The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that the whole has a property because all parts of the whole have that property, e.g. stating H2O is a gas in room temperature when H2 and O2 are gases at room temperature [1][2].

As mentioned, causality maintains coherence only in the presence of time--sans time and natural laws, we no longer have any reason to believe things need causes. Causality of the universe is not required, since hypotheses such as the zero-energy universe remain logically consistent with existing laws, defying the causal principle in the universe’s beginning [3].

Pro is inconsistent, since their defense of P2 appeals to the Hawking singularity theorem [Pro’s 4. source]. However, scientific laws all break down at singularity, the cannot consistently claim that science justifies P1 [8].

b) The Universe Began to Exist

The second premise assumes a presentism ontology of time and the A-series to be accurate, since eternalism and the B-series would allow for a non-classical interpretation of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, that would allow the universe to exist as a tenseless four-dimensional block--not one that existed forever, but one that cannot have had a finite beginning in time coherently either, as Craig himself concedes [4][5]. In other words, the universe would come into existence ex nihilo, but not begin to exist.

As demonstrated in the previous round, eternalism and the B-series are entailed by special relativity [7], and Craig’s defenses in an attempt to reconcile presentism with relativity have received major criticism [6].

Pro’s interpretation of the Big Bang is highly flawed--the Big Bang does not state that the universe began to exist, merely that it began expanding 13.8 billion years ago [9]. The singularity model of the Big Bang, to which Pro is appealing, also predicts that the physical laws are not valid at the singularity, e.g. the causal principle [10].

R3) The fine-tuning argument

a) Fine-Tuned Constants

Pro provides examples of finely-tuned constants, but it seems none of these constants are actually ‘fine-tuned’, thus Pro has flawed speculation. The two examples of fine tuning have to do with the gravitational constant and the likelihood of the universe starting out with low entropy.

Pro’s own source says that entropy is not an example of fine-tuning. Roger Penrose writes, “But why was the big bang so precisely organized, whereas the big crunch (or the singularities in black holes) would be expected to be totally chaotic? … What we appear to find is that there is a constraint WEYL = 0 (or something very like this) at initial space-time singularities--but not at final singularities--and this seems to be what confinesthe Creator's choice to this very tiny region of phase space.” [11] (note that Penrose doesn’t literally mean creator, it’s a thought experiment) Penrose’s assumptions on fine-tuning are also based on the assumption that the universe is closed, but that is dubious in light of observations of the CMBR [12].

The gravitational constant does not need to be fine-tuned either. For a constant to need tuning, it must first be dimensionless. This means the end result doesn’t depend on the units of measurement you use. The units you use are irrelevant because “[t]hey are arbitrary human conventions.” [13] The gravitational constant is not a dimensionless constant [14], thus “depends on the system of units being used and, likewise, is not a universal constant. This is because the unit of mass is arbitrary and G will depend on the choice of units.” [15]

b) Alternate Explanations

Michael Hurben argues that the constants cannot have been ‘tuned’ to anything else, since their tuning is out of physical necessity [16]. Pro asserts that random chance is ‘unreasonable’, but there is no justification for the same. Thus, I shall demonstrate why random chance is not necessarily unreasonable. In a hypothetical situation, imagine someone tosses a pack of 52 cards sideways, such that they get a curved line of cards--the order they get can always be considered precise, and while it may be improbable that it occurred of random chance or physical necessity, it did. This is primarily because the metaphysical possibility of intelligent design is not justified. Theodore Drange argues a similar analogy using dice to refute the fine-tuning argument [17].

R4) Intelligent design

a) Genetic Information

The essence of Pro’s argument is that it is implausible for the transfer of genetic information to occur naturally. This is highly flawed. Evolution can also produce new genetic information. Genomes with terminal protein are ‘vehicles’ of information transfer in genes [18].

According to a study published in the Scientific American, biologists *observed* the creation of new genes and genetic information via. evolution [19]. “In a study in the journal Science, Andersson, Roth and their colleagues demonstrate the process in lab-grown Salmonella enterica. They grew one strain missing a gene key for expressing the essential amino acid tryptophan. The strain needed to rely on another gene, which had a primary job but also a weak ability to take on the missing gene's work. The researchers encouraged the bacteria to duplicate the overworked gene, and its copies gathered mutations—some of which enhanced tryptophan production. At the end of a year's time (3,000 generations later) the bacteria had one gene that did the original job and a second that had evolved a new primary function—manufacturing tryptophan.” [20]

b) Irreducible Complexity

We have no reason to believe this ‘irreducible complexity’ could not be formed via. abiogenesis and natural selection. The evolution of ATP synthase is an example of modular evolution, during which two functionally independent subunits became associated and gained new functionality [21]. The ATP synthase is thought to have formed early in evolutionary history, at a point where all species with DNA did not necessarily have ATP synthase [22].

The most widely accepted theory for the origin of ATP synthase is the modular evolution theory. “The modular evolution theory for the origin of ATP synthase suggests that two subunits with independent function, a DNA helicase with ATPase activity and a H+ motor, were able to bind, and the rotation of the motor drove the ATPase activity of the helicase in reverse.” [23]

As mentioned, new genetic information can be produced via. evolution. The origin of DNA emerged from RNA, and RNA nucleotides have been produced abiotically [24][25].

The resolution is negated.




4. W.L. Craig and J.P. Moreland. The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, p 183.


6. Ibid.








14. Ibid.

15. Victor Stenger. The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning, p 87.





20. Ibid.


22. Ibid.






Defense of Contention 1: Pool Table Argument

Objection 1: Law of Causality. Con argues that the universe cannot be caused because causality requires time, and they infer that time can only exist within this universe. But why is that the case? We’ve already shown scientists who don’t hold this opinion [1]. So this objection is invalid; time and causality can exist prior to the beginning of the universe.

Objection 2: Free will & Intelligence. According to Con, this object is based on Objection 1 stating it’s “dubious in light of objection one”. But Objection 1 that time doesn’t exist prior to the universe is what’s dubious, and therefore this is object fails. Also Con asserts that “some aspect of natural laws must have influenced the cause”. Con makes a truth claim by saying that natural laws must have influenced the cause without providing evidence why that must be the case. This is a bare assertion and should also be dismissed.

Objection 3: Predetermined Cause. According to Con, an uncaused cause can be predetermined by its own nature. But that argument is ludicrous. If it was predetermined (even by its own natured) then it’s uncaused. So no! An uncaused cause cannot be predetermined, otherwise it would be caused. This objection fails.

We argue that Con failed to refute the Pool Table argument which supports the God hypothesis.

Defense of Contention 2: Kalam Cosmological Argument

a) Causal Premise: Con argues that the KCA commits the fallacy of composition. But that’s a clear misunderstanding of the fallacy of composition [2]. We would commit this fallacy if we argue that because every part of the universe has a cause, then the universe as a whole has a cause. Please read R2, and you will see no suggestion of the kind. What we argued was “What begins to exist must have a cause”. The fallacy doesn’t apply here and therefore Con’s argument fails.

Ask yourself this question: “An object appears! Isn’t it only reasonable to assume that something caused it to appear? Imagine someone tells you: Nothing caused it to appear. It just did!”

Again, Con argue that time didn’t exist before the universe, but we’re shown that it’s very reasonable to believe that time could exist prior to this universe. This argument is mute.

b) The Universe Began to Exist

Con argues that scientific laws breakdown at singularities. But this is not a challenge to P2: The universe began to exist. Con argues that the universe didn’t begin to exist, but began expanding. While we agree that the universe began expanding, to say that the universe didn’t begin to exist is unreasonable as the scientific community agrees that the universe had a space-time beginning, which Con also agrees to.

Con then pleads to Eternalism against KCA argument which is based on A-theory. We showed in R2 that Eternalism is a disputed theory and is not necessarily true. There is no reason to assume that A-theory is false. Dean Zimmerman writes about this:

"[When] appealing to findings from empirically well-grounded disciplines, philosophers face a strong temptation to overstate their case[…] I fear that some B-theorists have succumbed to the temptation, […] the presentist’s conflict with either version of Relativity is shallow, since the presentist’s manifold can satisfy the same geometrical description as a B-theorist’s manifold, and afford explanations of all the same phenomena in precisely the same style. In these circumstances, how could appeal to SR or GR justify the frequent announcements that the A-theory–B-theory dispute has been “settled by physics, not philosophy”?" [3]

We showed that Eternalism means that there is no cause and effect and that the proven and tested theory that "every action has a reaction" [4] is not true either. Because according to Eternalism, the effect already exists with the cause. There is no time (only passage of time) which is necessary for causation according to Con. We reiterate what we stated about Eternalism in R2 “deny[ing] scientific facts for the purpose of proving a philosophical claim is unreasonable and ad hoc.” Just because a possibility is theoretically possible does not allow us to argue in favor of it over and against known scientific principles or laws which are based on demonstrable evidence. In the scientific world, evidence which has stood the scrutiny of even minimal scientific methodology (i.e. observation, experimentation, etc.) always trumps hypothetical possibility.

Defense of Contention 3: Fine Tuning

a) Fine tuned constants. Con’s arguments are straw man arguments. If one of the constants we presented is not fine tuned, that doesn’t change the fact that fine tuned constants exist. Here is how an unbiased physics article explains it:

In short, numerous features of our universe seem fantastically fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent life. While some physicists still hold out for a "natural" explanation, many others are now coming to grips with the notion that our universe is profoundly unnatural” [5]

b) Alternate explanation: Con argues that Hurben argues that fine tuning is out of necessity. Con used a biased source instead ( of referring to Hurben’s work, and the source doesn’t explain why these constants are necessary. What Hurben argued that there isn’t enough reason to believe that the existence of our universe is improbable [6]. This is an argument from ignorance, not scientific evidence. However scientists argue that "the physical universe does not have to be the way it is: it could have been otherwise" [7]. So Con’s argument fails.

Con then argues against randomness, with the example that if you through a deck. Con claims that “the order they get can always be considered precise, and while it may be improbable that it occurred of random chance or physical necessity” But Con used a terrible and an inaccurate example! The difference is that there are 52! (or 8.1 x 1067) outcomes that are possible. However our universe is so precise that any other order would make it impossible for any star to exist! Therefore Con’s example is irrelevant. The same applied to the dice analogy by Drange.

Defense of Contention 4: Intelligent Design

a) Genetic information. Con missed the point entirely on genetic information. Genetic information existed since the beginning of the very first cell, and in essence since evolution. Therefore Con’s response cannot answer how complex genetic information can exist from the beginning. Con’s argument fails to refute the argument.

Con also argues that our essential claim is that it is “implausible for the transfer of genetic information to occur naturally.” On the contrary, chiefly our claim is that it is impossible for natural processes to give rise to genetic information. DNA serves as the blueprint for every creature's phenotype. Since DNA is a language system in which communication occurs between a sender and receiver, it can rightfully be said to contain true information.

Information is represented (i.e. formulated, transmitted, stored) like a language with instructions and meanings. When Alan Turing broke the Enigma code, no one could argue that such a sophisticate code was not designed [8]. DNA code is so sophisticated with individual four symbols (A, G, C, T) are assembled into combinations like words or code [9]. These codes actually bear semantic information, and most remarkably, carry intended actions.

Con claims information has been observed to be produced via “evolution.” However, what Con fails to understand is that the example given of Salmonella enterica involves the fulfilment of the role of another gene lost to mutational deletion [10], or in this case, man-caused deletion. by a pre-existing gene. A strain of bacteria which is intelligently manipulated to duplicate a particular gene, while hardly being a realistic natural scenario, is not evidence of the production of novel genetic information via natural processes. The key is that the gene which”evolved” the ability to manufacture tryptophan already had the capacity to do so. The fact that certain mutations lead to an inordinate production of what it was already able to manufacture does not count as creating new information. If we copied and pasted your argument, would you say that we have produced new information, in terms of the content of the message? Of course not!

b) Irreducible Complexity. Amazingly, Con argues against irreducible complexity with a “handwaiving” appeal to what he calls theory. We’re sorry but a theory with zero evidential support is not a theory, at best it is an unsupported hypothesis. Con has failed to address the argument. If this was really evidence, and not speculation, why would Dawkins writes about this, that it’s "the kind of thing that sounds promising as an ingredient for the origin of life" [11]. Why would Dawkins, with all his bias, consider the possibility of intelligent design (by other ancestors) [12]? That’s because these theories have zero evidential support.


We have shown that Con failed to refute any of our arguments. We however were able to show that Con’s argument are improbable in R2. Here’s a summary:

Transcendental argument - We showed that this argument was unreasonable and logically fallacious.

Requirements for Causation - We showed that scientist didn’t rule out the possibility of time before this universe which negates Con’s argument.

Eternalism - We showed in R2 and in this round that Eternalism is not a fact and has many issues. And even if this theory was somehow true, there is no reason to believe that God didn’t create a block universe. Con fails to show that God is not probable.

Rebuttal 3: Omniscience - Con argued that if God knows the future the the future exists which we showed was a non-sequitur.

Rebuttal 4: Non-cognitivism of ‘greatness’ was also a fallacious argument with logic that’s non-sequitur.

Thus the Pro team asserts that God most probably exists. Vote Pro.

Sources in comments

Debate Round No. 3



Please see comments for Pro’s bid to change the format--we accept it, and shall only defend our own case in this round and crystallize. We thank Team Pro for such an excellent and wonderful debate. Note that we also concede the transcendental argument against God.


Ob1: If even one contention of ours is upheld, and all of our opponent’s arguments are refuted, we automatically win the debate.

Ob2: If team Pro has failed to objectively demonstrate even one property of God, they have not affirmed that God exists, thus have failed to fulfill BoP.

C1) A caused universe is incoherent

a) Requirements for Causality

The metaphysical realm is, by definition, that realm that is not bound by any principles, i.e. transcendent to the universe. But, as mentioned, nothing can coherently ‘occur’ without some principles supporting their occurrence and binding it. Pro does *not* object to this.

Furthermore, Pro asserts that there could be another form of ‘timeliness’ sans the universe--but that is ad hoc and highly unlikely. The universe is defined as “all of time and space, and its contents” [1]. Michael Zeilik and Stephen Gregory write, “[The universe is the] totality of time and space; all that is, was, and ever will be.” [2] Thus, all of time--i.e. any form of passage where events take place that is coherently referred to as ‘time’--is within the universe; thus, an additional form of timeliness sans the universe is highly unlikely.

Pro’s argument is going from the frying pan into the fire. One could ask if the time before the big bang had a cause. If so, then he’s back at the problem he was at. If it was eternal, then nothing could’ve caused time and therefore God isn’t the cause of the universe.

Pro’s own source used to say there could have been “time before the Big Bang” contradicts Pro’s position--the source says, “[L]ow entropy near the Big Bang is responsible for everything about the arrow of time” [3], and entropy began with the Big Bang [4][5]. Since Pro *concedes* that some form of timeliness is required for causality, and there was probably no form of timeliness before the universe, God probably can’t exist.

Additionally, causality is not required. Pro argues that it’s incoherent to think of something coming out of nothing--but things aren’t formed ex nihilo because they are bound by physical laws, time, and the First Law of Thermodynamics [6]. An example would be a quantum fluctuation, for instance, with zero energy--a quantum fluctuation originates from either a false vacuum or a state of absolute vacuum, and is an annihilation of a particle and antiparticle, where the energy goes out of existence in a period of less than Planck time, unless the fluctuation’s net energy is zero [17].

b) Eternalism

Pro states special relativity is compatible with presentism. Even if this were true, note that we didn’t just argue relativity implies eternalism. If you reread our argument you’ll see we argued quantum mechanics also implies eternalism.

Nonetheless, the attempts to save presentism from relativity fail. Pro’s sources argue we don’t need to accept simultaneity with relativity. However, this doesn’t mean we can accept presentism. Eternalism doesn’t need absolute simultaneity, there are subsets of eternalism that accept an objective present, e.g. moving spotlight theory [7]. Presentism would still have no answer to the experiments that show time is relative.

People who make this argument fail to understand that relative reference frames are a core concept in relativity itself [8]. There should be more of an argument than just “It’s possible there is an absolute reference frame.”

The next argument they bring up is from a blog called “Soulphysics”. He argues that eternalism implies determinateness. Then shows relativity implies no event is determinate. This fails because, eternalism only implies determinate states of time, not determinate events within time. Events within time (length, time, speed, etc.) have indeterminate value, but the temporal state itself doesn’t. If eternalism did make claims about values of said events, it wouldn’t be a philosophical theory at all.

Their next two arguments are essentially the same argument. They’re arguing it’s not reasonable to accept eternalism, because it seems like there is a passage of time. We have answered this somewhat in our first round. Time can be emergent. Within the universe people would experience time, but ontologically time would be static. This idea has been tested and verified by physics [9]. As we stated above there are eternalist theories that have a present and passage of time. Another explanation is that the passage of time is an illusion created by our minds. We know that the passage of time is mental, since we can change how quickly we perceive it via. drugs like psilocybin [10], and adrenaline [11]. It’s also dependent on how old you are, younger people experience time slower than older people [12]. It’s reasonable to conclude that the passage of time is a creation of the mind itself. By Occam’s razor, we should accept it. We have established the perception of time is mental, it’s simpler to state there is nothing more to the perception of time than proposing an actual passage of time that the mind interprets. The former posits no unnecessary entities.

Next, they argue eternalism doesn’t imply the nonexistence of God. If they were correct, then there must be a way to save causation from eternalism. However, Pro doesn’t make an attempt to argue that. They imply there is without justification. They use a false analogy with a movie, but fail to see that the reason a movie needs to be caused was because there’s experiences prior to the movie. This is incoherent when applying the same standard to the block universe itself. Sean Carroll claiming he doesn’t know what happened before the big bang is irrelevant. Eternalism makes no claims about what was before the big bang at all. Just that all states of time exist.

C2) Omniscience is an incoherent property

Pro here claims God’s knowledge is based on present events. They’re basically claiming God’s knowledge is analogous to a Laplacian demon (a hypothetical demon which knows the present state of every particle in existence can determine the future and figure out the past [13]).

Science shows this type of knowledge is impossible. Lord Kelvin pointed out that according to the second law of thermodynamics information would have to be lost eventually [14]. Furthermore, modern quantum mechanics is indeterministic, meaning knowing the current state of particles won't get you anywhere in the future. There are certain states which are formed probabilistically [15].

However, there is a philosophical problem with this. God can only have knowledge of future events in virtue of the present. Pro is arguing that God created the physical universe. Therefore, the first state of the universe wasn’t always in existence (otherwise omniscience would be incoherent), but this implies God wasn’t always omniscient. Prior to the universe, God would only know that he wants the universe to come into existence. If I am going to create a house and have all the blueprints in my mind, do I have knowledge of an actual house? Of course not. But omniscience entails that God should know everything--even that which doesn’t exist. For example, I’m not eating a pizza right now, so God can’t ‘know’ I am, but he is supposed to ‘know’ everything epistemically by omniscience.

The same problem can be derived via. epistemic nihilism, and Munchausen trilemma [16], viz. nothing can be known for certain without being logically fallacious, thus ‘knowledge’, in nature, is incoherent. The above analogy simply conveys this.

Thus the Laplacian theory of omniscience is false.

C3) Non-cognitivism of ‘greatness’

Pro asserts that ‘greatness’ can be justified objectively, but have failed to specify what is considered *objectively* great. One, for instance, may assert that “he is great”, but one may disagree. It is incoherent to qualify something as ‘great’ objectively--any attributed ‘greatness’ can be challenged, and it is impossible to make an epistemic assertion that something is ‘great’. Thus, it is natural to conclude the term ‘greatness’ is inherently subjective.

Pro also makes the claim that regardless of whether or not the ‘greatness’ of God has a standard, God still exists. But God’s greatness is by definition, thus is objective, so Pro merely begs the question, especially with the moral argument, which basically renders their argument thus:

1. If God exists, God is great.

2. God exists.

3. Therefore, God is great.

But the second premise must hope to justify an objectively great God, which none of Pro’s arguments demonstrate--Pro’s arguments *drop* the property of ‘greatness’.

In their last argument, Pro argues just because God is subjectively great, that doesn’t entail his nonexistence. They give the example with Gandhi. However, Gandhi’s existence is independent of greatness. Since God is ‘great’ objectively by definition, his existence is dependent on his ‘greatness’, and all his other properties.

Here, OV2 can be extended to demonstrate that Pro has *not* demonstrated the property of greatness, thus they have not affirmed the existence of a ‘great’ God, so have not fulfilled BoP.

Forward OV2, thus Pro have not fulfilled BoP with their arguments, while 3 of ours stand. Thus, vote Con. Thanks for a fun debate.

Sources in comments.


We want to thank Team Con for a wonderful debate. We hope that you enjoyed the debate, and hopefully both teams provided thought provoking arguments.

As per the rules, we waive this round, and of course! Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
44 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by HeraldSarah 3 years ago
Although I do not have the necessary background to participate in a debate of this depth and complexity, this was a very thought provoking read. Perhaps this is misguided, but as I was reading I thought of this paradox: If God (assuming He exists) knows everything that will happen (the future), then isn't He a slave to fate, as the future is already preset? If, instead, He can see all the possibilities for the future (for surely His actions will change the future in some way), how does He know which one will happen unless His actions are predetermined?
Please do not hesitate to respond!
Posted by salam.morcos 3 years ago
Hi Lexus - I know the vote ended. But can you and zmikecuber provide your feedback anyways. I mean this sincerely. I don't care about the vote as much as the feedback.
Posted by Lexus 3 years ago
I noticed there are no RFD's, I will start mine now.
Posted by salam.morcos 3 years ago
Thanks for the feedback. But we hope to hear your full feedback.
Posted by zmikecuber 3 years ago
I must say, team Pro did much better than I thought.

Just reading the first couple of rounds...

John Lucas' problems with eternalism are pretty silly and scientifically inept.
Sean Carroll's claim that you need time and physical laws to have any causation is just philosophically ignorant...
Con's contention 1 assumes God created logic... and I don't personally know of *any* theist who thinks that.
Pro's contention 1 assumes the principle of causality and really doesn't give much defense of it.

That being said, the rest of what I read was pretty good, and I'll hopefully get the chance to read/vote on this debate soon. Good job to both sides.
Posted by salam.morcos 3 years ago
Thank you for the compliments. And I have lots of respect to you guys too.
Posted by tejretics 3 years ago
The first contention was just to experiment if that argument is strong/can be used in other debates. Apparently it can't, and the three of you are just amazing, your rebuttals just tore that apart.
Posted by salam.morcos 3 years ago
I am actually surprised that you conceded your first contention. That makes me feel good regardless of the final result of the debate :D!
Posted by tejretics 3 years ago
"You" was plural ;D
Posted by salam.morcos 3 years ago
Among the best debaters!!! What...! So I'm not the best EVER! :'(
(Just kidding of course)

And this wasn't my debate. Credit goes to lannan and creationtruth.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Lexus 3 years ago
Who won the debate:--
Reasons for voting decision: I have to go out of town for the rest of the day so I will not be able to vote on the entirety of the debate., so I will leave this as a tie but will provide what my RFD stands at so far. I think that this was a great debate, all in all, good job on both sides.