The Instigator
DebaterforAtheism
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
justiceandtruth
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Existence of God is Impossible

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
DebaterforAtheism
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/28/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,348 times Debate No: 65951
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (23)
Votes (4)

 

DebaterforAtheism

Pro




Introduction

In this debate, I intend to prove to my opponent that the idea of a god is not only unlikely, but outright impossible. I will be on the pro side, and my opponent will be on the con side, which means he or she will be taking the stance that God is possible.


Rules

I will now lay down a few rules to abide by for the duration of this debate.

1. Proper spelling and grammar should be utilized at all times.
2. For any websites, books, or other media you utilize, you must cite them.
3. Forfeiting will result in a loss.

To make this debate orderly, round 1 will be used only for acceptance. Round 2 will be for main arguments only. No rebuttals will presented in round 2. For round three, rebuttals will be stated. Round 4 will be utilized for final rebuttals and your conclusion.


Definitions

Before starting the debate, I shall define some definitions so my opponent and I are on the same page as to what we are talking about.

God: a necessarily existing being who can be described as supreme, maximally great, or unlimited because he has maximal excellence or limitlessness. God must possess some collection of properties such as omniscience, omnipotence, moral perfection, etc. To make it simple, this debate is over the existence of the Christian God.

Theism: The philosophical standpoint that attests to the existence of God or gods.

Atheism
: The philosophical view that attests to the non-existence of a God or gods.

Necessary Existence: Something existing that does not rely on any previous or external force for it to do so.

Contingent Existence: Something which exists that relies on something previous or external for it to do so.








Conclusion

In this debate, I am looking to debate someone who is serious about their position as Theist and who will not simply forget about this debate or be incapable of taking it seriously, which happened in my first debate. Do not accept this debate if you cannot commit to it and take it seriously.
I look forward to the outcome of this debate and I wish my opponent, whoever he or she may be, the best of luck.


Sources

1. plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/
2. dictionary.reference.com/browse/contingent
3. philosophy.lander.edu/intro/necessity.shtml
justiceandtruth

Con

I accept
My first act is to limit the debate strictly to the existence of the Christian God
Defintions: God-(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
Impossible-not able to occur, exist, or be done.
Existence-the fact or state of living or having objective reality.
All the con must do to win the debate is prove that there is a minute possibility that God can exist and I win. Since the resolution says "impossible" we must assume that God 100% cannot exist.
We have an established order in the universe. We have life and death, growth and decay. Every living the ranging from the humans to the stars will experience a birth and death. No living thing has ever been able to birth itself and now we are left at an impasse. If our universe in itself is creation what force birthed it. We are left with many answers and many possibilities one of those being, that behind creation was a creator. God
Debate Round No. 1
DebaterforAtheism

Pro

Introduction

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for assuming this debate. I look forward to this debate and I hope it to be a productive contention.

Arguments

I will now compile a list of the points I plan on going over throughout the course of this round.

1. The idea of a being of necessary existence being needed to create something that could just as likely be of a necessary existence is a backwards and paradoxical assertion.
2. There is an unsettling lack of substantiation towards the existence of God.
3. A conscious and thinking being cannot exist without quantum consciousness.


First, I shall begin by justifying my first point, which was the following: “The idea of a being of necessary existence being needed to create something that could just as likely be of a necessary existence is a backwards and paradoxical assertion.

If God were to exist, He would be of a necessary existence, meaning he is “uncreated” and did not have a cause. He is, essentially, a being that exists and came into existence without external phenomena. Furthering my description, this god supposedly created the universe. Therefore, the universe is of a contingent existence, which means it required something external for it to be created.
This particular point is not necessarily to disprove God, but to point out a paradoxical issue with the arguments towards God.
To point this out, I will start by saying that Christians believe God was needed in order for the universe to come into existence. However, if told that God would also need a creator, they fail to believe it. The Christian fails to realize the following question:

If the universe needs a creator, why doesn’t God? And if God doesn’t need a creator, then why does the universe?

I would like to hear my opponent’s response to this question, as it is crucial to be able to effectively prove my point.



I will now move on to my second point, which says the following: “There is an unsettling lack of substantiation towards the existence of God.

My opponent must admit that this is true. This is where faith comes in, I suppose. My opponent, if he is like other Christian debaters, is most certainly going to - or was planning on it before I said this - make a statement about faith and say something like “Just have faith.” This is what I am usually told. Unfortunately, faith means nothing to me. For me, I require scientific evidence. Someone who denies scientific evidence and facts denies reality. If there truly were a god, why is there no evidence? Why has this supreme being not left any evidence to support his existence. The world’s Atheist population is slowly increasing, and by 2038 the United States will be over 50% Atheist. If there truly were a God that, as the Bible and other religious texts prove, wishes to be known of and worshiped, then why is there still no evidence?

I believe the answer to this is simple: There is no god. Not only is there science against God, but there is no science towards God.


I will now continue on to my third and final point, “A conscious and thinking being cannot exist without quantum consciousness.” To prove this, I will need to do a lot of explaining.

In the early 20th century, it was realized that “it is fairly plausible that conscious free decisions (“free will”) are problematic in a perfectly deterministic world, so quantum randomness might indeed open up novel possibilities for free will[1].” As the only way for random behavior to exist is through the quantum theory, it is obvious that a conscious, thinking being with free will would have to have quantum-bound consciousness.

Some of the early pioneers or quantum physics such as Plank, Bohr, Schrödinger, and Pauli often emphasized the various roles of quantum theory in the conflict between physical determinism and free will. Free will is erratic and essentially unpredictable. The only way for free will - the power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will - to exist is for it to function in a quantum state, as there is no randomness in the physical, macro world.

Therefore, as the basics of this science have been explained, I will now present my explanation on how this relates to God. God is defined as an omniscient, omnipotent, infinitely great being with free will and the ability to work as he wishes. The key word there is free will. If God exists outside of spacetime, which would be the only way for a being such as God to create and control the universe, there would be no quantum physics and theory for His free will to operate. Therefore, as facts do not lie, it is impossible for God to have free will.

Conclusion

In conclusion for my main arguments, I have proven and thoroughly backed up all of my claims. I believe I have sufficiently made my arguments clear.
I look forward to my opponent's arguments and speculate about whether he can manage to prove me wrong. I patiently await his arguments.

Sources

1. plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/
2. rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_consciousness
3. quantumbrain.org
4. thefreedictionary.com/free%20will

justiceandtruth

Con

To first answer the questions you have, 1st off they are flawed. You are asking if the Universe needs a creator then a creator must intrinsically need a creator. According to the www.big-bang-theory.com "Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning." The site later goes on to say " "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we. "
Since we have science to say we have had a finite beginning science is not a very adequate measure of truth. Science is infinitely finite meaning that it can only reach as far as our minds can. We can not even begin to fathom what existed before our universe in that singularity. It is safe to assume that outside of the singularity existed God. Since God is infinite the universe could expand a googolplex over and still not reach the incredible size of God. Since science is greatly limited to our observations of our reality it is safe to say that we cannot discount the existence of God only because lack of observation. This is the quintessential fabric of Christianity which is faith. We must believe that what God says is true because we love and trust him.(Forgive me for being sentimental) In this reason their is a possibility through science that God existed outside that singularity which coincides with what you said that God must exist outside of space and time which is completely feasible.
Now on to free will-you made an argument that free will that God cannot have free will. I completely agree the bible even says in Numbers 23:19 " God is not a man that he should lie nor the son of man that he should repent" God cannot do whatever he wants, which is free will. he is bound by an order which is good and right. If God was allowed to have free will he could change his mind which would create new laws,new morality. If God changed he ultimately couldn't be God. A god can exist without free will just because something doesn't have free will doesn't mean it is not a God. This assertion proves inevitably nothing.

On to the offensive, without a God there would be no reason for humans to exist, We go to work to provide much like animals hunting in the wild. We reproduce to pass down our genes much like animals. But why do we humans need to exist. In fact why does all life on Earth need to exist. If we were all annihilated the Universe would continue to expand. Without a God the Universe would not need life, it would just be stars and planets and galaxies. A God gives us purpose to serve him and embody his will.
Outside the singularity we don't know what was so there is a possible chance that God exist. The scientific evidence would support this that God exist outside our space time continuum. It is perfectly feasible for God to exist beyond what we know and scientific proof.
Debate Round No. 2
DebaterforAtheism

Pro

Introduction

I want to begin by thanking my opponent for providing his arguments and allowing this debate to commence. As it is now the third round, it is time for rebuttals. I will give them now.

Rebuttals

My opponent began by answering my question, which was the following: “If the universe needs a creator, why doesn’t God? And if God doesn’t need a creator, then why does the universe?” Even though that round was for arguments only, I will not penalize my opponent for answering my question in round 2 instead of round 3, as I can see the confusion.
In response to my question, my opponent said “[y]ou are asking if the Universe needs a creator then a creator must intrinsically need a creator[sic].” That, as a matter of fact, is not what I was asking. I did not say God needs a creator. I will better explain my question:
You say the universe needs a creator, which is God, but you do not say God needs a creator. So why, if it is possible for God to not require a creator, does the universe hence need a creator?

My opponent then went on to say this: “We can not even begin to fathom what existed before our universe in that singularity. It is safe to assume that outside of the singularity existed God[sic].” No, it is not safe to make such an assumption. There is no evidence towards the existence of God, so it is not safe to assume that. Assumptions are made based on rational reasoning, not on faith. Faith often carries no basis of reasoning behind it, which is the case here.


Next, my opponent moved on to talk about my free will argument. He agrees with me, as the Bible gives evidence of my claim. However, part of his argument is this: “If God was allowed to have free will he could change his mind which would create new laws,new morality. It God changed he ultimately couldn’t be God[sic].” My opponent seems to be forgetting that God did in fact change his mind - many times, as a matter of fact.
Firstly, God created Christianity. God was unhappy with Judaism, so he sent Jesus to Earth to “die for our sins.” This is because he was unhappy with what he had created, so he changed his rules and morals. Here are some quotes from the Bible to prove that Jesus - sent by God - changed God’s rules:

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” - Jehovah (God_; 1st Commandment, Exodus
No one comes to the Father but through Me.” - Jesus; John 14:6
I am the Lord, and beside me there is no saviour.” - Jehovah; Isaiah 43:11
But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God.” - Jesus; Luke 22:69
I am Jehovah, and there is none else; besides me there is no God. I will gird thee, though thou hast not known me; that they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none besides me: I am Jehovah, and there is none else.” - Jehovah; Isaiah 45:5-7
You have said so. But I tell you. From now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” - Jesus; Matthew 26:64

Looking at these quotes, they contradict each other. Obviously, God changed his mind, rendering my opponent’s argument about God not having free will incorrect. However, I proved that God having free will would be impossible.

Then later, God created Islam. He was unhappy, yet again, with his creation, so he changed the rules again. It sounds to me that God has free will according to written religious records. But, again, that would be impossible.


“Without a God the universe would not need life, it would just be stars and planets and galaxies[sic].” - The universe does not need life. This is obvious. The only reason life exists is because it came into existence from the collection of chemicals in a heated environment.

Conclusion

I believe I have sufficiently provided my rebuttals to disprove my opponent’s arguments. My opponent, however, provided his rebuttals in round 2, and I specifically stated in round 1 that “[n]o rebuttals will be presented in round 2. For round three, rebuttals will be stated.”

justiceandtruth

Con

I apologize that I presented my rebuttals early.
Now onto the nitty gritty. Again since you have specifically stated that those who deny facts deny reality, outside of that singularity that our universe came from we have no scientific evidence to understand or prove or disprove anything that was. This impasse births the fact that anything could have been outside the singularity. Since we use science to approve or disprove subject matters everything is a possibility. While something's might have a greater probability of happening there is an unlimited probability that what was outside that singularity was God. Even if that likelihood was .0000000000000000001% it still had a chance of happening. God existing is not impossible because we have no way of knowing everything. The statement The existence of God is impossible assumes that we as humans have processed every infinitesimally ,minute piece of knowledge that is inside and outside of our known universe. There are things we don't know and things science cannot prove or disprove which means that some things have the opportunity of being very,very possible. Unless you can go ahead and prove that a. You know everything inside and outside our universe and b. through knowing everything you have thorough knowledge that god is illusory, the possibility of God is incredibly possible.

Now onto the free will argument let me address those bible verses with the main mission of Jesus "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Matthew 5:17
Jesus didn't create any new laws he just fulfilled the prophecy that was the Old Testament. The issue of free will doesn't correlate to God being a God. You use the free will basis to help assist your overall argument. As you stated earlier God is omniscient meaning all knowing. God exists outside of time and thus sees all. Since God knows everything past,present,and future he knows what he will do. If he didn't he would be wrong and thus not omniscient. For this reason God does not have free will.
I
Debate Round No. 3
DebaterforAtheism

Pro

Introduction

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for presenting his rebuttals. I would also like to express my gratitude, as I am glad my opponent has not only been using the faith argument, but logical, mathematical arguments as well. I was hoping for a competent debater, and that is what I got.

Rebuttals

I would like to begin my rebuttals by critiquing the following statement: “While something's might have a greater probability of happening there is an unlimited probability that what was outside that singularity was God[sic].” There is no probability outside the universe, for time does not exist outside the universe. Furthermore, there was no time inside the singularity either. This particular argument is false because there was no probability.

The statement The existence of God is impossible assumes that we as humans have processed every infinitesimally ,minute piece of knowledge that is inside and outside of our known universe[sic].” I want to point out that outside the universe, matter and energy do not exist. Therefore, there is no knowledge.

I am now going to discuss my opponents two points I will need to prove:

a) You know everything inside and outside our universe
- There is no knowledge outside the universe.
- If God exists outside the universe and is a necessary being instead of a contingent one, knowing all the knowledge in the universe does not pertain to this.
b) Through knowing everything you have thorough knowledge that God is illusory
- I truly cannot make sense of this statement. I cannot ascertain how this connects with proving the existence of God.


I will now move on to talking about my opponent’s refutations of the bible verses I quoted. Firstly, I am absolutely certain that God could not have free will, as I proved that in my initial arguments. Secondly, I want my opponent to explain to me how an all-powerful being could not have free will. If the God of the Bible is truly an all-powerful being, he would have free will, and he would not give humans a quality better than his.

Finally, I will talk about the following statement: “God exists outside of time and thus sees all. Since God knows everything past,present,and future he knows what he will do.” A being whom is not time-bound could not possibly see what he will do in the future, as there is no past, present, or future outside of time.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I would like to thank my opponent for assuming this debate with me. It is now time for his final rebuttals and his conclusion. Once those have been put forth, this debate will be in the hands of the voters. I look forward to reading his rebuttals.

justiceandtruth

Con

Thank you very much sir for the compliment."I was hoping for a competent debater, and that is what I got."
On to the rebuttals, the specific piece of information that I cited from the website www.big-bang-theory.com says," so where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know" . Voters in this debate ,we have established that science is the basis of approving or disproving a matter. Since explicitly we don't know what happened , it is impossible to say that the lack of time deteriorates probability. Probability isn't contingent upon time, but rather the chance of something happens. The claim that a lack of time results in a lack of probability lacks fundamental foundation and thus lacks substance and we cannot credit that argument.

The claim that there is no knowledge outside the universe is again unfounded because we have no science to say otherwise to affirm or disprove which again leads to the probability. Knowledge according to google is the "facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject." So in theory knowledge even theoretical knowledge could exist. Since theoretical knowledge can exist outside the universe knowing everything inside and outside does pertain to the existence of god.

Now to explicate the statement,"Through knowing everything you have thorough knowledge that God is illusory." The only possible way to know, for sure that God doesn't exist is if you knew everything. From knowing everything is the only way to know If God doesn't exist. Since we don't , making the statement it is impossible for god to exist disregards our inherent ignorance and the multiple possibilities for their to be God.

On to the free will argument, God is omniscient thus all knowing. God knows the thoughts, actions, and outcomes of all people interactions and events. From this conclusion God knows everything he is ever going to do and hence is subject to his own moral order. If god did something unforeseen then he would not be omniscient. Part b.) free will is relative to absolute knowledge, meaning to you and me our actions seem to be agents of free will because we don't know everything. However, on the other hand to an omniscient being nothing would be free will because all events have already played out and all outcomes are known.

God exist out of time correct, however from our perspective God is eternal and has been since the past, during the present, and into the future.
Conclusion: As the con my bop is proving the alternative of the existence of god is impossible by proving that the existence of god is possible, even if it is a trillionth of a percent. For this round we have established that science is the way we affirm or negate. It has gone uncontested that our universe began in a singularity as we both agree. It is said that we don't know what was outside the singularity and thus have not been able to prove or disprove anything. From this we can literally conclude that anything is logically possible under the premise that we cannot prove or disprove anything. This means that There being a God is one of the infinitely possible things that could've been outside that singularity. Our universe consists of the natural, outside of our singularity was literally the supernatural in which it is very possible that God could've existed.

Brilliant round sir you are an incredible debater
Debate Round No. 4
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Dhananjay_srivastava 2 years ago
Dhananjay_srivastava
According to my understanding of the hundredth monkey phenomenon the quantum consciousness can interact with each other.if we were to assume that they can be summed up I think god would be it.So in context everybody with a consciousness is actually a part of god perhaps that's why we consider him as our father figure and clearly explains his omnipresence and omniscience,(if we can think so much then the lump sum thinking capacity of infinite objects would be infinite).Quantum theory says that universe emerged from thought or religion says that universe emerged from god the analogy is striking. Perhaps in distant future we may realize the interchangeability of different substances like matter to time or energy or as such.It may not seem feasible but there is a possibility and at that time we will know that god is basically the lump sum of everything from matter to energy.
Although the hundredth monkey effect has been discredited by the skeptics society here is an interesting article on the science behind it.
http://exopermaculture.com...
Moreover please do not discredit faith so much.If the pillars on which the tower of science stands the( 7 basic SI units) are not kept faith upon this greatest architecture of human achievement will fall, after all mass is something that relates force and acceleration, what exactly is that something, we don't know.
Moreover I do not find it rational to disbelieve something that has been known since inception of mankind
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
A person can have there own opinion, but real facts, real knowledge and the truth will always be based in reality. That would be the reality we all share. Religions and gods are subjective, which makes them an unreliable path to knowledge. Reason is objective, and the true path to real knowledge.
Posted by hayhen13 2 years ago
hayhen13
Cheyennebodie,

Also this, "human of 13 years of age with all the answers to life's questions" has burned you like three times now in all your responses and your only comeback was that I can't see truth or something, or you just tell me about religion.
Posted by hayhen13 2 years ago
hayhen13
In the bible it says, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created him; male and female created he them." That is all it says in Genesis 1. In Genesis 2 it says, "And the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." I don't know how, "The bible goes into detail how God creates.." since it is self-evident that it doesn't. I says God created man, but doesn't say how, but then says that he gathered up dirt and, poof, a living man! This is very funny, you said, "There is no other reasonable explanation for life to just pop out of the ground" yet, man literally did pop out of the ground according to your bible!

The rest of your comment was just saying that I can never hope to see truth and all that stuff that you always say. My argument has therefore defeated your whole comment and shown how you hilariously contradict yourself. You call it hilarious that I think life can just pop out of the ground, yet you believe the same thing!
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
hayden.... You have the same evidence we have , life itself. There is no other reasonable explanation for life to just pop out of the ground. Nothing in science has even come close to duplicating this feat.The bible goes into detail how God creates and how that same force will affect all things around us.And once understanding that, it is plain to see. Of course if you do not know where to look you will never come to the knowledge of the truth.
Posted by hayhen13 2 years ago
hayhen13
justiceandtruth,

It saddens me that you would use my own age against me. I never said I could solve the world's problems as you suggested. I was only making abundantly clear, your illogical reasoning. Your comeback did not even answer my response, all you did was clarify my age and ask if I could solve world hunger. If you give a response to my claim, it should be about the claim, not how old I am. If you choose to believe the foundation of your life on the "trillionth of a percent" chance that outside of space and time there COULD be a supernatural being. The logic needed to choose atheism or religion is met by an infant. Therefore, and I hope you even read my previous comment, I question your intelligence.
Posted by justiceandtruth 2 years ago
justiceandtruth
Hayden a human of 13 years of age with all the answers to life's questions. Tell me, how do we solve world hunger, are we alone in the universe, how do we keep constant global peace, how do we stop all diseases. Surely you most know and I patiently await your answer.
Posted by hayhen13 2 years ago
hayhen13
To justiceandtruth,

You said, "From this we can literally conclude that anything is logically possible under the premise that we cannot prove or disprove anything." Under this same theory, you can conclude that neon ninja cats traveling through space and time to find a lost rubber band is possible, just on the basis that we don"t know every fact in the universe! This would actually be more reasonable since we know for a fact that cats exist and therefore backs up part of it. So the idea of God is crazier than this.

This is very ludicrous to me, and makes no sense, that you based your claim on this. But I will disprove what you said by proving 2+2=4. 2+2 can only equal four because if you have two sticks, and add two sticks, you cannot have any other number of sticks than four.

The only logical or intelligent reason is to know that God can"t exist. But still, almost the whole world believes in this slim possibility. You even said, "proving that the existence of god is possible, even if it is a trillionth of a percent" Why would any sane person put their life"s faith into this trillionth of a percent that this magical being could exist?

Your logic is not logical at all and makes no sense, no wonder all the most intelligent people in the world were atheist.
Posted by hayhen13 2 years ago
hayhen13
Cheyennebodie,
Go to your church and tell yourself that God loves you over and over until you feel better. Then maybe you can stop being annoying.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
hay...... You would not know truth if it ran over you.You may " know " religion, but you have no clue about the great promises that God has to offer man.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by NoMagic 2 years ago
NoMagic
DebaterforAtheismjusticeandtruthTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: The arguments go to pro. As a side, Pro used the notion of free will to disprove god. However, what if free will doesn't exist? I don't think that it does. What does that do to Pro's position? Think Con should've asserted no free will.
Vote Placed by hayhen13 2 years ago
hayhen13
DebaterforAtheismjusticeandtruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: pro overall had more convincing arguments and was just a better debater than con.
Vote Placed by Jzyehoshua 2 years ago
Jzyehoshua
DebaterforAtheismjusticeandtruthTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: As a young earth creationist I actually completely disagree with all of Pro's arguments, and thought Con's points more defensible. However, Con did not make rebuttals where they could have although they did do a decent job of pointing out the problems a singularity causes for an atheistic beginning to the universe, which is why I don't award Pro argument points. However, Pro's sourcing and spelling/grammar were clearly superior so, much as I dislike doing so, I have to give the debate to Pro. Had Con pointed out the flawed argument of Pro's claim of a Bible verse contradiction by showing Jesus being the Son of God does not equate to there being multiple gods, I'd have given them argument points, but they did not. I don't think Pro proved their case but Con did not do enough to disprove it.
Vote Placed by sengejuri 2 years ago
sengejuri
DebaterforAtheismjusticeandtruthTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro took the claim "God doesn't exist" a step further by attempting to prove that the concept of God is "outright impossible." I compliment Pro as a skilled and well-spoken debater. However, even though Pro's coherence was superior to Con's, I cannot award them arguments because they did not quite prove God is impossible. Their first two arguments only reveal god's unlikelihood, not his impossibility. Their second argument is a logical fallacy called "argument from ignorance." The largest obstacle to Pro's proof was attempting to confine a super-natural deity's existence within natural laws (quantum physics). In my opinion, it's not quite valid to say God is impossible just because he does not follow quantum physics... because there's a possibility that god is not bound by quantum theory. In the end, I believe Pro made a strong case but fell short of proving god's impossibility. However, since Pro showed superior skill, I award them a technical victory for grammar and sources.