The Instigator
TheSkeptic
Con (against)
Winning
34 Points
The Contender
DiablosChaosBroker
Pro (for)
Losing
33 Points

The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid - 1C

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/10/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 10,754 times Debate No: 6198
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (227)
Votes (13)

 

TheSkeptic

Con

Note: the "1C" notation in the Topic title is simply for searching purposes.

[Definition - Existence]
http://dictionary.reference.com.........
1. the state or fact of existing; being.

*NOTE* I am not debating whether or not a God exists in one's MIND, but rather in REALITY.

[Definition - Valid]
http://dictionary.reference.com.........
1. sound; just; well-founded
2. Logic. (of an argument) so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction.

*NOTE* Stemming from the second definition, I don't intend for my opponent to create a syllogism. Simply put, my opponent needs to construct an argument of which I can't successfully defeat (of course, this is to the opinion of the voters).

Additionally, I require that my opponent argue for whatever deity they are proving with the intent of showing that it is PROBABLE/DEFINITE the deity exists (through their argument). Saying that something is possible does not mean it exists.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is how the debate will play out:

Round 1: This is my Round 1 for clarifications and guidelines. For PRO, he/she will either state that his following arguments will affirm a specific god (i.e. Christian God, Muslim God, etc.) or a metaphysical supreme being. My opponent can list the attributes of the metaphysical supreme being in his Round 1 is he/she wishes. THEN, my opponent will LIST his/her ARGUMENTS with at least a brief EXPLANATION for both (I don't want just a line of titles).

Round 2 - 4: I will refute his/her arguments and it will go back and forth as such.

I hope we have a good debate!
DiablosChaosBroker

Pro

I thank for the opportunity for my opponent to challenge me and for creating this debate focusing on the arguments concerning the existence of God. I accept all of his definitions. In this debate, we both have the burden of proof. I will attempt to create a valid argument for the existence of God and it is my opponent's burden to invalidate it.

Since by the terms of the debate, I get to characterize what I mean by God. God is a supreme being that can interact with the physical world and but, is not detectable with scientific instruments. His attributes are listed as:

*omnipotence
*divine simplicity
*jealousy
*eternal and necessary existence.

1. The complexity of our planet and the Universe points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today. The complexity of our Solar System is too rare for any other habitable planet similar to Earth could form that supports intelligent life. The factors that demonstrates the uniqueness of our Solar System are:
*galaxy size
*galaxy type
*galaxy location
*supernovae eruptions
*white dwarf binaries
*proximity of solar nebula to a supernova eruption
*distance from parent star
*magnetic field
*volcanic activity
*parent star mass (1)

That's just ten factors I listed which already demonstrates complexity of the universe. If just 66 factors are listed, the total probability would be estimated to be 1:10^99, which is way too high for natural causes to explain alone. There is about trillions of planets in the universe according to a study conducted by astronomers. (2) Even if there was more, 10^99 is easily much larger than a trillion or quadrillion number of planets which explains the rarity of any other planets similar to Earth. "Unless ALL of these conditions and many more not included in this list are met, we would have a universe that would preclude the possibility of conscious, complex life forms. However, it is possible to meet all of these conditions for the universe and still not necessarily find a suitable habitat in the universe for complex, conscious life." (3)

Time is a factor included in the possibility of a planet having intelligent life. The Earth could not have humans evolving from primates if the Earth was corrupted before there was humans by comets, meteorites, asteroids, and etc that could destroy life. If we were to put time as a factor in the probability, the chance could severely or slightly decrease. However, the odds are certainly not in favor in having many planets with intelligent life.

The Fermi Paradox:
1.The apparent size and age of the universe suggest that many technologically advanced extraterrestrial civilizations ought to exist.
2. However, this hypothesis seems inconsistent with the lack of observational evidence to support it.

This alone supports the Earth is unique because it shows how intelligent life is rare. There are an estimated 250 billion (2.5 x 10^11) stars in the Milky Way and 70 septillion (7 x 10^22) in the visible universe. There should still be a great number of civilizations extant in the Milky Way galaxy alone even if intelligent life occurs on only a very small percentage of planets around these stars. However, it is assuming that Earth is not special, but merely a typical planet. The chance of a planet similar to Earth is small, demonstrated by the Fermi Paradox. Why the galaxies have not been colonized already if intelligent life might have evolved earlier? "Even if colonization is impractical or undesirable to all alien civilizations, large scale exploration of the galaxy is still possible." However, no signs of either colonization or exploration have been found. Even if such civilizations are rare, they should exist somewhere and some point during the history of the universe, and since they could be detected from far away over a considerable period of time, many more potential sites for their origin should be within our view. (4)

2. Pick any event in the universe. Since every cause has an effect, no matter what event you choose, it will still be the result of some cause or a very complex set of causes. Each of those causes is the result of some other set of causes, which are, in turn, the results of yet other causes. Thus, there is an enormous chain of events in the Universe, with the earlier events causing the latter. Either this chain has a beginning, or it does not. Since an infinite regress is logically impossible(an endless cycle of causes), then there must be a first cause (something that is not an effect).

According to the Big Bang theory, gravitational singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity and approximately 10^-35 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the universe grew exponentially. (5) What caused it to expand in the first place? What caused the singularity to exist in the first place?

We all know that nothing that begins to exist does so without a cause; nothing comes from nothing. There must be something else that already exist that can bring it into existence for something to come into existence in the first place.
For something to come into existence there must be something else that already exists that can bring it into existence. "The fact that the universe began to exist therefore implies that something brought it into existence, that the universe has a Creator." (6)

Sources:
1. http://www.666soon.com...
2. http://dsc.discovery.com...
3. http://www.leaderu.com...
4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
5. http://en.wikipedia.org...
6. http://www.existence-of-god.com...
Debate Round No. 1
TheSkeptic

Con

I thank my opponent for a well thought-out argument which is in a neat and concise format. I agree with my opponent's observation that we both have a burden of proof. Before I get started with my refutations, I want to stress one notion (I've been learning from previous debates): my opponent's argument must show that the existence of God is LIKELY (unless of course, he means to prove God's existence 100%, which is questionable in principle). Simply stating something is possible does little to show the validity of it's existence, or the probability of it being so. I've stated this in my opening argument, and my failure to do so in previous debates may have led to my downfall in respect. That is the nuisance of debates - you have to get all corners defined and prepared for. So now, I will start.

=====Counterarguments=====

>>>Fine-Tuning of the Universe<<<

Contrary to what my opponent states about there being "66 factors", it is 26 dimensionless fundamental physical constants [1] that come into play (though these constants do affect these 66 factors). My approach to this argument isn't to attack each specific factor, because this is tedious and somewhat misses the point. I will list my arguments accordingly in an ABC-format with any sub-arguments in a 123-format.

A. Anthropic Principle
According to the anthropic principle, the only kind of universe that could sustain humans (us) is one similar to the one we are in now. Thus, the conditional probability for humans existing is 1. If there were a slightly different universe (as my opponent hammers with his argument), then we wouldn't exist. Of course, to the universe it wouldn't matter at all. Because nothing matters to the universe. It is a tautology and error for my opponent to assume that humans are the "goal" for the universe. In a totally different type of universe with different amount and types of dimensionless fundamental physical constraints, in place of humans there could be a totally different type of being - to us it would most likely be called an "alien". There could be totally different organisms that arise from alternative biochemistry[2] that we wouldn't know about.

B. Statistical Argument (from my opponent)
My opponent some how comes to the number of 1:10^99 as the probability for the current state of our universe. I ask of my opponent - how does he come up with such a statistic?! I'm not asking for a source, but I'm asking HOW that SOURCE came up with such a statistic. Because ask any statistician - to come up with the statistic for an event you will need to account MOST if not ALL the factors that come into play - and for creationists to tout they know the probability of the complexity of the universe/abiogenesis/etc., they will need to have great and unparalleled understanding in those respective fields. So great will their understanding be that they will in fact know MUCH more than science currently does. So I see only two options: either you recant your statistical argument based on false reasoning and lack of evidence, or you share with the entire scientific community your vast knowledge on abiogenesis and cosmological evolution. The misuse of statistics is great, and can be find rampant in psychology, amongst statisticians themselves, and evidently creationists [3].

C. Multiverse Theory
According to the multiverse theory, there are many if not infinitely amount of possible universes in what we call "reality" [4]. Therefore, the probability of having a universe "fine-tuned for life" is barely a problem at all. In the many universes, we happen to be in one of the universes that have the right physical constraints (each universe in the multiverse theory will most likely have different physical constraints than the other). This theory is a naturalistic explanation for the fine-tuning problem.

D. Alien design
It has been proposed that a possible naturalistic explanation is that a highly advanced alien civilization may have created us, or the physical constraints that led to our creation. Additionally, the Simulation hypothesis has been proposed to state that our universe in fact IS a simulation, which would thus call for the need of an alien species [5]. While this may seem far-fetched, it is equally plausible when compared to my opponent's God. Because to receive validation from it's existence SOLELY by this argument, aliens have the same possibility as my opponent's omnipotent God, if not more. I will come back to this point later on.

>>>Time on Earth<<<

My opponent's argument rests on the premise that slightly complex animals were alive (or in the very big picture evolving) while comets, meteorites, asteroids, and any object from space was raining on earth. This of course, is false. We had an ATMOSPHERE by the time slightly complex animals were arising [6]. While the study of the evolution of Earth's atmosphere is still going on, a plausible scenario is that an early bacteria called the cyanobacteria[7] were the first oxygen-producing evolving phototropic organisms - they lived around 3.3 billion years ago. This far precludes complex animals.

>>>The Fermi Paradox<<<

A. Civilizations don't have to arise
There could very well be the possibility that life has arisen in other places in the universe. However, to state that such life has to be TECHNOLOGICALLY ADVANCED, is pushing it. We don't know whether or not the probability of life becoming technologically advanced - so this very well punches holes in the Fermi Paradox.

B. Doomsday Argument
Another relating argument is the Doomsday argument, which is a probabilistic argument for how long humans have yet to live. This can be applied to the Fermi Paradox because if a civilization were to be developed, it could very well have happened millions of years ago and subsequently destroy itself (through any means such as environmental, wars, etc.) [8].

C. We don't have technological power/haven't searched long enough
Due to my shrinking Character limit, I will stop with a last third argument. Basically, the Fermi Paradox does not accommodate for various aspects. Perhaps we haven't searched long enough or our technology (or the aliens) aren't the same. This could very well explain the Paradox.

>>>First Cause Argument<<<

My opponent's argument fails in several aspects:
1. There are things that are un-caused: the virtual particle [9]
2. We don't know what caused the singularity to exist or to expand, but the multiverse theory could. According to the multiverse theory, in other universes different from ours, laws such as cause-and-effect won't have to be the same - therefore they don't fall prey to it. We come from another universe, of which doesn't have a cause-and-effect law.

=====Conclusion and Final argument=====

I'm sorry for the less detailed argument towards the end - character limits suck. But I have one last argument before going - and this argument applies EVEN if all my previous argument somehow fail. My opponent's "God" is omnipotent, and he states it's existence is necessary for the universe to exist. But I ask - why? Why can't an entity of 95% power instead of 100% (omnipotence) create the universe? In fact, there are an INFINITE amount of anonymous entities that can create the universe according to my opponent's argument. An argument that gives the probability of many (if not infinite) amount of possible answers is NOT a good argument at all.

---References---
1. http://www.nationmaster.com...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
4. http://www.astronomy.pomona.edu...
5. http://en.wikipedia.org...
6. http://en.wikipedia.org...
7. http://en.wikipedia.org...
8. http://en.wikipedia.org...
9
DiablosChaosBroker

Pro

I thank my opponent for his excellent response and I agree that I have to show that the existence of God is likely. My opponent states that showing that something is possible holds little water regarding the validity of its existence, or the probability of it being so. I agree and now will start with the debate.

1. Fine-Tuning of the Universe

A. Anthropic Principle
Of course if there were a slightly different universe, then we wouldn't exist. My opponent thinks that Earth is not a special planet, but a typical planet. This claim would be supported if it has any evidence that other intelligent life has existed on other planets. This leads to the Fermi paradox which I will explain later.

B. Statistical Argument
Did my opponent checked the source that I listed? (1) Because if he did, he would came to the conclusion that the probability is roughly estimated. My opponent is indeed correct that you will need to account most if not all the factors that come into play. However, if my opponent wishes for the probability to be even higher, I would gladly add more factors to do so. But the low probability already states that random chance would be almost impossible to create a habitable zone where Earth is. It should be noted that I did not state the probability for abiogeneis or cosmological evolution. I only stated the probability of a galaxy of having a habitable zone similar to Earth. Almost anybody can understand that if the Earth was too far away, it would be too cold and if the Earth was too close to the sun, it would be too hot for life to exist. My opponent misunderstands the probability and states that there is no evidence. However if my opponent actually looks at the source, he would understand that Earth cannot be too large or too small.

C. Multiverse Theory

This theory has several flaws:

1. There is no empirical correlation and testability for this theories, and without hard physical evidence are unfalsifiable.(2)
("Simply stating something is possible does little to show the validity of it's existence, or the probability of it being so.")
2. Postulating an infinity of unseen and undetectable universes just to explain the one we do see violates the Occam's Razor. (2)
3. If the bio-friendliness of the natural world were the result of randomness, we might expect the observed universe to be minimally rather than optimally bio-friendly. (3)
4. It is really philosophical wishful thinking for atheists to try to discard the need of an intelligent Creator. (4)
5. Our part of the multiverse has managed to make itself completely inaccessible to contraction and future expansion.(4)
6. If it were possible for one part of the multiverse to become thermodynamically dead, it would be expected to be possible for others. (4)
7. It makes absolutely no sense that the universe is eternal with the characteristics that we observe. (4)
8. Infinite universes will lead to infinite regress and infinite qualities do not occur in reality.
9. What caused the creation of the multiverse?
10. Without an observer, the universe has no purpose in existence.
11. If a theory allows anything to be possible, it explains nothing; a theory of anything is not the same as a theory of everything.

If there is only one universe you have to have a fine-tuner. If you don't want God, you'd better have a multiverse.

D. Alien design
My opponent has suggested that aliens might have created the universe. This already leads to infinite regress because who created the aliens in their universe? Another alien species? Who created them? Who created their creator? The Simulation hypothesis has been proposed to state that our universe in fact is a simulation - which is more likely of God's. For example, if life was a simulation of an alien species, who created the aliens? What if the aliens live in a simulation also, who created that simulation? Either way aliens could not create us because it would lead to infinite regress.

>>Time on Earth<<<
My opponent has misunderstood this argument. Earth formed 4.54 billion years ago and if comets, meteorites, or asteroids had collided with the Earth, they could stop evolution by killing all life and made the Earth unsuitable for life.
Venus is very similar to Earth and is believed to contain water at one point. Venus has lost all the oceans on its surface due to rampant greenhouse production. Then something changed on Venus 600 or 700 million years ago to make the surface all the same age. So after Venus lost its water, tectonics shut down and the surface of the planet was resurfaced by lava one last time. Therefore, Earth was the "lucky one" while Venus had lost the capacity of supporting life. 4.54 billion years ago is a very long time and whatever had changed Venus to its current state could have turned the Earth in the same way too. (5)

>>>The Fermi Paradox<<<
A. Civilizations don't have to arise
The paradox wasn't addressing life but specifically technologically advanced life. Evolution, particularly macroevolution, is very slow and for the planet to be successful of supporting life, none of the 66 factors could be altered in millions of years. The Fermi paradox states that the extreme age of the universe and its vast number of stars suggests that if the Earth is typical, intelligent extraterrestrial life should be common.

B. Doomsday Argument and we don't have technological power/haven't searched long enough
For species self-destruction to provide a good answer to Fermi's Question, it would have to be very nearly universal, meaning that the probability has to be near 1. However, if they even destroyed themselves, archaeological evidence of past civilizations may be detected through deep space observations. Perhaps we haven't searched long enough or don't have enough technological power. However, "simply stating something is possible does little to show the validity of it's existence, or the probability of it being so." In short, there is no evidence to suggest that intelligent life has arose on other planets other than Earth.

>>>First Cause Argument<<<

My opponents states that virtual particles are un-caused. This is a ignorant fallacy simply because we don't know what causes them does not mean necessarily that they don't have a cause. Even if the virtual particles are un-caused, they're not considered as possible causes of the universe. A singularity is not a virtual particle, is it? For the singularity to become a virtual particle would cause them to lose their distinction to pop in and out of existence.

Can you cite a source stating that laws such as cause and effect won't be the same in other universes?

>>>Final Argument<<<

An entity of 95% power instead of 100% would fail to create the universe because he doesn't have omnipotence - the ability to do anything non-contradictory according to logic. The entity could mess up badly if he didn't have the power to create all things. If God and an entity coexisted, the entity would be powerless against God, but he can affect what God created. For example, that entity could lead humans into temptation and causing them to destroy each other. However, he would be unable to directly destroy any creations of God.

"In fact, there are an INFINITE amount of anonymous entities that can create the universe according to my opponent's argument."

Why don't you list some examples?

Sources:
1. http://www.666soon.com...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://www.smh.com.au...
4. http://www.godandscience.org...
5. http://www.astrobio.net...
Debate Round No. 2
TheSkeptic

Con

=====Counterarguments=====

>>>Fine-Tuning of the Universe<<<

A. Anthropic Principle
"My opponent thinks that Earth is not a special planet, but a typical planet."
-----> I never stated whether or not Earth is special or typical. There are now two things to note thus far in this argument:

1. In relevance to the anthropic principle, my opponent misses the point. We are here and observing. If there wasn't a suitable planet Earth, then we wouldn't exist. The conditional probability for us is 1. Thus it's a nothing or all. So the point about probability and rarity doesn't matter, which brings me to my second point.
2. It's an error for one to think that humans are the end goal of the universe. It doesn't matter what happens; if life comes out or not. In our place could be totally different aliens with alternative biochemistry[1] - this is something that isn't accounted for in my opponent's statistics because it can't be calculated.

B. Statistical Argument
There's something interesting about my opponent's arguments - they conflict. At one point, he is advocating the Rare Earth hypothesis, which states that Earth and the prerequisites of life are very improbable. But at the SAME time he's advocating the Fermi Paradox. What he doesn't seem to realize is that the Rare Earth Hypothesis is USED TO SOLVE the Fermi Paradox. The Fermi Paradox says we should view more life out there - the Rare Earth Hypothesis says we don't cause life arising is extremely improbable. This is a major clash in my opponent's argument.

But anyway - onto the Rare Earth Hypothesis. Again, my opponent fails to account for two things:
1. The Anthropic Principle means the conditional probability for humans to arise and observe (asking these type of questions) is 1/1. Probability can't disprove something that has happened, this is the wall you must overcome when attempting to apply probability to the past.
2. The Rare Earth Hypothesis once again fails to take into account alternative biochemistry when discussing evolutionary biology. Sure, Earth has some conditions that need to happen for us to evolve and survive - but this is not necessarily so for other possible type of life-forms[2].

C. Multiverse Theory

1. This is true - so far. The Large Hadron Collider's results could very much give indirect empirical evidence for the multiverse and string theories. If it creates new particles, then this helps prove string theory. If actual dimensions are observed/created, then just imagine the revolution [3]. The multiverse theory works because it fulfills so many laws and phenomenas physicists are currently seeing in the universe - dark matter, etc. [4]
2. And yet, postulating an uncaused, supernatural, all-powerful being doesn't violate Occam's Razor if not more?
3. The universe is optimally bio-friendly? Are you kidding? If that was true, we would find SO many planets teeming with life, practically every planet will be habitable. The universe is CERTAINLY not bio-friendly.
4. This isn't really an argument - just an insult.
5. This is an argument against an oscillatory universe.
6. Untrue - since each universe in the multiverse are not physically connected (except through rare wormholes), thermodynamics have no role.
7. Jeez, you seem to be copy line by line from your source. But yeah, since I refute point 6 it goes hand along with point 7 (from reading the source).
8. Who ever said our universe was infinite? And remember, infinite regresses presuppose cause-and-effect is a necessary condition for all universes in the multiverse (which isn't).
9. In different universes there are different laws, ergo effects don't have to necessarily have a cause in other universes.
10. The universe had no intrinsic purpose to start out with.
11. This theory doesn't allow anything to possible; it answers many problems and questions facing physicists today (not just cause of Big Bang), and also can solve on of the greatest problems in physics today. The combination of quantum mechanics and general relativity, by way of quantum theory of gravity.

D. Alien design
No, I simply stated that aliens could create the conditions we see on the universe. I never used aliens as the answer for where the universe came from. Thus, my opponent's entire argument is off-point.

>>>Time on Earth<<<
"Earth formed 4.54 billion ... made the Earth unsuitable for life."
----> Which is why my argument pertaining to an ATMOSPHERE FORMING makes his argument void. For what is one of the purposes of our atmosphere? To protect earth's biodiversity from outside space objects.

The crux of this argument is that Earth is "lucky", because other planets got owned by space objects. What he doesn't realize is three things:
1. Anthropic reasoning (we are here or we are not).
2. Earth got an atmosphere.

New computer simulations show that Jupiter does NOT protect earth from space objects, but if it were replaced with a planet the size of Neptune, then there would be 1000 times less comets [5]. Now I'm not saying this is an argument against MY side (anthropic reasoning, atmosphere), but it does raise a crucial point against my opponent's statistics. New studies like this (refer to my source) that such an implication shows once again a difference in our understanding of what makes a hospitable solar system. You see, this is the flaw with my opponent's statistics - they simply don't know what kind of alternatives can happen. Alternative biochemistry, alternative solar system configurations, you name it!

>>>The Fermi Paradox<<<

A. Civilizations don't have to arise.
"The paradox wasn't addressing life but specifically technologically advanced life."
----> Is not life a prerequisite for technologically advanced LIFE?

"The Fermi paradox states that the extreme age of the universe... extraterrestrial life should be common."
----> Once again, my opponent's Rare Earth Hypothesis can be used against this argument.

I have two main arguments:
1. Perhaps the Earth is rare, but does it matter (anthropic reasoning). Though we don't know many factors (alternative biochemistry, etc.), we know there are SOME fundamental factors that come into play. There's where Fermi Paradox gets owned.
2. And very much likely, there COULD be life, but not TECHNOLOGICALLY ADVANCED LIFE. Do we have an equation for how fast (not just life arising) an alien society must become technologically advanced to communicate with us?

B. Doomsday Argument and we don't have technological power/haven't searched long enough

"...archaeological evidence of past civilizations"
----> We have yet to land on every planet in our solar system, and you're talking about archaeological evidence for outside planets?!

"In short, there is no evidence to suggest that intelligent life has arose on other planets other than Earth."
----> There is no evidence to show life DIDN'T arise on other planets either - argument from ignorance bub.

>>>First Cause Argument<<<

Virtual particles are uncaused [6], but because we don't know what causes them, but we understand them to be uncaused. Secondly, I'm not saying virtual particles started the Big Bang, but it voids the premise "everything has a cause".

"Can you cite a source stating that laws such as cause and effect won't be the same in other universes?"
----> It's in the principle of multiverse. Look it up.

>>>Final Argument<<<

1. My opponent fails to show why an entity of 95% power can't create a universe.
2. My opponent fails to show why this 95% entity wold coexist with God (can't this entity exist instead of God?)

CHARACTER LIMITS SUCK!

---References---
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://discovermagazine.com...
4. http://www.skyandtelescope.com...
5. http://www.newscientist.com...
DiablosChaosBroker

Pro

>>>Fine-Tuning of the Universe<<<

A. Anthropic Principle
My opponent never stated whether or not Earth is special or typical. However, it is easily inferred from his arguments.

1. It may be that the conditional probability for us is 1. However, that doesn't not exempt it from the probabilities I stated because there is no evidence of another suitable planet supporting life similar to Earth. It may be better explained that God had made the universe for us which is supported by the fact that conditional probability for us is one and that random chance is too low to explain why we existed given the extreme size and age of the universe.

2. From this argument that life has no purpose, you can infer that my opponent thinks that Earth is a typical planet instead of special or designed for the human's existence. Since humans are carbon-based beings and have never encountered any life that has evolved outside the earth's environment (1) , it should be assumed that other intelligent complex life will also be carbon-based (2) until there is evidence that other atoms can be used to form all the molecular machinery necessary for life.(1)

B. Statistical Argument
My opponents assume that the Rare Earth hypothesis and the Fermi Paradox conflict. However, I'm using both of them to support that Earth is unique.

The Fermi paradox states that given the extreme size and age of the universe, there should be more intelligent life.
The Rare Earth hypothesis states that emergence of complex intelligent life on Earth required an improbable combination of astrophysical and geological events and circumstances.
The Uniqueness of the Galaxy-Sun-Earth-Moon System for Life Support states the probability of the combination of those astrophysical and geological events and circumstances.

Based on these facts, the conclusion should be that the Earth is unique and specially designed for human existence because it is improbable for random chance to explain the uniqueness of the Earth based on the extreme size and age of the universe.

C. Multiverse Theory

My opponent attempts to explain random chance by postulating an infinity of unseen universes just to explain the one we do. The belief that God create the universe is much more understandable than the theory that infinite universes are being created by infinite big bangs. The multiverse theory does not answer the questions but simply begs the question. Who created the infinite universes in the first place? There is no source that I'm aware of that states that infinite universes can be un-caused. In fact, now physicists are proposing that each universe starts with its own big bang and goes through a cosmic cycle. (3) There is no insult: physicists don't like coincidences. "They like even less the notion that life is somehow central to the universe, and yet recent discoveries are forcing them to confront that very idea." (4) Then they state their answer: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiļæ½verse. However, the theories actually invoke supernatural or metaphysical features. That's because the natural realm encompassed all physical laws associated with this universe. Anything beyond, by definition, was considered supernatural. (5)

D. Alien design
Who created the aliens then and where do they come from?

>>>Time on Earth<<<
The Earth did not form an atmosphere that quickly. If any comet or asteroid collided with the forming Earth, Earth has the possibly of being corrupted and destroyed. Then my opponent ignores the fact the Venus too has an atmosphere. Studies show that the runaway greenhouse effect was caused by the evaporation of the original water on Venus. Why did Earth get exempted from the greenhouse effect but not Venus? Venus is quite similar to Earth in size and is sometimes considered Earth's twin planet. (6)

"Alternative biochemistry, alternative solar system configurations, you name it!"

Great! Now let alternative biochemistry do its job to evolve simple life on Venus and Mars to complex and intelligent life. If other life forms can evolve by alternative biochemistry, then there should be evidence of their existence of Mars and Venus. My opponent fails to explain why does life can evolve from alternative biochemistry, but life has not formed on Venus and Mars.

>>>The Fermi Paradox<<<

A. Civilizations don't have to arise.
Yes, but it can be seen as Earth is designed specifically for complex and intelligent life.

"The Fermi paradox states that the extreme age of the universe... extraterrestrial life SHOULD be common."
The Rare Earth hypothesis explains why the Earth is unique. If life is not a goal, then extraterrestrial life should be common given the extreme age and size of the universe. That's because if life is not a goal, then my statistics should be flawed and advanced life should be common.

My opponent's arguments are flawed because:
1. The Anthropic reasoning explains that the Earth is designed but NOT formed due to random chance.
2. There could be life, but technologically advanced life is much rarer due to time added and if there is no other complex life, it further explains that the Earth is designed for intelligent life.

B. Doomsday Argument and we don't have technological power/haven't searched long enough
Archaeological evidence of past civilizations may be detected through deep space observations. If we see no evidence, the chances are that there is no intelligent life. That's the same with Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster. Until we see evidence that those monsters exist, we will assume that they didn't.

"There is no evidence to show life DIDN'T arise on other planets either"
We can use radio transmissions, radio searches, direct and indirect planetary observations, finding evidence of probes, colonies, and other artifacts, and detecting advanced stellar-scale artifacts to see if other intelligent civilizations exist.

>>>First Cause Argument<<<
There is no source that I heard of that states that virtual particles are un-caused. Even if virtual particles are un-caused, they would be the exception to "everything has a cause." If you wish to void the premise, you must state an un-caused event that explains the origins of the universe. Virtual particles are not events, but they rather have a cause that is uncertain. You must give a source if you wish to prove that virtual particles don't have a cause.

"It's in the principle of multiverse. Look it up."
I still see no source that tells me that each universe doesn't not come from their own big bang or beginning.

>>>Final Argument<<<

First of all, what would a being with 5% less power instead of 100% mean? If God doesn't exist, that entity would automatically have 100% power, because nothing is stronger than that entity. Powers are not definable in terms of scale. Let's look at omnipotence again: the ability to create anything logically possible which would be a non-contradictory thing. How can a being have 5% less power than that? Additionally, if they both coexisted, then you can compare their powers. For example, a being that has less power than God would not be able to destroy anything that God created. That being may not be able to create anything of his own but he can influence the events of God's creation. Had God not existed, that being will not exist due to the fact that he doesn't have omnipotence.

Sources:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://www.astronomy.pomona.edu...
4. http://discovermagazine.com...
5. http://www.reasons.org...
6. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
TheSkeptic

Con

=====Counterarguments=====

>>>Fine-Tuning of the Universe<<<

A. Anthropic Principle
My opponent doesn't seem to understand what anthropic reasoning is. It doesn't matter if the probability of a planet having the conditions for life exist be low, because the CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY of us (observers) existing is 1:1. Do realize that this means we are an all or nothing state.

"From this argument that life has no purpose, you can infer that my opponent thinks that Earth is a typical planet instead of special or designed for the human's existence."

----> Saying that Earth is not designed for human's existence is NOT saying it's a "typical planet" - this is an errenous fallacy known as a false dilemma. It may very well be that the Earth is a "specical planet", but it's NOT the universe's goal to have humans exist. The universe has no goal, because it's not conscious! Whether or not humans, or some other lifeform, come into existence is of no matter. This once again reaffirms my argument pertaining to anthropic reasoning.

"it should be assumed that other intelligent complex life will also be carbon-based"

----> First of all, you can have many other biochemisty "combinations" that do not include carbon (and isn't found on Earth, raising the proabability for other kind of life-forms). Secondly, I would label this carbon chauvinism[1]. Simply because we know of no other life form that can form without carbon (we only know of Earth organisms), who are we to say that life can't arise in different fashions, forms, and combinations? The possibility is open, and simply stating that we see Earth organisms as carbon-based and the same must be for the universe is ignorance.

B. Statistical Argument

"My opponents assume that the Rare Earth hypothesis and the Fermi Paradox conflict. However, I'm using both of them to support that Earth is unique."

----> My opponent uses these two arguments, and yet fails to see that they both fundamentally CONFLICT. The Fermi Paradox argues that because Earth is TYPICAL, we should see more civilizations on other planets. Rare Earth Hypothesis says Earth is SPECIAL, and can be given as a solution to the Fermi Paradox (basically eliminating the Fermi Paradox premise that Earth is typical). Refer to the wikipedia article on Fermi Paradox about it[2]. Voters, if two of my opponent's main arguments conflict, then there's an obvious problem.

My opponent then basically SKIPS right pass my two arguments in the previous round: alternative biochemistry and anthropic reasoning. He has yet to refute either one of these arguments, and basically repeats his claim. I see no reason to repeat my unrefuted arguments.

C. Multiverse Theory

"Who created the infinite universes in the first place? There is no source that I'm aware of that states that infinite universes can be un-caused."
----> In the multiverse, universes other than our own can very well have DIFFERENT laws of physics, and basically anything. It opens up a whole plethora of possibilities. Cause-and-effect are just one of the laws that are susceptible to this; and in an infinite amount of universes, what is to say that at least one of the universes doesn't have the necessary law of cause-and-effect?

Physicists who "like even less the notion that life is somehow central to the universe" are those who do NOT like anthropic reasoning. I and many others advocate anthropic reasoning; I am not those physicists. Do note however, that these physicsts ARE advocating the multiverse.

"However, the theories actually invoke supernatural or metaphysical features."
----> That's the current definition of supernatural. This is because it wasn't conceived that there was something outside of our universe, until the multiverse. God though? That's another matter.

Voters, take note that I responded to all 11 points my opponent made and they all have gone UNREFUTED.

D. Alien Design
"Who created the aliens then and where do they come from?"
----> Your argumment said the Earth is unique, I responded that aliens could put us in a simulation (think Matrix). The question of where aliens came from, something similar to a cosmological argument, is irrelevant. It can very well bethat in the "alien's universe", they have no cause-and-effect, or they have a god that DOESN'T fit your given defintions. Either way, it's irrelevant to the argument my point about aliens was refuting.

>>>Time on Earth<<<
"The Earth did not form an atmosphere that quickly. If any comet or asteroid collided with the forming Earth, Earth has the possibly of being corrupted and destroyed."
----> According to new evidence[3], Earth's atmosphere could have formed as early as 3.8 billion years ago.

My opponent's point about Venus' atmosphere and greenhouse effect is almost laughable. The answer is simple - Venus has the greenhouse effect EARLIER THAN US. Aka, we are IN ONE, Venus is for the most part DONE with one[4].

"My opponent fails to explain why does life can evolve from alternative biochemistry, but life has not formed on Venus and Mars."
----> Why the heck does life have to arise on Venus and Mars? There's BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of other planets where life can arise, why those two planets that are conveniently accesible by humans so far?

>>>The Fermi Paradox<<<

A. Civilizations don't have to arise

"Yes..."
----> YES? So you concede this point?

"...but it can be seen as Earth is designed specifically for complex and intelligent life"
----> This is RARE EARTH HYPOTHESIS. NOT FERMI PARADOX. CONFLICT OF ARGUMENTS. I don't think I have to repeat this anymore - just refer to my source on Fermi Paradox.

"If life is not a goal, then extraterrestrial life should be common given the extreme age and size of the universe."
----> Uh no. Maybe because the conditions for life is rare, not that there isn't a goal for life.

"The Anthropic reasoning explains that the Earth is designed but NOT formed due to random chance."
----> The Earth is designed but NOT formed due to random chance? Designed due to random chance...formed due to random chance. The anthropic principle says NOTHING of this. It says given that life is rare and we are here observing, all it amounts to is that we exist. Conditional probability of 1.

"Archaeological evidence of past civilizations may be detected through deep space observations."
----> Archaeological evidence on other planets? HOW ARE WE GOING TO DO THAT? ZOOM REALLY HARD? We haven't been to every planet in our solar system, and you're talking about archaeological evidence on outside planets?

"We can use radio transmissions...see if other intelligent civilizations exist."
----> Did I say intelligent? No, I simply said life.

>>>First Cause Argument<<<

"If you wish to void the premise, you must state an un-caused event that explains the origins of the universe. "
----> Untrue. Premise states everything has a cause. I show counterexample. Ergo, it's void.

"You must give a source..."
---->http://www.infidels.org...

"I still see no source... from their own big bang or beginning."
----> Doesn't mean they won't have a necessary cause-and-effect law.

>>>Final Argument<<<

My opponent's argument here has too many holes, and my character limit is once again lame. Basically, why can't any entity imaginable that has less power than God (omnipotence) create the universe? My opponent has YET to hold up this burden. If it's possible that an entity with 99% power can, then we have two possible candidates. But why stop at 99%? Why not 99.1? 99.2? 99.3? And onto infinity.

---Reference---
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://www.whatsnextnetwork.com...
4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
DiablosChaosBroker

Pro

I will start by listing the points that were not adequately addressed:

>>>Fine-Tuning of the Universe<<<

A. Anthropic Principle
My opponent seems to be saying that since we are here, the conditional probability is one. That doesn't explain why we should be here due to the probability I already stated about the uniqueness of the Solar System.

How is Earth a special planet if it's not the universe's goal to have humans exist? If the universe has no conscious, it has no desire to have Earth as a special planet, nor can random chance bring the conditional probability to one. My opponent is simply stating that we are here observing disregarding random chance. If that was true, why is there no absolute evidence of an alien species given the extreme age and size of the universe?

Although it is possible that non-carbon-based life exist, my opponent still fails why they do not arise from all the other planets since they cannot support carbon-based life. There is no evidence that non-carbon-based life exist, and until we can detect them, we can't study them. Since there is no evidence related to unicorns, dragons, and other monsters, we cannot study them. Can we assume that they don't exist? Perhaps, but does that mean God doesn't exist? No, because they're evidence such as from design that God does exist.

B. Statistical Argument
My opponent still fails how they both resolve each other. Assuming that Earth is a typical planet, given the extreme age and size of the universe, there should be large amounts of civilizations in the galaxies. The Rare Earth Hypothesis says that the Earth is not typical, but special because the Solar System requires an improbable combination of astrophysical and geological events and circumstances. (1) The conclusion can be made that the Earth is special which my opponent concedes. If it isn't God's goal that the Earth is to be created, why should it be a goal then? Why should the universe let these "anthropic coincidences" happen that cannot be random? (2) The "66 factors" factors are misleading. There are not just 66 factors; there are 154 factors to be considered. (3)

Since the estimated probability is 1:10^99 if considering ONLY the 66 factors and there are estimated to be a maximum of 10^23 planets in the universe by chance there shouldn't be any planets capable of supporting life in the universe. Design or random chance? (4)

I have not skipped alternative biochemistry and anthropic reasoning arguments from my opponent. My opponent says that we cannot apply probability to the past since it already happened. But since my opponent gladly says that the universe has no intelligence, there is no reason why random chance led to the Earth's creation due to the improbable combination of astrophysical and geological events and circumstances. (1) If he says that alternative biochemistry can result in different life:

"Let alternative biochemistry do its job to evolve simple life on Venus and Mars to complex and intelligent life. If other life forms can evolve by alternative biochemistry, then there should be evidence of their existence of Mars and Venus. My opponent fails to explain why does life can evolve from alternative biochemistry, but life has not formed on Venus and Mars." -From my previous round.

C. Multiverse Theory
My opponent has no sources whatsoever in saying that one of these universes are un-caused. I already pasted a source that speaks otherwise that these universes go through their own comic cycle: http://www.astronomy.pomona.edu...... If my opponent insists that these universes don't have a cause, it's my opponent's responsibility to bring a source which he has not.

"Voters, take note that I responded to all 11 points my opponent made and they all have gone UNREFUTED."
They have not gone un-refuted. I was paraphrasing those points into one paragraph similarly how you didn't attempt to attack my "66 factors" in the beginning, remember?

"That's the current definition of supernatural. This is because it wasn't conceived that there was something outside of our universe, until the multiverse. God though? That's another matter."
My opponent thinks that the multiverse is more probable than God even though there is no absolute evidence of it and it also spits in the face of the Occam's razor. Not only that, if even the multiverse theory is a fact, it still begs the question of the origins of their universes. How can there be an infinite Big Bangs if there is no first cause? Who's causing the Big Bangs? There's no source that claims that those universes doesn't require a cause, let alone a First Cause.

D. Alien Design
Aliens can put us in a simulation, but that would already be falling under the traps of intelligent design. However, those aliens would an extreme amount of intelligence that would be more complex that the universe itself. It is improbable that aliens could design us because there would be a huge number of complications. The alien design also spits in the Occam's razor because it simply begs the question of the origins of the universe. It is less plausible to have an alien species with extreme intelligence making us in a simulation in a computer that cannot be destroyed or stopped coming from a universe with no cause or effect than an un-caused omnipotent God.

>>>Time on Earth<<<
Although Earth's atmosphere could have formed early as 3.8 billion years ago, it could have been easily destroyed after that. There may be billions of other planets, but due to the probability that I already stated that leads to design, it can be concluded that those other planets don't have intelligent life due to the Fermi paradox and the Rare Earth hypothesis.

>>>The Fermi Paradox<<<
My opponent misunderstands the Fermi Paradox. The Fermi Paradox is addressing INTELLGIENT life, because intelligent life is more improbable than just life. Since the Rare Earth hypothesis solves the point that Earth is special, it should be concluded that only design can bring the conditional probability to 1, not random chance. We can detect intelligent life by radio transmissions and observe archaeological evidence such as Dyson Spheres. We can use various detection methods such as astrometry, radial velocity, pulsar timing, transit method, gravitational microlensing, circumstellar disks, direct imaging, Observations from space, eclipsing binary minima timing, Orbital phase reflected light variations, and polarimetry (5) to detect advanced civilizations.

>>>First Cause Argument<<<
Virtual particles are not un-caused. They are not events and if my opponent insists that they are, consider that they are created by borrowing energy in a quantum vacuum (6) in space-time (7) which is not the equivalent to nothing. My opponent did not void the premise, because there is no event that my opponent stated that are caused by nothing.

>>>Final Argument<<<
Powers are not definable in terms of scale. What would 1% percent less mean? Let's look at omnipotence again - the ability to create anything logically possible at will. Is that power definable in terms of scale? No, unless you include an entity that co-existed with less power. I already stated what would happen: that entity would not destroy or create anything but the entity can influence events of the creation of God. What if God didn't exist? That entity would also not exist, because he doesn't have omnipotence.

Sources:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://www.reasons.org...
4. http://www.godandscience.org...
5. http://en.wikipedia.org...
6. http://en.wikipedia.org...
7. http://www.answersingenesis.org...
Debate Round No. 4
227 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
"the sun is getting smaller" The sun will not get smaller
"the sun shall die and "explode" Yes you did say it would explode.
Posted by rangersfootballclub 8 years ago
rangersfootballclub
i never said anything about an expolision i said it was a dying star ....
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
rangersfootballclub, Better recheck your facts about the sun. It isn't big enough to explode or super nova if you will. It will expand and then implode in on itself. The sun will expand and engulf the planet as it starts to die long before it implodes
Posted by rangersfootballclub 8 years ago
rangersfootballclub
look its pretty damn obvious the sun is getting smaller as the sun is a dying star . FACT , a fact by the way is something that is undisputable , in around 5 billion years the sun shall die and explode. Now stop debating the sun nobody cares its off the subject.
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
Wow. I loved reading this debate.

Conduct: Tie
Both were very courteous and respectable.

S&G: Tie

Arguments: Pro
Pro's arguments were very well thought out and researched, while Con's arguments relied heavily on the belief in theories. At one point he suggested that another Universe in his "theoretical multiverse" would not be bound to cause and effect. This is realistically impossible. First off, in a "multiverse", the Universe is still the whole. Second, the only thing that can bypass cause and effect is non-existence. Con did not provide any scenarios that would allow me to believe in a reality where cause and effect does not apply, and so I could not fathom that argument. Con also presented the possibility of "alien" beings creating humans in order to fit Pro's statistical dilemma. On the one hand, he confirms the dilemma, but "alien" beings can still fall under the proper name of God, and so this argument didn't work for me either. Pro presented some facts and figures that maybe weren't perfect, but did serve to make his argument more "likely" than the Con. I believe even some of Con's arguments served Pro's premise.

Sources: Pro
Obviously for the same reasons as mentioned above.

I honestly thought TheSkeptic had this one, but Diablos brought some very good arguments. I felt as if the usually non-sensical arguments presented by believers were being presented, this time, by the non-believer. JMHO.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
>> "Then why was the hottest period on earth according to evolution, 390 million years ago what wipped out 90% of life."

Easy - the ozone layer didn't form until the mixture of chemicals in the atmosphere could support O2 (oxygen), much less O3 (ozone). A lack of ozone layer means more radiation gets through, means higher temperatures and less life.

>> "At one point in time both in Biblical and evolutional history the Surara desert was under water."

What desert is this? The only things close to it are the Sahara and the Sinai. Maybe the Sonoran, but that's in the Southwest US and Mexico - not Biblical land.

>> "Infact no one has seen a star be born."

.... Wow. That would be because nobody lives for several million years. Read: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by GodSands 8 years ago
GodSands
The sun doesn't increase in size. You see evolutionist and creation work oppisite to each other. So if the sun was smaller all those years ago, (this dose not make any sense.) Then why was the hottest period on earth according to evolution, 390 million years ago what wipped out 90% of life. Because the planet was too hot. If the sun was any smaller Earth would be pulled off course to hold any life at all. At one point in time both in Biblical and evolutional history the Surara desert was under water. On these points i wouldn't be surprized if your wrong and im right. Don't you give any credit on my behalf. I give you half of my credit, that is i believe in mirco evloution. So if the sun was smaller how would any life arise and form. Even evolve? Infact no one has seen a star be born. Im actually not in the mood for intence debating right now, quite tired. Still go ahead and relpy.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
In b4 he abandons that argument and attempts to execute another equally bad line of reasoning.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
A mathematical correction:

The change in barycenter is about 2600 kilometers, changing the barycenter from roughly 1700 kilometers below the earth's surface to about 3780 kilometers down., representing about 33% of the radius of the Earth.

However, this is an absolute worse case scenario, as the moon's drift is speeding up constantly proportional to the square of the distance between the center of masses of the earth and the moon. Thus, the actual position of the moon 4.5 billion years ago is represented by the current position extrapolated backwards over the square of the distance, giving you a sharp curve. My calculation assumes a constant drift rate, when in fact, the drift rate was MUCH slower in the past.

Even if the barycenter is 2600 kilometers closer to the earth, this represents a 1.2% change in Earth-Moon distance/mass ratio. Considering modern tides are about 6 feet, this difference would have only changed the average tide to about 7 feet, 3 inches.

No global flooding.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
>> "You think the sun is about 6 billion years old. This sun would have been really big."

Ah - I see your point now. However, you misunderstand some basic astronomy. The Sun does not get smaller as it ages - it gets bigger. The sun is not "burning" like wood burns - it is not using up fuel, but converting Hydrogen into Helium and then on to heavier elements.

>> "The moon moves 1ich further away from earth a year. -4.5 billion years," ETC...

4.5 Billion years ago, the moon would have been 171,000 kilometers closer, roughly 45% closer. However, because of the relative masses of the objects, this would change the barycenter of the Earth-Moon complex by only about 5 kilometers. Considering that is only 0.00078% of the Earth's radius, I don't find the theory of 5 global floods a day compelling at all.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
TheSkepticDiablosChaosBrokerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
TheSkepticDiablosChaosBrokerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by bluefreedom23 7 years ago
bluefreedom23
TheSkepticDiablosChaosBrokerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by dwest23 8 years ago
dwest23
TheSkepticDiablosChaosBrokerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
TheSkepticDiablosChaosBrokerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
TheSkepticDiablosChaosBrokerTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
TheSkepticDiablosChaosBrokerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
TheSkepticDiablosChaosBrokerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Galiban 8 years ago
Galiban
TheSkepticDiablosChaosBrokerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by adamcp90 8 years ago
adamcp90
TheSkepticDiablosChaosBrokerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00