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

The Tri-Omni God chooses life

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 7/25/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,667 times Debate No: 59547
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (40)
Votes (1)




Resolved: The Tri-Omni God chooses life

Pro will uphold this resolution, whereas Con will negate it. The winner will be the person to prove his or her case with a preponderance of evidence.

Tri-Omni God -- The Christian God, or in other words, the Prime Mover or first cause who is omnibenvolent, omniscient, and omnipotent.

Chooses -- pick out or select (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives (1)

Life -- the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death (2)

(1) Google define "chooses"

(2) Google define "life"

Round 1 is for acceptance, Round 2 is for rebuttals, and Round 3 is for final rebuttals and closing remarks (no new arguments).


I accept. Best wishes!
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you to GCL for accepting.

I'm going to tackle my negation of this resolution with two primary points:

i. The concept of the Tri-Omni God is logically incoherent, and thus we have no reason to believe that one in fact exists
ii. Even if a Tri-Omni God exists, he wouldn't be able to "choose" per our definition of the term

Proving either of these points would negate the resolution.

Point i

P1) If the existence of the Tri-Omni God is logically incoherent, one cannot choose life.
P2) The existence of the Tri-Omni God is logically incoherent.
C1) Therefore, the Tri-Omni God is logically incoherent.

Bearing in mind that we are operating off a preponderance of evidence as our criterion, I don't need to prove a negative; that is, I don't need to prove that the Tri-Omni God definitely does not exist; rather, I must prove that he may not exist or that, based on the assortment of evidence provided in this debate, he probably does not exist. By accomplishing that, meaning that my adversary is unsuccessful in proving that the Tri-Omni God exists or probably exists, the resolution will be negated.

iC1) Lack of evidence and necessity

The fact remains that the question of God, unlike subjects within the reach of empirical scientific inquiry, is not falsifiable. The question has no truth value because there is no evidence for the existence of a creator. However, there is no reason to think that there is a God by virtue of the fact that he isn't necessary. My adversary may be inclined to raise the "God of the Gaps" argument; however, from what we know of modern quantum mechanics, we can conclude that the universe could function without a God.

Dr. Michio Kaku explains:

“If you do the math, you find out that the sum total of matter in the universe can cancel against the sum total of negative gravitational energy, yielding a universe with zero (or close to zero) net matter/energy. So, in some sense, universes are for free. It does not take net matter and energy to create entire universes. In this way, in the bubble bath, bubbles can collide, create baby bubbles, or simple pop into existence from nothing" (1).

Therefore, it is possible for "something to come from nothing." Moreover, if my opponent ran the Kalan Comsological Argument to claim that the universe must have a cause, she must explain what the cause of God is. Of course, her argument would that God is "uncaused" and in fact the" "first cause." This would mean that God would need to have existed in a spaceless, timeless, and immaterial state and would necessarily be eternal, meaning that he never began to exist but always was.

Thus, as I have demonstrated, for God to exist, we would need to make a number of assumptions. A simple appeal to Occam's Razor would therefore settle the issue of probability.

Alan Baker provides a succint account of Occam's Razor:

“Occam's Razor may be formulated as an epistemic principle: if theory T is simpler than theory T*, then it is rational (other things being equal) to believe T rather than T*. Or it may be formulated as a methodological principle: if T is simpler than T* then it is rational to adopt T as one's working theory for scientific purposes" (2).

In other words, theory T is the theory that the universe can come from nothing, and theory T* is the theory that an uncaused God existed in a spaceless, atemporal, immaterial, uncaused state and set off the process of creation. We have two competing hypotheses, one of which is borne out by evidence, the other of which is not. My opponent’s theory has significantly more assumptions than mine, and thus mine is more plausible.

iC2) Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence

We may often hear theists argue that we cannot categorically disprove God. This happens to be true, as it is virtually impossible to prove a negative to the effect of “X doesn’t exist.” In the same way that I can’t disprove the existence of God, I cannot disprove that there is a flying purple unicorn in this room, or that the universe wasn’t created 10 seconds ago and we were brought into existence with our memories. The point is, I don’t have to: the burden of proof lies with my opponent. I trust, for instance, that she doesn’t believe in fairies, or unicorns, or the flying spaghetti monster. However, there is as much evidence for those as there is for the Christian God: zilch.

The Celestial Teapot analogy provides a framework for this line of thinking:

“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age of of the Inquisitor in an earlier time" (3).

As Russel points out, though we couldn’t prove that an undetectable teapot is orbiting the sun, we would rightfully accept that absence of evidence could lead us to the rational conclusion that there isn’t a such a teapot. We could apply this same logic to Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny, and many other mythical creatures. This affirms my opponent's burden to provide evidence, not on me to categorically disprove God, as obviously that is, in principle, an impossible task.

iC3) Epicurean Paradox

The argument goes like this:

“If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to

Then He is not omnipotent.

If He is able, but not willing

Then He is malevolent.

If He is both able and willing

Then whence cometh evil.

If He is neither able nor willing

Then why call Him God?” (3)

To express the argument in other terms:

P1) For the Tri-Omni God to exist, he must be omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent.
P2) If God is omnibenevolent, he would want to stop gratuitous suffering; if God is omnipotent, he has the power to put a stop to it or prevent it.
P3) Yet, gratuitous suffering occurs.
C1) Therefore, the Tri-Omni God doesn't exist.

The point is that, because gratuitous suffering exists, one of the following must be true:

if God is able to stop or prevent gratuitous suffering but doesn't, he is not omnibenevolent.
if God wants to stop gratuitous suffering but doesn't, he isn't omnipotent.

If one of these arguments hold, the Tri-Omni God does not exist.

We could take this argument a step further and note that, if God is omniscient, he knows that suffering will occur and when it will occur, so he is in a position to end it or at least mollify, yet he does not.

IC4) Paradox of Free Will

Some people may offer as a defense to the Problem of Evil that God has given us free will. In order to sin, for instance, people must make a conscious choice to do wrong. Though the degree to which we have free will is subject to question, the Heinsenberg Uncertainty principle does suggest to us that some degree of free will exists.

However, there are several problems with this. First and foremost, per our definition of God, he is omniscient. This means he has complete and total knowledge of the past, present and future. If this is the case, then how could human beings have free will? Free will implies randomness, and we know from Heinsenberg that some degree of free will does in fact exist. He showed this to us and modelled mathematically by noting that we cannot concurrently know both the position and momentum of a particle and thus there is a certain degree of variability as to its position as it isn't subject to the laws of causality (4). If randomness exists, God isn't omniscient.

The second problem with this, and why it doesn't refute the Problem of Evil, is that intervening to stop gratuitous suffering does not in fact violate anyone's free will. If a neonate is suffering and dying, a god would the ability to end his or her suffering. This infant hasn't done anything wrong, nor does it have the capacity to make a free choice. "Free will" doesn't even enter the fray until much later. Again, the argument stands: if God doesn't intervene but can, he isn't omnibenevolent. If God wants to intervene but can't, he isn't omnipotent.

Point ii.

The affirmation of the resolution requires my adversary to prove that God makes a "choice" toward life. However, this cannot possibly be the case.

iiC1) Per Omniscience, God doesn't have free will

Being omniscient means that you must act in such a way that you prove omniscience. If you have the possibility to make a choice, you are not omniscient. Having free will requires that one consider both choice (x) and choice (y), with choice (y) being the inferior decision, and has the capacity to do wrong. However, we accept the conception of God as perfect, and thus it isn't possible for him to choose what we consider the lesser option. By virtue of the fact that God chose it, we consider it the "right" action. If my adversary posits that God makes a "choice," she concedes that he isn't omniscient, in which case the resolution is negated.

Moreover, there are also futher ramifications for her argument. If God is omniscient and knows the future, not only do we not have free will, but God would have free will. That would mean that God should be aware of his own future actions. If God is aware of his own future actions, he doesn't. If he isn't aware, there is something he doesn't know, meaning he isn't omniscient.



Thank you for the opportunity.

I'm going to best prove the Tri-Omni God chooses life and has purpose for it being done. I will base my points upon regeneration and salvation because both of these points to the cause of the Tri-Omni God choosing life rather than death (hell).

Regeneration: the action or process of regenerating or being regenerated, in particular the formation of new animal (humans)
Salvation: deliverance from sin and its consequences

P1) If God is able to save then He should.
P2) God saves.
C1) Therefore, God saves as He should.

Heart of the Matter: Regeneration
A lot of the time people often ask how does one get saved or attain grace to being saved, well, it is not of our own doings that this is done, but rather God’s Spirit giving the grace to give hearts a change of mind to not desire to sin, but rather to seek God. God works things for His Good and His Good alone.

This is an example as to explain that regeneration really is something we as humans have no control of, except the free will to obey His Spirit. Which would thus-- by far, say that the Tri-Omni God does in fact, choose life after all.
“...we play no active role at all. It is instead totally a work of God.”

Attaining Salvation
This therefore is the outcome of regeneration, once a changed heart has been made, then salvation has been attained only because of obedience to obeying what He has willed. The Tri-Omni God chooses to give salvation only to those whom He predestined for His Glory Alone and to reveal His grace to the world, but only those whom He has chosen for salvation have come to realize His true intentions. None but grace given through His Son Christ death and giving a chance for salvation for all who would believe and it being by the Holy Spirit of changing one's heart one attain this gift.
Ephesians 2:8- For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Point I

P1) If the existence of the Tri-Omni God is logically coherent then He can choose life.
P2) So, the existence of the Tri-Omni God is logically coherent.
C1) Moreover, this means the Tri-Omni God is logically coherent.

I will ONLY be proving that there is a possibility of there being a Tri-Omni God that exists. If this is negated, then my opponent automatically can assume that there are chances that there is not a Tri-Omni God after all. However, I can easily just imply to my opponent that the Tri-Omni God does in fact exist, but this would only lead to further discussion which would not concede forth upon the resolution.

iC1) Evidence of Faith and Necessity of the Tri-Omni God

It takes only faith to believe in the Tri-Omni God and what He says. Without the faith comes doubt or rejection to His existence, hence, my opponent is clearly stating from his quote of assuming that there ultimately does not need to be a cause of the universe or anything in it by the Tri-Omni God.
“It is embarrassingly unscientific to speak of anything creating itself from nothing.” Ray Comfort

“It is true that you can't prove a negative. However, the existence of God is provable in the same way a building is positive proof that there was a builder.”
Ray Comfort

There are two text of Scripture that I would like to point out, which in regards to my opponent, there are more to provide, but nevertheless, these will suffice for the time being. Moreover, it is simply to clear the idea of God having a cause do to the idea of the universe “possibly” attaining or not attaining a cause, therefore;
“In the beginning, God…”
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
In light of these verses, it is some form of evidence to provide that God never had a cause as my opponent did address already and that it is safe to imply that He was and was always there from the start and before Beginning came to be.

As my opponent said, it is a theory… Which therefore could mean that both could be possibly wrong. But to simply assume God be uncaused is to negate the fact, that it is unnecessary for a being such as the Tri-Omni God to have had a cause otherwise, this would leave Him to not even be God at all.

iC2) Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence

Surprisingly, I agree, my opponent cannot prove that the Tri-Omni God does not exist just like I cannot truly prove that He does exist either, however, based on the evidences of what we both provide would insinuate that either of us are wrong or right. For example, if I say something as this, “ There is no evidence that says a god doesn't exist, so a god must.” then I am saying that my evidence is just based on what my ideas are and not some form of evidence. And to define “ideas”: a thought or suggestion as to a possible course of action
is in terms of knowing what it truth and what is not, not something we assume because in our own minds it is true or is not. However, to explain the existence of God would have to be through the matter of other valuable things seen by the human eye since some do not base on faith of unseeing. Some cling to the saying, “seeing is believing” because of lack of faith to believe at all.

iC3) Epicurean Paradox

Answers to the argument:
“If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to

Then He is not omnipotent.
He Holy and therefore chooses to permit evil for the sake of goodness to be shown forth. If He was not omnipotent then He would not even have the ability to save people or give salvation.

If He is able, but not willing

Then He is malevolent.
Just because He does not do anything never means He is malevolent, but rather patiently waiting for the people to realize what they are doing and henceforth be charged with justice. So in the end, God always wills to do something.

If He is both able and willing

Then whence cometh evil.
Because of sin. Not because of us.
definition of sin:
an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.

“What is sin?
It is the glory of God not honored.
The holiness of God not reverenced.
The greatness of God not admired.
The power of God not praised.
The truth of God not sought.
The wisdom of God not esteemed.
The beauty of God not treasured.
The goodness of God not savored.
The faithfulness of God not trusted.
The commandments of God not obeyed.
The justice of God not respected.
The wrath of God not feared.
The grace of God not cherished.
The presence of God not prized.
The person of God not loved.
That is sin.” R13; John Piper

If He is neither able nor willing

Then why call Him God?” (3)
I agree if He WAS NOT able or willing then He should not be God nor would He even be God, but since He is able and willing in many ways, that is why He is always in mysteriously at work.

To express the argument in other terms:

P1) Because the Tri-Omni God exists, he is omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent.
P2) So God is omnibenevolent, He stops suffering; God is omnipotent, he uses the power to put a stop to it and prevent it.
P3) Although suffering occurs, God chooses to provide help.
C1) Therefore, the Tri-Omni God exists.

Basically because gratuitous suffering exists that doesn’t eliminate that He isn’t able or isn’t willing. In fact, he is like the director behind a scene for a play performance. When there is a mess-up or a failure or a downfall, He is there and ready to pick anything up that has been destroyed by anything necessary. He is in fact, Omniscient and because He is, He also allows mistakes to befall upon us as humans to teach us something even if it means through suffering. It is not to say He does not will or is able to provide the means of help.

IC4) Elaboration of Free Will

Free will is the choice of doing right or wrong as my opponent and I agree upon, however, God does not have free will in the sense to do wrong, I am not sure if maybe I misunderstood my opponents intentions here; so if anything I would like clarity regarding his position on this concerning God having free will.
Omniscience is the ability to know the past, present and future, yes. Nowhere in this definition does it suggest or even imply to omniscience being random? So please elaborate this as well.

An infant, is at much more lesser problem than a grown up because a grown knows whether to do rightly by taking care of oneself whereas an infant is unable to care-take for his/her self, this is why a mother is the caretaker for the child. Meanwhile, my opponent may suggest that this could also apply to God, maybe so, but who is to say that He does not already do that, point is, are we watching, listening and acknowledging it? It is not God who is not omniscient it is us who lack the knowledge to knowing everything and for that, it is necessary to depend upon the Tri-Omni God that does know everything because He IS able and willing, are we though is the question?

Point ii.

A choice is not in the same sense as to of decision making as we finite minded people assume it to be though.

iiC1) Omniscience, God does have free will

Again, God does not base things off decisions, but rather choosing as to say able willing to give second chances to all mankind, but only few are picked because they have decided to obey upon Him.

(2) []
(3) []
(4) []
(6) []
(7) []
(8) []
Debate Round No. 2


Thanks to GCL for her thought-provoking arguments. I'm now going to respond to her arguments and rebuild my case.


I'd like to begin by noting, first and foremost, our criterion of preponderance of evidence, meaning that we each equally share the burdens. Moreover, we are not making any presumptions as to God's existence nor are there any stipulations suggesting that we must operate under such an assumption. From that, and Pro does not contest this, providing a coherent case against the Tri-Omni God, or a case that he cannot in fact make such a choice or any choice at all, does in fact negate the resolution. Pro has not contested it, so I will extend my analysis through stating that, if I could prove, on balance, points I and II, I have negated the resolution.


To comment on this further, Pro suggests that the opposite of life is hell. This cannot be the case because it is possible to die and either [1] go to, in Pro's eyes, her vision of heaven or [2] simply disappear. "Hell" and "death" are not, in this sense, equivalent, so we are merely examining whether the Tri-Omni God has or would choose life or death, or whether he is able to make such a choice.

Second, my opponent has not presented a logically coherent syllogism. Her P1 makes sense; if God is able to save -- the Tri-Omni God, per our definition, would be "able" to save per his omnipotence -- then he certainly should, as it would be morally right for him to do so, and this flows from omnibenevolence; that is, if God were omnibenevolent and omnipotent, then he should save. However, my opponent's P2 is that God saves, which implies that he is able to save, and from this she concludes that God saves. However, this is a begging-the-question fallacy: "Any form of argument in which the conclusion occurs as one of the premiseses. More generally, a chain of arguments in which the final conclusion is a premiss of one of the earlier arguments in the chain. Still more generally, an argument begs the question when it assumes any controversial point not conceded by the other side" (5). Pro's P2 is nearly identical to her premise, but he has not provided any justification for this. To prove this, not only must she show that it is at least likely that God exists, but that he in fact saves. Moreoever, she must justify, based on the Scriptures she has cited, why God "chooses" selectively whom to save. Why, for instance, do roughly 6 million babies die per year (6)?

There are other instances where, if we were to use the Scriptures as our guide, God has carried out actions that we could hardly consider omnibenevolent, or "choosing life" (7):

-He killed off virtually every living thing via the flood (8)
-God helps men in Judah kill 500,000 Israelities (9)
-God killed all the first-born sons of the Egyptians (10)
-God killed 14,700 Israelites after they complained that he had killed so many of them (11)
-God was involved in numerous other genocides, even more than I'm now citing (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20)

My opponent may try to attempt to issue a post-hoc rationalization as "part of God's will," but the problem is that we really need to question his motives. For instance, in many cases the reason for God's genocide was jealousy at people worshiping other gods. How is this justified? There are about 4,200 other religions (21). We would never justify the killing of people for believing differently as we do. We would rightly condemn these actions as immoral. Not only has he "chosen" death for these people insofar as he could "choose," but he has committed an act that is evil. If he commits an evil act, we cannot call him omnibenevolent.

Now, even if my opponent were to point out any instance where God has saved someone, let me pose this: why some and not others? Why couldn't he save person (x) without slaughtering person (y)? Why did he allow person (a) to perish without allowing the same fate for person (b)?


Pro argues that people are saved by grace and have no control over regeneraton save for free will, and this culminates in an argument for God choosing life. However, there is no logical connection to this. First of and foremost, omniscience cirvumvents free will. If God is Tri-Omni, meaning that he is omniscient, people do not have free will. Of course, we know that we have at least some from will by virtue of Heinseberg's Uncertainty Principle (22). This point alone is enough to negate the resolution because it negates the existence of the Tri-Omni God. Moreover, Pro contradicts herself in saying that we have free will, but at the same time "play no active role."

Another point she makes is that God "works things for His Good and His Good alone." Whose good is he working toward, though, when he participates mass genocide, or allows gratuitous suffering to occur? Can we really say that a omnibenevolent, omnnipotent God would create a world in which there exists evil, and then refuse to intervene to save innocent lives?


There are several problems with Pro's remarks. She argues, first, that the Tri-Omni God "chooses" to give salvation to a certain amount of people when I have demonstrated that, per the very definition of omniscience, this isn't possible. Moreover, her narrative of predestiation suggests to us that God in some way has a list of people who will be saved and a list of people who won't, and people who believe in him are doing so because he has chosen them.

Let's look beyond, of course, the lack of evidence for this claim and note the ramifications of it. If God has limited his atonement, which of course is a key tenet of Calvinism (23), this means that whilst some people are predestined to heaven, others -- everyone else -- is predestined for Hell. Why would an omnibenevolent God predestine people to eternal damnation? Moreover, why would he devise a system whereby he would create people in his image and then predestine them for Hell?

Not to mention, how would these members of the elect know of their status? Do they have access to evidence the rest of us don't? My adversary has not contested that the question of God's existence doesn't possess truth value. Citing the Bible as evidence of God is, of course, circular logic. In light of the fact that the Bible was written over the course of 1500 years by 40 authors (24), we have no reason to trust it as prima facie evidence of God.

Point 1

Pro provides another syllogism which begs the question: P2 is the same as her conclusion. She does not explain why the Tri-Omni God is logically coherent, but merely asserts it. I've pointed out a number of logical inconsistences with her premises. Even her P1 is flawed because, if God is omniscient, he doesn't have free will because he possesses perfect knowledge of the future, which means that he cannot "choose" life. Insofar as God can "choose" anything, I have demonstrated several cases where he has in fact "chosen" death.

Pro effectively concedes that it isn't possible to prove or disprove the Tri-Omni God. Indeed the question of God has no truth value, but we are inclined to reject concepts and ideas for which there is no evidence, which are unecessary, which require a plethora of assumptions, and are logically incoherent. This is effectively an appeal to Occam's Razor, which Pro drops. Not to mention, the criterion for our debate is preponderance of evidence, so in the same way that I cannot disprove God, Pro cannot prove God. However, I have provided reasons as to why he probably doesn't exist, or why the concept is logically incoherent, which have not been rebuted by Pro.


Pro admits that it requires faith to believe in a Tri-Omni God. Because faith doesn't require evidence, she concedes the point that there isn't any evidence. Her only response to Dr. Michio Kaku's account that something could come from nothing is an appeal to authority from an evangelist preacher (24). He does nothing more than assert that this account is unscientific. However, he isnt a scientist, nor has he refuted Dr. Kaku's remarks. He then remarks that God is provable. If so, why haven't you proved him? These remarks are utterly baseless.

Pro goes on to provide several verses to asserts that we can make assumptions about God. Of course, I've pointed out why the Scriptures are not evidence, and in dropping Occam's Razor, Pro cannot win on this point because my position is not only logically coherent, but empirically falsifiable, whereas hers is not.

She also misunderstands "theory." A scientific theory is one that is falsifiable and that has been strenously tested. Indeed, a theory could be tested and scientists could change their minds. But theologians cannot. The Bible is not subject to change. I'm not "assuming" God is not caused because I cannot "assume" a negative. I'm not assuming that he exists because the weight of evidence doesn't support his existence.

Pro concedes that the question of God has truth value, but she misconstrues subjective ideas with objective, scientific evidence. Science is not based on ideas, but on experiments.

Free Will

By conceding that omniscience is inclusive of knowing the future, she concedes that God cannot possibly have free will and thus make a choice. She then goes on to contradict herself by saying that "it is not God who is omniscient." This doesn't make any sense. If God isn't omniscient, he isn't Tri-Omni.

Out of characters, but far too many of my arguments have not been adequately addressed, so this debate is largely over.



(8) Genesis 7:21-23
(9) 2 Chronicles 13:15-18
(10) Exodus 12:29
(11) Numbers 16:41-49
(12) Joshua 6:20-21
(13) 1 Samuel 6:19
(14) Deuteronomy 2:32-35
(15) Deuteronomy 3:3-7
(16) Numbers 31:7-18
(17) Genesis 19:24
(18) 2 Kings 2:23-24
(19) 2 Kings:9-10
(20) Judges 14:11-19
(22) Round 1, Source 4



GodChoosesLife forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
40 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GodChoosesLife 2 years ago
No need for bulling he clearly won this debate. Winning losing is fine with me. I personally don't care which happens with me. But it looks bad on me when I unintentionally FF :/
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
Well, if you two agree to null it and do another one I'm more than happy to null my vote--but obviously he'd have to agree.
Posted by GodChoosesLife 2 years ago
Lol sorry but I saw you fixed it. Thanks for your honesty. Jmk and I might redo just because I FF a round. I isn't mean to FF. :/
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
Geeze GCL! Gimme a second!

But seriously, I saw the voting was open with ELO restricitons mid-type, so I cut what I had and just typed "test" b/c if I had finished and then found out I couldn't vote I'd have been annoyed.
Posted by GodChoosesLife 2 years ago
What's test mean @bladerunner?
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
A Monty Python version, have Juliet Instantaneously Combust when Romeo describes her as the Sun.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Wonder if I should do a sort of something like a Mel Brooks version of "Romeo and Juliet" as a comedy?
It may be a hit or a flop????
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
As I've stated and my studies into Neuro-psychology confirm, humans all have their brains wired differently.
What may appear obvious to one person may not be obvious to another.
That is why we have the scientific method, which compares and clarifies perceptions to try and form a contiguous concept of reality that can be verified repeatedly by different researchers.
Often I may miss the interpretation that the author has placed on his argument and instead miss the point they are making entirely. Since I don't have others around me to compare my interpretation against, as I would have in a scientific research project where I would compare my findings and interpretations with other researchers to find a common interpretation.
Just as I often misread scripts in plays as when I first read "Romeo and Juliet" at school, when we were having to perform it, I thought it was a comedy.

Also if I'm pressed for time, which is often, I may skip entire paragraphs and interpret an argument entirely on the first and last arguments in long drawn out debates.
Any more than 3 rounds and I will skip entire rounds, as I think 4 and more rounds are ridiculous.
Most should be able to get their points of argument across in the first 2 arguments, any more is excessive.
A 5 round argument is utterly ridiculous.
Posted by JohnMaynardKeynes 2 years ago
"Not that I can even remember the details of your debate, but I'm certain I would have far better reasons for voting against you than just my own notions of true and false."

That's funny because your RFD didn't reflect it, and even your posts now demonstrate that you don't know how to accurately gauge the burden of proof. I recall your vote, and it was as though you hadn't read the debate.

When it comes to the substance, we are in virtually complete agreement. I'm talking merely about one vote that I thought was especially troublesome.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
@ JohnMaynardKeynes
Not that I can even remember the details of your debate, but I'm certain I would have far better reasons for voting against you than just my own notions of true and false.

There must have been something in your argument that put me off voting in your favor or I must have thought that your opponent had a better argument.
I've even voted for Creationists when they have a better argument than Evolutionists or the Evolutionist forfeits.
I usually weigh up the arguments before I make a voting decision.
Though I have been known to miss points that were made after I voted, though it is too bad once voting has closed, as I had noted some mistakes, but it was too late to alter the decision.

I know for absolute certain that Creation is bunkum, Birds being Dinosaurs proves Evolution is real.
Yet, some Creationists do put up better arguments than many Evolutionists on DDO.
Because many Evolutionists actually know diddly squat about Evolution and get beaten by Creationists who have don their homework properly.
If people are going to argue for Evolution or even Creation, they need to do their research properly.
Because exposed Naivety will give the opposition an open field for attack.
Even though debates never prove who is right or wrong, it only shows who is either popular or is able to argue better.

This is why Science never uses debates for proving scientific ideas, they use experimentation and observation.
Nor does Science attempt to use the media to attack Scientific Ideas, they work on them as a team instead.
Only Creationism tries to use media and popularity to attack Science, which is fallacious.
Science never works on Trial by Media.
It takes no notice of the media.
Most of my Scientist colleagues who work in Evolution based fields don't even know Creationists exist.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: I'm a bit surprised that GCL would forfeit. While this is a straight W/L debate, and so conduct doesn't factor in as its own category, it hurt her case considerably, as Con got both the first and last word, and Pro only got 1 round to say anything. Unfortunately, I don't think her case stood up--had she had the opportunity to rebut in the final round, things might have gone differently, but unfortunately, we judge what we see. Overall, though, an interesting debate from both sides, and I congratulate both sides on doing a good job! Points to Con, and as always, happy to clarify this RFD.