The Instigator
DakotaKrafick
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
THEBOMB
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points

The belief in the existence of a deity is logically valid.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
DakotaKrafick
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/28/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,022 times Debate No: 20733
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

DakotaKrafick

Con

Since, unfortunately, I am always unable to find these types of debates before they are already taken, I will instigate one myself. The proposition is "The belief in the existence of a deity is logically valid."

As Pro, it will be your duty to establish the truth of the proposition by providing evidences and/or logical arguments for the existence of a deity.

As Con, it will be my duty to refute the evidences and/or arguments presented. I will not be providing any evidences or arguments myself (as such things would be impossible), but only responding to my opponent's.

I also urge my opponent to define the deity in which he/she feels it is logically valid to believe in, in order to avoid any future confusion (since the term "deity" carries a very large spectrum of meanings).

Structure of the debate:
1. CON: Instigation
1. PRO: Acceptance; providing his/her definition of "deity" (what properties does this deity have that are salient to this debate); providing first evidences and/or arguments
2. CON: Refutations of definition and/or evidences and/or arguments
2. PRO: Refutations of refutations
3. CON: Refutations of refutations' refutations
3. PRO: Refutations of refutations' refutations' refutations
4. CON: "..."'s refuations;
4. PRO: "..."'s refutations; closing statements

Please provide ALL of the evidences and/or arguments you wish to use in the first round and save the next two for rebuttals only. Otherwise, we may not have adequate time to discuss everything.

I thank my opponent in advance and the viewers for making this debate possible, and I look forward to an interesting and fruitful discourse.
THEBOMB

Pro

I thank my opponent for this debate and will begin.

Definitions:

Deity- for the purposes of this debate, a deity is the supernatural creator of the universe who oversees the entire universe.

Rational- Consistent with or based on reason; logical (1)

Logical- Of or according to the rules of logic (2)

Logic- Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity (3)

Something logical is rational and something rational is logical.

Arguments-

Cosmological:

1. Existence is only intelligible if it has an explanation.

2. The universes existence is therefore, one of two things:
a) unintelligible
b) has an explanation

3. A rational person cannot accept premise 2a by the definition of rationality.

4. A rational person must accept premise 2b, the universe has an explanation.

5. There are 3 types of explanations:

a) Scientific: physical conditions + laws = an event
b) Personal: Explanations citing desires, beliefs, powers and intentions of some personal agent.
c) Essential: The essence of the thing to be explained necessitates its existence or qualities (for example, if you ask why a triangle has 3 sides, I would respond that it is the essence and necessity for a triangle to have 3 sides by its definition.

6. The explanation for the Universes entire existence cannot be scientific as there are no independent laws and physical conditions independent of what is being explained. The Big Bang theory, for example, fails to explain the existence of the entire universe it fails to explain where the Big Bang singularity came from. The Universe as a total of all natural conditions and laws cannot be totally explained without an Archimidean reference point outside the system.

7. The Universes existence is not essential because the universe does not exist necessarily. This is because there is a possibility for the Universe to have not existed. (If the Big Bang, for example, had been slightly different large scale structure may not have existed). Therefore, the Universe is not essential.

8. A rational person therefore, must believe the Universe has a personal explanation.

9. No personal agent but, a deity could have created the entire universe.

C. A rational person must believe a deity exists.

Teleological:

1. Some things lack intelligence

2. Things that lack intelligence have a purpose

3. Something which lacks intelligence but, has a purpose must have something with intelligence guiding it

C. There must be an intelligent being who oversees the Universe directing all unintelligent things to their purpose.

Source:
1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
2. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
DakotaKrafick

Con

I thank my opponent, THEBOMB, for his response.

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

Premise one, as my opponent states: "Existence is only intelligible if it has an explanation."

When we swap "intelligible" with its synonym "explainable", we see just how absurdly axiomatic this premise really is: "Existence is only explainable if it has an explanation."

I agree with this premise. However, please carefully note that this is a conditional contention. Only IF existence has an explanation can it be explainable.

Premise two: "The universes' existence is, therefore, one of two things:
a) unintelligible (not explainable)
b) has an explanation"

I agree with this premise, assuming you meant "impossible to ever be intelligible" in the first scenario.

Premise three: "A rational person cannot accept premise 2a by the definition of rationality."

This is where I find fault, and I remind you that the first premise was conditional. IF existence has an explanation, THEN we would be able to explain it (assuming we somehow knew the explanation). However, there is no reason to believe that the universe's existence necessarily has an explanation.

Premise four: "A rational person must accept premise 2b, the universe has an explanation."

By extension of my last remark, I also find this premise untrue.

Premise five: "There are 3 types of explanations:

a) Scientific: physical conditions laws = an event
b) Personal: Explanations citing desires, beliefs, powers and intentions of some personal agent.
c) Essential: The essence of the thing to be explained necessitates its existence or qualities (for example, if you ask why a triangle has 3 sides, I would respond that it is the essence and necessity for a triangle to have 3 sides by its definition."

No comment.

Premise six: "The explanation for the Universes entire existence cannot be scientific as there are no independent laws and physical conditions independent of what is being explained."

I find that there is absolutely no reason to believe this premise to be true either. For all my opponent or I know, there could be other physical universes outside of our own, citing M Theory as a basic example.

Premise seven: "The Universes existence is not essential because the universe does not exist necessarily."

I also find no reason to believe this is true. You cited a triangle as an example, saying that it must have three sides because that is the very definition of a triangle. Following the same logic, the universe, by definition, must exist. A universe that doesn't exist is not a universe at all.

Premise eight: "A rational person therefore, must believe the Universe has a personal explanation."

Premise nine: "No personal agent but, a deity could have created the entire universe."

Conclusion: "A rational person must believe a deity exists."

As extensions of previous objections, I find all three of the above statements to be false.

TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

Premise one: "Some things lack intelligence"

Agreed.

Premise two: "Things that lack intelligence have a purpose"

I find this untrue, unless it reads "Things that lack intelligence are given purposes".

Premise three: "Something which lacks intelligence but, has a purpose must have something with intelligence guiding it"

By extension of my previous comment, I find this untrue unless it reads "Something which lacks intelligence, but has been given a purpose, must have been given it by something intelligent".

Conclusion: "There must be an intelligent being who oversees the Universe directing all unintelligent things to their purposes."

Even if the first three premises are true (as I rewrote them), this conclusion does not logically follow.

I look forward to my opponent's responses.
THEBOMB

Pro

I thank my opponent for his intelligent response and will continue.

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

1. Existence is only intelligible...

My opponent makes the mistake of replacing a word with an easily recognizable definition with a synonym (replacing a word with a "close friend" so to speak). This new premise they have concocted is ridiculous and obscures the meaning of the said premise. The meaning of intelligible is, "capable of being understood" (1). As such this premise is now reworded with its definition, not its synonym. "Existence is only capable of being understood if it has an explanation". In other words, you cannot understand something's existence if there is no explanation of the said objects existence. My opponent has accepted this premise.

2. Two choices (unintelligible or has an explanation)
My opponent has agreed. The meaning of unintelligible is incapable of being understood or impossible to be intelligible. You cannot explain something unintelligible.

3. Cannot accept premise 2a by definition of rationality
Let us argue that premise 2a is a completely rational choice. Then, here is what is implied: the Universe has no explanation for being in existence. Now let us say this is completely correct, there is no explanation for the Universes' existence. If there is no initial explanation as to why the Universe exists, how can the universe exist without an initial explanation? Rationally, a person cannot accept there being no cause to the universe as without a cause there is no effect. Without an initial cause to the Universe, there is no universe. As we can see, there is a universe. Therefore, 2a must be inherently false only leaving 2b, the Universe has an explanation.
4. A rational person must accept 2b
Extend argument 3.

5. 3 types of explanations

6. Universe cannot be explained scientifically
"M-theory is an extension of string theory in which 11 dimensions are identified" (2). M-Theory does not state there are other UNIVERSES it explains there are 11 dimensions. These 11 dimensions still exist within one universe. As a dimension is "informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it" (3). M-theory does not explain there are other universes, neither does main-stream string theory. Furthermore, even if there happens to be other universes those universes will not affect our universe. The premise holds true.

7. "The Universes existence is not essential because the universe does not exist necessarily."
My opponent makes my point, what makes it essential for, citing the most prominent theory, the Big Bang to occur? Why is the Universe essential? The simple answer is: it is not. There was no reason for the Big Bang singularity to even exist. A triangle with 4 sides is not a triangle. Furthermore, our Universe is defined as having large scale structures (planets, stars, galaxy's, etc.) If the Big Bang had occurred in a slightly different way these large scale structures would not exist. Therefore, our Universe would not exist.

8. "A rational person therefore, must believe the Universe has a personal explanation."
9. "No personal agent but, a deity could have created the entire universe."
Conclusion: "A rational person must believe a deity exists."

Extending my previous arguments, I hold the conclusion to be true.

TELELOGICAL ARGUMENT

1. "Some things lack intelligence"

Agreement.

2. "Things that lack intelligence have a purpose"

My opponent provides no basis for their objection. Their personal belief has not been substantiated. I will provide an empirical example. Magma, it flows beneath the earth. I hope my opponent and I can agree magma has no intelligence as it is melted rock (and rocks do not have intelligence). Magma allows for tectonic shifts of the earths plates and all volcanic activity. Things without intelligence have a purpose.

3. "Something which lacks intelligence but, has a purpose must have something with intelligence guiding it"

My opponent provided no reason to rewrite this premise. Simply stating something is false does not mean it is.

Conclusion: "There must be an intelligent being who oversees the Universe directing all unintelligent things to their purposes."
Therefore, it logically follows; if something is unintelligent it must have something intelligent which designed it to have a purpose and directs it. Something without intelligence cannot have a purpose unless something with intelligence guides it. Something with intelligence guides all without intelligence. Now let's see what happens if we take my opponents rewritten premises to be true:

Opponent's rewriting:
1. "Some things lack intelligence"
2. "Things that lack intelligence are given purposes".
3. "Something which lacks intelligence, but has been given a purpose, must have been given it by something intelligent".
C. "There must be an intelligent being who oversees the Universe GIVING all unintelligent things to their purposes."
You rewrote the argument. I'll rewrite the conclusion. As you can see logically the conclusion is upheld by the new premises. My opponent has upheld the resolution.

Logically, a deity must exist. The resolution holds true.

Sources:
1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
DakotaKrafick

Con

I thank my opponent for his response.

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

My opponent objects to my word "explainable", saying it should instead read "capable of being understood". When something is capable of being explained, it is certainly capable of being understood, and vise versa. Therefore, I hold firmly that there was nothing wrong with my word swap.

My opponent has this to say in regards to my objection of "rationally having to accept premise 2a" (premise 3): "If there is no initial explanation as to why the Universe exists, how can the universe exist without an initial explanation? [...] Without an initial cause to the Universe, there is no universe."

This statement from my opponent is very telling, and by defending his premises with it, he has violated at least one logical fallacy: begging the question, special pleading, and/or argument from ignorance.

My opponent wishes to say (as is clear from his last statement, without a cause how is there a universe?) "Everything which exists has a cause", but knows he can't. This is because, as was pointed out in the first Cosmological argument constructed nearly 1,000 years ago, this creates the problem of "What caused God"? If you say "Nothing caused God", then you have violated Special Pleading, the logical fallacy of excluding something from the truth of one of your premises.

Or, perhaps, he doesn't want us to rationally choose premise 2a because he already knows the universe's explanation if a personal one (ie, a deity). He uses the supposed truth of the conclusion to justify an otherwise unjustified premise. How does he know the conclusion and premise are valid if they only serve to justify each other (they are either true together or false together; how does he know they are true)? That is begging the question (circular reasoning).

Furthermore, he asks us "How can the universe exist without an explanation?" This is as if to appeal to our intuition (another logical fallacy) instead of evidence. There is no evidence suggesting the universe had or needed to have an explanation. And there is no evidence for an explanation; however, my opponent here is appealing to this lack of knowledge of the origins of the universe to thread his own fictive one: an argument from ignorance.

TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

Premise two: "Things that lack intelligence have a purpose."

I suspected my opponent of this logical fallacy, but waited to call him out on it until he plainly revealed himself. The fallacy my opponent violates now, ladies and gentlemen, is equivocation: using an ambiguous word (one with at least two meanings) in an argument without specifying the definition. In this case, that word is "purpose".

My opponent says that magma has a "purpose", to allow tectonic shifts and volcanic activity. However, this only holds true if the definition of "purpose" is "the action in which a thing does by its very nature". Purposes such as these, as we know, are not necessarily given by intelligent beings.

The "purpose" I was using (and the reason for my rewriting of his premises) was "the reason in which a thing was created or utilized". We cannot say for certain that magma was created specifically to allow tectonic shifting or that the Earth was created to suit life or that the universe was created for any purpose at all. Therefore, it cannot be said for certain that a deity exists.
THEBOMB

Pro

I thank my opponent for their intelligent response and will continue.

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT:
1."Explainable" vs "capable to be understood"
My opponents argument for this point goes something like this. Something explainable has the capability to be understood therefore, explainable == capable to be understood. To explain means to make an idea clear to somebody by description. Explainable thus means the capability to make the said idea clearer. Understanding means to perceive the intent of this explanation. In context, this phrase thus means the ability to percieve the intent of the said explanation. By the obvious definitions of these, words explainable =/= capable to be understood.
2.Premise 3
a)"Everything which exists has a cause"
As with all Fallacies, the Special Pleading Fallacy has an exception. If I can "provid[e] adequate justification for the exemption" that this deity must be exempt from the truth of one my premises I can do so without fallacy. (1) So now, because my opponent asked, I will do so. I will explain in two ways:

a) Everything which exists has a cause
b) Anything caused is caused by something else
a. Something cannot cause itself as it would have to exist before itself which is impossible
c) There cannot be an infinite series of causes
a. This is because there would be no first cause to the Universe thus, no second or third therefore, nothing would exist which is evidently false.
d) There must be a first cause which in itself is not caused by anything else (a deity)

Now for the second:

a) Everything that exists is either a dependant being or a self-existent being
b) Not everything can be a dependant being
c) Therefore, there is a self-existing being
I have not violated the fallacy of Special-Pleading.

b) Circular reasoning
I justified premise 3 in Round 2 and further expanded upon it in Round 3.

c) Argument from ignorance
My opponent is quoting me out of context. I answer my own question in the next sentences, "Rationally, a person cannot accept there being no cause to the universe as without a cause there is no effect. Without an initial cause to the Universe, there is no universe. As we can see, there is a universe."

TELEOGICAL ARGUMENT
a) Premise 2 "Things that lack intelligence have a purpose"
I was also utilizing the definition my opponent provided: "the reason in which a thing was created". The reason Magma was created was to allow tectonic shifts, volcanoes etc. That is it's reason for existence to allow for these shifts and allow for volcanoes to exist. We can say this is certain because what other purpose does magma have?
Earth was created to suit life, the position Earth holds in proximity to the sun allows for the creation of life. The atmosphere earth has allows for the creation of life. The stability of Earth's surface (at least compared with many other planets) allows for the creation of life. Earth was created with the ability to suit life.
The Universe has a reason for its existence…to support other existence.

A deity must exist.

Source:
1. http://www.nizkor.org...
Debate Round No. 3
DakotaKrafick

Con

I thank my opponent for his response.

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

I. Understandable = Explainable?
My opponent continues his objection of the definition of "explainable", stating that his original word (intelligible) does not mean "able to be explained" but "able to be understood". However, I can only repeat what I've already said: if it is possible for a phenomena to be understood, then it is possible that phenomena to be explained (and vise versa). I will continue to hold that my word swap was justified and leave it to the audience to decide whether I am right in doing so. Why my opponent has dragged this objection on for so long, however, is beyond me; the only reason I swapped those words was to show the audience why the truth of his premise was undeniable.

II. New Premise: "Everything which exists has a cause."
It is unfortunate for my opponent's argument that it must include this premise to be valid, because this is the one premise that an argument for God cannot possibly be valid with. Do not let my opponent trick you: there can be NO exception to Special Pleading. A premise is either true or false, and if a premise (such as "Everything which exists has a cause") has an exception, then that premise is false.

The first premise in his new argument is, of course, this: "Everything which exists has a cause"
And the conclusion is this: "There must be a first cause which in itself is not caused by anything else (a deity)"

It makes not one iota of difference what other premises lie between these two statements, for they clearly contradict each other. My opponent has revealed that his cosmological argument cannot be valid without the premise "Everything which exists has a cause", but that premise cannot be true considering the conclusion asserts an uncaused deity (unless this uncaused deity, in fact, does not exist).

Therefore, I hold that my opponent's cosmological argument is invalid, as it must simultaneously include and exclude this crucial premise.

TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

I. Equivocation
My opponent claims that the only definition of the word "purpose" he is using is "the reason for which a thing was created". He also claims that magma was specifically created by an intelligent being to allow volcanic activity, and he knows this "because what other purpose does magma have?". How this logically follows is beyond me, however. He has still provided no justification for why it should be believed that magma was created for this purpose or if it is simply a byproduct of its natural properties.

II. Argument from Final Consequences
My opponent made the mistake of assuming the Earth was created to sustain life because of how convenient all of its properties are. For instance, he says the distance between the Earth and sun allows for the creation of life. This is true, of course, but says nothing in support his argument for a deity.

1. The path the Earth takes around the sun is elliptical, not perfectly circular. So during certain times of the year, it is closer than during other times. The Earth would have to be either about 25,800,600 miles closer or about 185,900,800 miles farther away in order for life to not be possible. Not exactly conclusive proof that the distance was carefully fine-tuned to support life.

2. This violates the logical fallacy Argument from Final Consequences, which, put simply, is a perversion of cause and effect. My opponent states that because the Earth and its life work so well together that the Earth must have been created with the life in mind. However, in actuality, there is no evidence for this and it could have very well been the other way around: life adjusted to suit its environment.

Therefore, I hold that my opponent's teleological argument is invalid, as the premises are completely unsupported, ergo the conclusion is completely unsupported.

Thank you, THEBOMB, for providing such interesting arguments and refutations in this debate. I urge the audience to objectively discern which of us provided the most rational arguments and to vote accordingly.
THEBOMB

Pro

II. Special Pleading

Once again I refer back to the source provided. "Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, WITHOUT PROVIDING ADEQUATE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE EXEMPTION" (1). I have provided this justification in Round 3. My opponent has not refuted it. If one source is not good enough I'll provide another. "Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. WITHOUT JUSTIFYING THE EXEMPTION." (2) I could not have made that more clear in Round 3. I have justified the exemption to the rule. The cosmological argument holds logically true. I have provided an exemption, I have justified the exemption, my opponent did not touch the justification.

TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

I. Equivocation

Some things lack intelligence.
Magma serves no other purpose than tectonic activity. That is the reason for it's creation. Magma was created with these natural properties to allow for tectonic activity. Magma was created with these "natural properties" to fulfill its purpose. It could not have endowed in itself its own properties.

II. Final Consequences
My opponent is basically arguing here the creation of such objects are spontaneous and yet no scientific field agrees this creation is spontaneous and happened by complete chance. The chance of Earth being able to sustain life without outside assistance is so low, its magnitude of happening by complete chance is higher than the number of particles in the UNIVERSE. This leads to the conclusion there must have been an outside designer.

1. The Earth's orbit is not all that elliptical as you may believe. A circle is an ideal limit (Limit e --> 0) of an ellipse. There is no such thing as a perfect circle or orbit. And in Earth's case "e" is 0.017. A tiny number showing it is almost a perfect circle but, the gravitational pulls of outside objects in the Universe have pulled it slightly off.

2. Science has shown Earth's environment adjusted to suit life. Life sprang up on Earth when it's environment stabilized. (3)

I thank my opponent for a good debate on this matter.

Source:
1. http://www.nizkor.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
@THEBOMB
its a TEMPORARY theory.. .. it could change tommow.. maybe it is a never ending cycle..
Posted by DakotaKrafick 5 years ago
DakotaKrafick
"Where did the Big Bang singularity come from?"

I don't know and neither do you. To claim, therefore, it must be God is an argument from ignorance.
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
@Fool

Where did the Big Bang singularity come from?
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Give on example, how he defended it.. the burdan is on him to prove it works.. you also have to state what you are proving.. what do you mean by intellegent, what is god before you proof it?
Bomb you sound like you know lots of rules, but your applicability is awfull. a set of unknown condition is a set of unknown condition, calling it god, does explan anything. We could call it anything. And explanation must tell us how it works. A label doesnt do that. The big bang is better, because we could change upon new knowledge.. So it can still evolve later.. God does not evolve. it just stop us from trying to figure it out thus promoting ignorance as a solution to problems.
Posted by MikeyMike 5 years ago
MikeyMike
Love this debate, but I would have to give the win to Pro, but unfortunately I can't vote yet. I feel Pro deserves the win, because he defended the Cosmological Argument, better than Con refuted it. Con didn't actually refute the Cosmological Argument, he simply falsely accused Pro of special pleading.

The Teological argument however was a stalemate, and could not be properly defended by neither party, because there is no actual evidence for both sides.

I also pick Pro because Con tended to twist Pro's words around and quote him out of context.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
the cosmollogical argument is the easiest one to refute. it can't hold up to first level Cartian doubt, and it depends determinism. its not even defendable.
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
I hope someone votes on actually haha
Posted by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
Posting as a reminder to myself to read this.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
DakotaKrafickTHEBOMBTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: This is just nonsense "Universe exists, how can the universe exist without an initial explanation" no knowing has no barring on existence. There are false explanations!!! To say that god was always there is no better then saying the universe was always there(this is just a label). Just all well as you can say intellegence is always there. What is your criteria for intelligence? Are you senses 100%? how do you know your not dreaming? Logic has to be certain not probable?
Vote Placed by KRFournier 5 years ago
KRFournier
DakotaKrafickTHEBOMBTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The teleological argument didn't go anywhere with me. Both sides seemed to struggle in their position. Regarding the cosmological argument, Con engaged in the fallacy of redefinition to refute it and didn't do anything else. Pro took this one by a small margin.