The Instigator
Grapes42
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Buckethead31594
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

The existence of God can be logically demonstrated using Aquinas' Second Way argument

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...
Buckethead31594
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/15/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 813 times Debate No: 44044
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

Grapes42

Pro

Here is the argument.

1. There are things that are limited.
2. Something limited, is limited by something else.
C: Ultimately, limited things are limited by something unlimited, which limits the other things in the way it chooses to. This unlimited thing is God.
Buckethead31594

Con

I thank my opponent for an intriguing topic of discussion- may we use logic to discern the plausibility of the resolution at hand. I wish the best of luck to my opponent.


I will thoroughly explain how Aquinas' Second Way argument is nothing more than a circular fallacy. I will direct my arguments towards the summarized logic that my opponent has graciously provided.

By "God," I will assume that my opponent is speaking of a deity who is omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.

Here is the summarize argument:

1. There are things that are limited
2. Something limited, is limited by something else.
C: Ultimately, limited things are limited by something unlimited, which limits the other things in the way it chooses to. This unlimited thing is God

Ultimately, the flaw at hand resides in my opponent's conclusion. There is no logical premise for which to ascertain the idea that there exists something unlimited. All that one has to do is replace "unlimited" with "limited." Alas, the same logic is achieved. Thusly, I choose to expose the anti-logical counter argument within:

1. God is unlimited
2. God cannot limit himself
3. God limits himself by not limiting himself.
C. There exists no unlimited things.

So one may ask, "Whose to say that God can't limit himself?" To which I respond: God does limit himself- by not being able to limit himself. As you can see, this obvious example of a paradox simply disproves the validity of the existence of an unlimited factor in regards to the notion that it "chooses to limit other limiting factors." Simply put, there could be an unlimited amount of limited factors that limit each other, but there will never be an unlimited factor that limits other limited factors. Furthermore, this concept will never equate to God.

Therefore, the correct logical diagram should consist as so:



1. There are things that are limited.
2. Something limited, is limited by something else.
C: Ultimately, limited things are limited by an unlimited amount of limiting things, which limits as they are limited.


In conclusion, it would seem that both my opponent and Aquinas have created a box in which to assert their argument; this box is faith- faith that there is an unlimited factor to begin with, and a preconceived bias that this unlimited factor must be God.

On to Pro.







[1] http://www3.nd.edu...
[2] http://atheology.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Grapes42

Pro

I thank my opponent (Con) for their response.

I can agree with their definition of God for this debate.

Con argues that there is a flaw with my articulated version of Aquinas' Second Way.

Now, Con did not deny one of the premises of the argument, but it seems Con denies that the conclusion follows from the premises.

Con objects that "there could be an unlimited amount of limited factors that limit each other."

Except, if each is limited in how much it can limit one another then each factor is deriving how much it can limit the other factor from another factor and so on. This would either go around in a loop (where the factor is ultimately would dependent upon itself for limiting itself) which is absurd or it the limitation will go on for infininte (as Con seems to suggest), which is also absurd.

I will explain why an infinite dependency is absurd.

To use an example, a sack being pulled by a rope would be an example of dependency, because the sack's movement depends upon the rope. It would be absurd to suppose that the rope is infinitely long, because the rope must ultimately be pulled by something. So, this sort of dependency cannot go on forever.

This link ( http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com.... ) explains the distinction in series per se (as I am talking about) and per accidens, which is important to understand for this argument.

Now if premise 2 of the Second Way is correct, then limitation is clearly a state of dependency. If limitation is a state of dependency though, and there cannot be an infinite dependency, then there cannot be a beginning less (infinite) series of things limiting another.

Now, Con also objected that the argument self defeats because God is limited "not being able to limit himself."

Except, God this would be an example of a logical limitation and I agree that God is limited to acting logically (and so did Aquinas), But, when I talk about limitation, I mean physical or ontological limitation. Logical limitations, such as the classic example of 'not being able to create a rock so heavy that one can't lift it' are not physical or ontological limitations. So, yes God is limited to not being able to limit Himself, but that is simply because He is an unlimited being of course He cannot place a 'true ontological limit upon Himself' and that there would nothing else that could, but God could still place a temporary limitation upon Himself.

So, in order to show a shortcoming with the Second Way, Con must either show that an infinite dependency is coherent and/or show that God is more than just limited to acting logically (or show a problem with God being limited by logic). Or Con can bring up a new problem.
Buckethead31594

Con

I thank my opponent for his challenging arguments. At a glance, it may seem that my opponent's logic is watertight. Unfortunately, the argument for which my opponent supports has many a flaw; my opponent has only confirmed this in round 2.



"Except, if each is limited in how much it can limit one another then each factor is deriving how much it can limit the other factor from another and so on. This would either go around in a loop (where the factor is ultimately would dependent upon itself for limiting itself) which is absurd or it the limitation will go on for infinite (as Con seems to suggest), which is also absurd."

My opponent attacks my argument of infinity, as if he doesn't also argue for infinity.

1. God is unlimited
2. God is without limit
3. No limit equates to infinite
C. God is infinite

"...the limitation will go on for infinite (as Con seems to suggest), which is also absurd."

Simply put, my opponent contradicts himself by claiming infinity to be "absurd." If he wishes to remove this contradiction, he will need to prove that God is not an unlimited factor- but to do so, he would need to disprove the very definition of "God." I will explain further as this round continues.



"To use an example, a sack being pulled by a rope would be an example of dependency, because the sack's movement depends upon the rope. It would be absurd to suppose that the rope is infinitely long, because the rope must ultimately be pulled by something. So, this sort of dependency cannot go on forever."

The flaw lies within the definitions of "dependent" and "limited." I contend that they are not one in the same.

Dependent: Determined or conditioned by another; relying on another for support[1]
Limited: Confined within limits[1]

My opponent states that 2. Something limited is limited by something else. When there is no reason to concur that limitation is a state of dependency.

Let us observe the Frail Man argument:

There was a frail man and a strong man. The frail man was limited by his own strength- which was not much; but he was not dependent on the strong man.

As you can see, the frail man acts within limits- but he is not dependent on the strong man to exist. So I put forth a separate, more feasible argument:

Imagine a sack, and a rope- but the rope is not attached to the sack. They are floating through motionless time and space at the exact same rate; this includes all factors. Remember, these factors limit each other, but there must have been something to put these factors into motion- an induction of energy into a closed system. I could argue that this energy could be that of the big bang; for energy is not created or destroyed- it is only manifested (according to the Law of Conservation of Energy).

There would be no need for one to pull the rope if all factors are moving at the same rate. And this would not rely on the existence of an infinite cause; hence, it is improbable that unlimited energy could exist in the known universe. Therefore, it is improbable that God could exist within the known universe.



"God is limited to not being able to limit Himself, but that is simply because He is an unlimited being of course He cannot place a 'true ontological limit upon Himself' and that there would nothing else that could, but God could still place a temporary limitation upon Himself."

Impossible. For if God were unlimited, he would be unable to change his mind- since, as my opponent has agreed, he is already omniscient. Furthermore, for a change to be temporary, it would imply that he would revert this change at some point. But what would be the need to change himself if God could have prevented the reason for which he needed to change in the first place? Ergo, God cannot make a temporary change if he is unlimited- as my opponent suggests.

He could, however, make a temporary change if he was not unlimited(and thus, no longer God). Yet, my opponent would have to concede the debate if he wishes to argue this contention.


"So, in order to show a shortcoming with the Second Way, Con must either show that an infinite dependency is coherent..."

I contend that my opponent is also arguing for an infinite dependency. If he wishes to claim that an infinite factor is absurd, he will need to prove that God is finite- which would be counteractive.



"...or show that God is more than just limited to acting logically (or show a problem with God being limited by logic)."

No, I do not see the point in arguing that God can be illogical- this would be an oxymoron when considering the definition that my opponent and I have decided for God. I agree that God can only act within the realms of logic- but that does not dismiss my arguments. I contend that it is only logical to dismiss the "dependency" on an unlimited factor.



On to Pro.








[1] The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Debate Round No. 2
Grapes42

Pro

I thank Con for their rebuttal.

Con objects that I am inconsistent in contesting their use of infinite as being impossible and yet I claim that infinite is possible for God.

Except, I said an infinite "dependency" is impossible. I didn't say that if infinite simply means "unlimited" that it is impossible. Obviously I think something can be infinite if infinite means 'unlimited in being'. So, Con's objection at this point is not relevant because God is not a series of dependent things.

Con attemps to counter my understanding of limitation and dependency by saying "There was a frail man and a strong man. The frail man was limited by his own strength- which was not much; but he was not dependent on the strong man."

Except, obviously the frail man is not dependent upon the strong man. The frail man is also not limited by his own strength, the frail man's strength is limited by other factors. So again I don't see the relevancy here. The frail man is still limited by something else.

Then Con argues that things could fly through space due to only limited energy. Ok but again if they are arguing that the things floating through space are dependent upon energy and the energy is limited then I agree and argue that the energy is limited by something else. So again, I don't see how this contradicts the argument I put forward.

Con then returns to the logical limits that God has. Con argues that "if God were unlimited, he would be unable to change his mind- since, as my opponent has agreed, he is already omniscient."

Again, if something is logically impossible then it is not the type of limitation that I am talking about, so if it is logically impossible for God to place a temporary limit upon Himself then fine God cannot do that, but that still would not affect the argument because I am not talking about logical limitations.

Then Con argues "Furthermore, for a change to be temporary, it would imply that he would revert this change at some point. But what would be the need to change himself if God could have prevented the reason for which he needed to change in the first place? Ergo, God cannot make a temporary change if he is unlimited- as my opponent suggests."

It seems that Con thinks that God could not temporarlly change Himself because God shouldn't need a reason to change Himself. But God could have plenty of reasons, that are not due to limitations, to change Himself. He could change Himself simply because He wanted to or because He thought it would be a good way to reveal Himself to mankind.

Con concludes by saying that God would be an infinite dependency, so the argument self-defeats. Except, I think Con is misunderstanding what I mean by an infinite dependency. An infinite dependency is where there is more than one thing and one/some of the things relies upon the other/s. God is a singular thing, so it is absurd to argue that He is an infinite dependency.

Con then further says "I agree that God can only act within the realms of logic"

Ok we agree on this point, so I think we can drop the point about God 'be limited because He can't limit Himself', as this is a limitation due to the rules of logic and not an ontological limitation.

Con finishes by saying "I contend that it is only logical to dismiss the "dependency" on an unlimited factor."

I am not sure what Con means here, except that they still think that there can be an unlimited number of limiting factors. But again this is absurd because that would be equivalent to saying that a sack can be pulled by infinitely long rope.

Now Con may bring up their objection that limited and dependent are not the same thing, and I agree that they are not necessarily the same thing, but in this regard they relate because if thing x is limited because of thing y then x's limitation is dependent upon that y's placing of the constraints.

So again, the sack is dependent upon the rope to pull it. I then contend that a thing, which is limited in its being, is dependent upon something else to limit it to its being.

If Con wants to contest this then they either need to explain how something like a sack can be pulled by an infinitely long rope or they need to reasses whether or not they actually accept P2 of the original argument.

Thanks
Buckethead31594

Con

Let's continue.




"...I said an infinite "dependency" is impossible. I didn't say that if infinite simply means 'unlimited' that it is impossible. Obviously I think something can be infinite if infinite means 'unlimited in being'. So, Con's objection at this point is not relevant because God is not a series of dependent things."


My opponent has still not explained how "infinity" does not relate to "unlimited" in any way. Furthermore, I stress the notion that limitation isn't a state of dependency. If this were true, there would be no need for God in the first place. More on this later.


"...obviously the frail man is not dependent upon the strong man. The frail man is also not limited by his own strength, the frail man's strength is limited by other factors. So again I don't see the relevancy here. The frail man is still limited by something else."

Not necessarily, if we were to look at my definition of limited, we could come to the logical conclusion that the man is limited by his own lack of strength. Also, I ask my opponent: If the frail man isn't dependent on the strong man, how can this support the contention that limitation is a state of dependency?


"...Ok but again if they are arguing that the things floating through space are dependent upon energy and the energy is limited then I agree and argue that the energy is limited by something else. So again, I don't see how this contradicts the argument I put forward."

These limiting factors are not dependent on energy, rather, they are affected by energy. The fact that energy is exists in this manner is the key point here. Not to mention that energy is not limited by something else- because energy cannot be created or destroyed (it can only be harnessed). This is not a state of dependency, rather, states of independence and coincidence.


"Again, if something is logically impossible then it is not the type of limitation that I am talking about, so if it is logically impossible for God to place a temporary limit upon Himself then fine God cannot do that, but that still would not affect the argument because I am not talking about logical limitations."

Considering that my opponent has conceded the contention of God being a logical being, it is only logical- that since God is a logical being and acts within the confines of logic, it would be impossible for him to be illogical. For example, if we observe the argument "Can God create a rock too heavy for him to lift?" We will find that God cannot do what is not actually possible to be done, like creating a two-sided triangle. Just because words can be strung together this way does not make the impossible possible - these things are contradictions, they are truly impossible in reality. Now, what about this rock? A rock would have to be infinitely large to defeat an infinite amount of lifting power. But an infinite rock is a contradiction since material objects cannot be infinite. Only God is infinite. There cannot be two infinites. So the question is actually asking if God can make a contradiction - which He cannot[1]. If he cannot make a contradiction, he can only be logical. If he can only be logical, all of his choices/actions/decisions must be logical in nature. Therefore, every limitation God places upon himself must be a logical limitation. Arguments extended.


"It seems that Con thinks that God could not temporarily change Himself because God shouldn't need a reason to change Himself."

He shouldn't and couldn't have a need or reason to change himself if he is: perfect, infinite, unlimited. If he is not any of these things, he is susceptible to corruption- which contradicts our chosen definition of God.


"But God could have plenty of reasons, that are not due to limitations, to change Himself. He could change Himself simply because He wanted to or because He thought it would be a good way to reveal Himself to mankind."

I contend that any "reason" to change himself can only be because of a limitation. Furthermore, any type of change would be illogical. My opponent has not yet explained how or why an all-knowing deity would need to change himself, when, logically- he should be perfect the way he already is, since he knows what to expect ahead of time.


"Con concludes by saying that God would be an infinite dependency, so the argument self-defeats."

I am not arguing for this contention, I am exposing this in my opponent's logic. If God would ever need to change his mind, be illogical, or create any form of contradiction, he would not be dependent on anything- for he would be able to do anything. However, if God can't change his mind, act within the realms of logic (as my opponent has concluded), and is unable to create a contradiction, he would be infinitely dependent on himself- as he would be infinitely limiting himself.

So yes, I do contend that my opponent's argument self-defeats.


"Except, I think Con is misunderstanding what I mean by an infinite dependency. An infinite dependency is where there is more than one thing and one/some of the things relies upon the other/s. God is a singular thing, so it is absurd to argue that He is an infinite dependency."

In this case, God may be a singular thing. But God's limitations, as my opponent has agreed that he has, would be an example of an infinite dependency. Therefore, it would be ridiculous to conclude that God is unlimited, for this would mean that he is infinitely without limit. I contend that this circular fallacy cannot stand in a logical debate. If my opponent wishes to argue that God is an/the unlimited factor, he will need to prove that God's limitations aren't actually limitations. And that God's omniscience doesn't mean he can't change his mind. Both of which, are illogical- things that God can't do.


"Ok we agree on this point (of God only being able to act within the realms of logic), so I think we can drop the point about God 'be limited because He can't limit Himself', as this is a limitation due to the rules of logic and not an ontological limitation."

Ontological, theological: they are all realms of logic. Even the word "Ontological" has "logical," in it. My opponent seems to claim that an Ontological argument doesn't have to be logical, when, by it's very definition- it has to be.


"I am not sure what Con means here, except that they still think that there can be an unlimited number of limiting factors. But again this is absurd because that would be equivalent to saying that a sack can be pulled by infinitely long rope."

I feel as if the "sack pulled by rope" premise is not a logical argument for this debate, since we are both arguing for infinite factors. This premise could only exist in a universe through which absolutes are not possible- considering that both my opponent and I have demonstrated our support for absolutes, this argument is irrelevant.


"Now Con may bring up their objection that limited and dependent are not the same thing, and I agree that they are not necessarily the same thing, but in this regard they relate because if thing x is limited because of thing y then x's limitation is dependent upon that y's placing of the constraints."

My opponent will need to prove how this is logical in contrast to the Frail Man argument. I contend that just because something is limited by something else, does not mean it depends on something else. I will explain this in my next point.


"I then contend that a thing, which is limited in its being, is dependent upon something else to limit it to its being."

Again, a 'lesser' factor isn't dependent upon something 'greater' to limit it's existence; a 'greater' factor just happens to exist in the same universe as something else with less limits.

X is limited by Y
X and Y were generated at the same time
X is not dependent on Y to exist

The problem with the "sack and rope" argument, is it exists in a world where limitation is governed by dependency. When I argue that limitation is merely a coincidence.


On to Pro.















[1] http://www.gotquestions.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Grapes42

Pro

I thank Con for his rebuttal.

Con again states that a frail man's strength shoul have to be considered as limited by a strong man. I don't see how this follows because the frail man is obviously not limited by the strong man, but rather by something else. Just because the strength of both men is being assessed doesn't mean that the frail man is necssarily limited by the strong man.

Con then objects that energy is not limited and yet affects other things. Except, energy is limited, it is limited to being the contrained thing that it is, for instance energy can't be or do anything, rather it is confined to acting only as energy can act and be only as energy can be.

Again, I think Con and I agree upon God only being able to act logically, so I don't know why they are still bringing the issue up.

God could of course place a temporary limitation upon Himself, such as becoming human, but at the same time He can remove this limitation. So, I don't think it is illogical to imagine God placing a temporary limitation upon Himself and yet at the same time be unlimited in His being.

It seems Con thinks that if God can't act illogically then God would be limited by His own nature, except this does not follow. For I thought we agreed that logic is a description upon how things must be, not about some ontological force that prevents something from happening.

Con then goes on to suppose that I have argued that God has limitations as Con says "If my opponent wishes to argue that God is an/the unlimited factor, he will need to prove that God's limitations aren't actually limitations. And that God's omniscience doesn't mean he can't change his mind. Both of which, are illogical- things that God can't do."

Again though, I have only conceded that God is limited to acting logically, I obviously never conceded that God is ontologically limited.

I think Con may also be confused about what "ontological" means. It doesn't mean 'outside of logic', rather it means 'being'. So when I say God is not limited ontologically, what I mean is His being is unlimited, but only being able to act logically has nothing to do with this (as we both agree).

Con is confused by the rope analogy that I used. The rope analogy was to demonstrate that a direct causal chain can't go on forever (ie. someone must pull the rope). So, if P2 of hte argument is about a direct causal chain, then clearly it too could not go on forever.

Though in the end, I will concede that perhaps P2 is not analogical to the rope analogy. So, at this point the second way may not work as it stands, but that does not mean that it does not work when understood properly. Only that my version of it may not work.

I hope though that any readers will understand that Con talking about God only being able to act logically is not actually a limitation upon God, which Con agrees, So, I think that discussion confused the matter. The argument rests upon how one explains and addresses P2. Typically the argument is understood in the fashion of "what is distinguished is distinguished by something else" enventually leading in causal chaing back to God, who is undistinguished. I think that version does work, but I chose to phrase the argument in a less than satisfactory way. Con is correct to challenge that.
Buckethead31594

Con

"Con again states that a frail man's strength should have to be considered as limited by a strong man. I don't see how this follows because the frail man is obviously not limited by the strong man, but rather by something else. Just because the strength of both men is being assessed doesn't mean that the frail man is necessarily limited by the strong man."

Exactly! I thank my opponent for finally conceding this contention. As one can see, both the frail man and strong man exist and are limited by other factors, yet they are not dependent on one another to exist. Not to mention, it is the frail man who is limited by his own strength- as is the strong man. The same applies to all limited things- as they coexist without the need to depend upon each other. By coincidence.


"Con then objects that energy is not limited and yet affects other things. Except, energy is limited, it is limited to being the contained thing that it is, for instance energy can't be or do anything, rather it is confined to acting only as energy can act and be only as energy can be."

This is an example of a straw man fallacy. My opponent establish a false premise for what energy is, only then to dismantle it. I could say the same thing about anything, regardless of its limitations. Just like God, for instance- 'God can't be or do anything other than what he is able to do, rather he is confined to acting only as God can act and be only as God can be.' Not to mention that the first law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. By its very nature, energy is unlimited.


"Again, I think Con and I agree upon God only being able to act logically, so I don't know why they are still bringing the issue up."

I am not 'bringing the issue up,' I am trying to 'bring it down.' My opponent argues for a God that exists within the realms of logic, but I have proven how a God who is 'unlimited' simply cannot exist within the realms of logic. Furthermore, my opponent has not provided adequate logical evidence to counter this claim.


"God could of course place a temporary limitation upon Himself, such as becoming human, but at the same time He can remove this limitation. So, I don't think it is illogical to imagine God placing a temporary limitation upon Himself and yet at the same time be unlimited in His being."

Conjecture. My opponent ignores my question about God's need to change his nature if he is omniscient. Logically, the "God acts in mysterious ways" slogan does not work here. Not to mention that he hasn't provided any counter-arguments to support this claim. Argument extended.


"It seems Con thinks that if God can't act illogically then God would be limited by His own nature, except this does not follow. For I thought we agreed that logic is a description upon how things must be, not about some ontological force that prevents something from happening."

I agree with the given description of logic. But what must be: only a God who is capable of logical and illogical decisions can truly be 'unlimited' in a finite universe. I have provided logical evidence for this scenario in the previous rounds- of which, Pro has not countered any. Secondly, my opponent's premise for this very debate exists with the presupposed notion that "[there exists] some ontological force that [can] prevent something from happening." My opponent would argue that this is God.


"Again though, I have only conceded that God is limited to acting logically, I obviously never conceded that God is ontologically limited."

If God exists, acts, and is influenced within the realms of logic- I argue that there is no difference, for every limitation that God possesses must be a logical limitation. This would include ontological limitations.


"I think Con may also be confused about what "ontological" means. It doesn't mean 'outside of logic', rather it means 'being'. So when I say God is not limited ontologically, what I mean is His being is unlimited, but only being able to act logically has nothing to do with this (as we both agree)."

Before we can discern the ontological perspective of God, we must first discover what it would take to make him who he is. This would include his inability to be illogical. So, therefore, we can conclude that God's state of 'being' exists only as a logical, metaphysical deity. Ergo, he is ontologically limited.


"Con is confused by the rope analogy that I used. The rope analogy was to demonstrate that a direct causal chain can't go on forever (ie. someone must pull the rope). So, if P2 of the argument is about a direct causal chain, then clearly it too could not go on forever."

If I was confused, it would seem that my opponent was confused as well. For he is arguing for a deity who cannot be unlimited (as I have demonstrated previously) and thus, cannot be the one pulling the rope. Like I have said before, and my opponent has not yet corrected me. The "sack and rope" analogy does not work in a universe with absolutes, rather, it exists in a world where limitation is governed by dependency. I have already demonstrated how this is simply not the case for limitations.


"Though in the end, I will concede that perhaps P2 is not analogical to the rope analogy. So, at this point the second way may not work as it stands, but that does not mean that it does not work when understood properly. Only that my version of it may not work."

I appreciate my opponent's honorable concession of P2 in contrast to the "sack and rope" analogy. If we had more rounds, I would encourage my opponent to supply a more credible argument for the sake of the given resolution.


Ultimately, my opponent's original arguments would have worked in a universe where there are absolutes. Nonetheless, the second premise counteracts the conclusion because an unlimited deity could not exist if he was only governed by logic. Not to mention that the "rope and sack" analogy can only answer one question, and that is "Who is pulling the rope?" When logically, it is impossible for an unlimited deity to pull this rope for, in this universe, an unlimited deity would not exist. In the end, most of my questions and arguments were left unanswered:

1. How does a factor's limits enable it to be dependent on a greater factor to exist? (Frail Man analogy)
2. How can God be unlimited if he is limited by his inability to be illogical?
3. Why would God need to make a temporary change to himself if he is omniscient?
4. Why isn't God dependent on himself if he is limited to logic, and infinite by nature?

In the end, there were more questions than answers- as it is for most debates towards the existence of God. I thank my opponent for a challenging and engaging debate, and wish him the best in his search for truth.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by zmikecuber 3 years ago
zmikecuber
I'll be sure to vote on this debate when I get a chance. I'm a bit confused though, as to what it meant by "limited"?
Posted by zmikecuber 3 years ago
zmikecuber
This looks to be an interesting debate. Can't wait for it to get moving along!
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
Ha.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
Grapes42Buckethead31594Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I've never thought much of Aquinas's proofs. They were made during a time where almost everyone was 100% sure of God's existence, so it was more of a confirmation bias. Con effectively showed that the Second way argument doesn't hold any merit in proving God's existence, so arguments to him. Sources also go to him because he was the only one that cited any. Conduct and S&G were generally good for both sides.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
Grapes42Buckethead31594Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: It was a tie to me until the last round, when Pro conceded one of his biggest arguments: the Frail Man Analogy. That was just enough to tip the scale in Con's favor.