The Instigator
unitedandy
Pro (for)
Winning
41 Points
The Contender
Gileandos
Con (against)
Losing
32 Points

There are no good reasons to think theism is true

Do you like this debate?NoYes+10
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 17 votes the winner is...
unitedandy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/29/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,722 times Debate No: 20744
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (128)
Votes (17)

 

unitedandy

Pro

Definitions

Theism - By theism, I mean the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good, personal being who created the universe, and is (to a greater or lesser extent) active within the universe.

The Resolution

In my first round, I will present an argument to try and establish that no such being exists. I'll leave it to Con to present reasons for theism, which I will address in my next round.

The WSA Evidential problem of evil (1)


(P1) If there were an all-powerful and all-good God, then there would not be any evil in the world unless that evil is logically necessary for an adequately compensating good.

(P2) There is evil in the world.

(P3) Some of that evil is not logically necessary for any adequately compensating good.

(C) Therefore, there is no God who is all powerful and all good.

Defending P1

P1 states that in order for evil to be morally permissible, then it has to be unavoidable, and the reason for permitting it outweighs preventing the evil. Such an example would be in the case of tooth decay. If painful drilling were the only way to prevent lots of future suffering, then it would be sufficient to meet P1, as it minimises evil in the most efficient way possible. Given that God is a being who is aware of all evil, has the power to prevent it, and would want to limit it as much as possible, it follows that only evils which are described by P1 would exist. As Christian philosopher Daniel Howard Snyder remarks,

"on the face of it, the idea that God may well permit gratuitous evil is absurd. After all, if God can get what He wants without permitting some particular horror (or anything comparably bad), why on earth would He permit it?"(2)

Thus, P1 holds that if God exists, gratuitous evils do not.


Defending P2

If P1 is virtually undeniable, P2 is even more so. There are things in the world which cause immense suffering, which for the purpose of the PoE is synonymous with evil. Things like droughts, disease and actions like torture are things which one would class as undesirable for a wholly good being to permit, all things being equal. Unless Pro adopts solipsism, I can't seem him denying P2. Typically, the theist will see P3 as his most promising target.

Defending P3

P3 states that it is reasonable to believe some evils in the world are not logically necessary for an adequately compensating good. In short, there exists gratuitous evil. An all powerful being is able to prevent the evils that occur, and an all good being is obviously willing, so the question becomes, is there always justification for the evils in the world? The answer, I think, is quite clearly, no. Before I begin to outline the justification for P3, I want to use 2 particularly horrendous examples of suffering on a massive scale:

"Many babies each year are born with Down's syndrome. Most of these babies, with normal paediatric care, will grow up healthy. A significant number, however, have intestinal obstructions that will kill them if they do not receive an operation. Without the operation, dehydration and infection will cause these babies to wither and die over a period of hours and days. Today this operation is relatively simple, but not long ago these babies could not be saved . . . This baby (one born in the past with this) suffers for days, then dies." (3)

Another example given by Rowe is that of animal suffering:

"Suppose in some distant forest lightning strikes a dead tree, resulting in a forest fire. In the fire a fawn is trapped, horribly burned and lies in terrible agony for several days before death relieves its suffering. So far as we can see, the fawn's intense suffering is pointless." (4)

What reasons do we have to believe these evils are actually gratuitous? The first is what we might call the prima facie case, and this is not a belief we should give up lightly. From absolutely everything we know of the first case, there was nothing to suggest that from the length, extent or even the very existence of the suffering of these babies that this was anything other than gratuitous. A baby destined to die suffered days of seemingly unnecessary, excruciating pain, with helpless relatives helplessly looking on in many cases. Given the fact that no hint of any reason at all seems evident to allow these babies to suffer, it is reasonable to conclude on this basis from the appearance of gratuitous evils, to the fact of gratuitous evils. As critic Stephen Wykstra reasons,

"For if an instance of suffering appears not to have a point, that is a reason for thinking it has no point." (5)

Secondly, it is difficult even to conceive of some examples of evil being morally permissible. In the case of the Rowe's fawn, there seems to be no conceivable reason to allow the extent of the suffering, nor any benefit which could even come from it. As Rowe points out,

"In light of our experience and knowledge, of the variety and scale of human and animal suffering in our world, the idea that none of this suffering could have been prevented by an omnipotent being without thereby losing some greater good or permitting an evil at least as bad seems an extraordinary, absurd idea, quite beyond our belief." (6)

The difficulty even to conceive of a plausible, morally sufficient reason to permit some evils also supports P3. Another reason I want to add could perhaps best be termed epistemic consistency. In essence, this simply means applying the same or similar standards to the PoE as we do to normal beliefs, and only to take seriously beliefs which are at least plausible. Sinnott-Armstrong explains the absurdity of abandoning this standard,

"Would it benefit my family in the long-run if I were to burn down our house tonight? Possibly. Does that possibility make it reasonable to believe that we would benefit? No. Why not? Because we do know one thing: Burning down my house would cause serious problems in my family in the short term. Those known costs set up a presumption or burden of proof that needs to be overcome before contrary beliefs can be reasonable." (7)

The same is true of evil. Given the massive short-term cost it causes, and (as well as we can judge), it's seeming ability to lead to long-term costs, the standard we follow must be consistent with our daily lives. Otherwise, as Sinnott-Armstrong quips, theists would be agnostic towards burning down their houses! The point is this: unless we genuinely adopt such scepticism with regard to decisions we make in our lives and beliefs, then we (if we are to be consistent) have to act on the information we have in respect to gratuitous evils. The only information we have in the debate thus far compels us to believe that they exist, and thus affirm P3.

Lastly, the attempts to deny that there gratuitous evils run into a host of problems, which I will show in my defence of P3 in the next round. Given this, it seems all 3 premises are justified, and with this, the conclusion necessarily follows.

Conclusion

In order to refute the argument, Con must present both a plausible and coherent account of why the argument is unsuccessful. I invite him to make his case, closing with the words of the prominent Christian scholar N.T.Wright:

"If you think you have solved the problem of evil, lie down. It will pass." (8)

Sources

1,3. God? Debate between a Christian and an Atheist, William lane Craig and Walter Sinnott Armstrong, 2004, Oxford University Press, p84.
2. Howard-Snyder, Daniel, and Frances Howard-Snyder. 1999. "Is Theism Compatible with Gratuitous Evil?" American Philosophical Quarterly 36: 115-29.
4, 6. Rowe, William, The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism, American Philosophical Quarterly 16: 335-41.
5.http://www.calvin.edu......
7. God? . . . P142
8. http://commonsenseatheism.com............ (debate can be found here).
Gileandos

Con

I deeply thank my opponent for this debate.

I know that his work is cut out for him. Even if all of my arguments fail my opponent must somehow show that there exists no good arguments for theism. To meet such a burden will be difficult enough but I hope to make near impossible with just 3 contentions.



Pro’s Positive Contention Rebuttal)

I will be brief due to Characters-

My opponent lays out a form for a logical problem of evil with a causality fallacy.

The entire argument assumes the omni-max being ‘must’ solve evil by never allowing it to happen.

If God is omnipotent, then God ‘must’ design a world absent of evil.

Imagine my reaction when I read this! This ‘must’ does not logically follow at all!

If we allow for the being to be truly omnipotent then said Being would be all-powerful ‘enough’ to eliminate any negative consequences of evil at a future time. Any harm caused by evil is rescinded by a future omnipotent action of the omni-max Being. There is no valid logical problem of Evil. (Different than ‘evidential PoE’ N.T. Wright spoke of)

- Do we see any evidence for such a belief, that God will eliminate any problem caused by evil, as plausible or even highly likely?

Do your own memories of pain and suffering fade? We completely see that time causes a slow fade to the memory of pain and suffering. How much more so when we consider the concept of how our relationship to pain and suffering would be viewed in an afterlife scenario?

We have good evidence to verify the belief that God will be able to deal with suffering and pain in a competent way as our very experience of self-awarenss reflects this gradual lessoning.[1]

This also barely scratches the surface of 1st, 2nd and 3rd Primal awareness of suffering, a clear distinction between animals and sentient humans. [2]




**********************************************

So do we have good reasons to believe in theism?

We will just take 3 basic, as yet, undefeated good reasons to present the fact my opponent is unable to make such a claim as the resolution:

1) Argument from Contingency

2) Teleological Argument from fine-tuning

3) Evidence of Interaction



Contingency Argument:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the
necessity of its own nature or in an external cause).

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

3. The universe exists.

From 1 and 3 it logically follows that:

4. The universe has an explanation of its existence.

And from 2 and 4 the conclusion logically follows:

5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God.

***

P1: There are only two possible explanations of existing entities there should be little opposing doubt.

P2: Here we see a logical validation. If an opponent disagrees with P2 he would have to assert a valid proof of a self-existent universe or valid proof that the cause of the universe itself was caused by a contingent cause and would be susceptible to infinite regression:

- We can see it is far more reasonable to conclude:

  • o The universe was caused and is not self-existent. For my opponent to disagree here would necessitate a powerful quality and quantity of evidence to buck the consensus of scholarship.
  • o The cause of the universe needs to be self-existent to avoid infinite regression. It is far more reasonable to avoid self-contradictory explanations like infinite regression.
  • o God is by definition a self-existent being capable of causing the universe.[3]

Given that we have a powerful explanation for the universe (supported by Historical interaction with said Being) it is completely logical to conclude the veracity of this premise. My opponent might respond of “some unknown self existent force ‘could’ generated the universe, how could I know its God?” To assert such a rebuttal would deny the mountains of claims of interaction with said intelligent self existent and the fact no such metaphysical self-existent force is known save the Mind of God.

P3: Should be obvious.

P4: With the concession of 1 and 3 as most will, this necessarily follows.

P5 Again with the concession of 2 and 4 this necessarily follows. [4]




Teleological argument)

“That question is: why do design arguments remain so durable if empirical evidence is inferentially ambiguous, the arguments logically controversial, and the conclusions vociferously disputed? One possibility is that they really are better arguments than most philosophical critics concede. Another possibility is that design intuitions do not rest upon inferences at all.”[5] Standford Philosophy dept.

1. The Fine-Tuning of the universe was due to physical necessity, chance or design.
2. It was not by physical necessity or chance.
3. Thus it was by design.

The question the Teleological is trying to determine is the source of the pattern of the Fine-Tuning. If there is any doubts to the veracity of the fine-tuning my opponent would have to tackle a mountain evidence. Hopefully we can both leave that for another debate.

P1. It could not have been Physical Necessity. The first physical cause of the universe could not have had a physical cause as is directly asserted by Hawking in Mindilow. [6]

“It appears that the fundamental numbers, and even the form, of the apparent laws of nature are not demanded by logic or physical principle”

– To contend Physical necessity generated the constants would be a massive burden. It is far more reasonable to reject a physical cause due to the logical contradiction as the scholars have done.


P2. Chance by itself generates nothing. Without a physical impetus chance does not operate. Chance has yet to generate anything without a physical principle behind it. Chance behaves unlike actual at a mere level. [7]

P3. This leaves Design as the only option. We look to understand that the preponderate evidence is concluded as valid when we review systems of design (not complexity).

After having ruled out the first two possible causes we can easily conclude design as the most plausible conclusion.


Evidence of Interaction:

If there is a designer, is there evidence of his presence and interaction on earth?

I submit, to start, evidence of the Testimonies for review. [8]

Quality – We are not citing drug addicts, hucksters and social deviants claims of interaction with God but countless educated, well adjusted Pastors, Priests, Theologians and Monks claim this interaction.

Quantity –You can haul in countless individuals and document their claims. You can examine both the recorded and present claims to then see the overarching consistency that permeates the claims.

Disassociative claims – Any of the claims of other gods can be categorized and be easily delineated that indeed these people have encountered different gods as per the Christian claim of as a multitude of supernatural beings exist to thwart the Designers Plan.



Summary:

I cannot imagine how my opponent could meet such a burden of proof to the assertion that there are no good reasons for theism, but I am excited to see his review of my 3 basic contentions that build a cumulative case and represent very good reasons for a belief in theism.

I also look forward to a positive case as the Logical Problem of Evil even if changed for the evidential PoE does not constitute valid support of my opponent’s resolution.








[1]Marco Biagini PhD http://xoomer.virgilio.it...

[2]http://ndpr.nd.edu...

[3]http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

[4] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

[5]http://plato.stanford.edu...

[6]A Brief History of time – Stephen Hawking Page 143 (P3)

[7] http://www.asa3.org...

[8]http://www.catholic.org...

[9]http://www.designinference.com...
Debate Round No. 1
unitedandy

Pro

Burden of proof

Con tries to use the resolution to stack a huge burden of proof in his favour, asserting that even if I defeat his arguments , I “must somehow show that there exists no good arguments for theism”, even arguments he doesn’t present. Note, I already explained the resolution in my first post, and if Con disagreed, he shouldn’t have accepted the debate. Just to be thorough, I’ll give 3 further reasons why he’s wrong.


The corrosive PoE

If the PoE is justified, then whatever is responsible for the fine-tuning, for example, it is not (as my PoE conclusion states) All powerful AND All good, which would single-handedly disconfirm theism.

The dishonest gambit and debate context

Also, Con puzzlingly takes the resolution as an absolutist claim, even though such a claim is regularly accepted by Con to be generally applicable within a debate context, and I can prove it.

Con says,

“Craig has clearly won, by some margin each of his debates save two in his career.” (1)

Referring to apologist Bill Craig, Con must also know that Craig lays out a debate contention which is logically equivalent to the debate resolution:

“I’m going to defend 2 basic contentions. First, that there is no good argument that atheism is true.” (2)

Note that the form of Craig’s claim and mine is identical. Given Con’s explicit familiarity with Craig’s debates, and the fact that Craig makes a similar claim in almost all of his debates, yet only ever addresses arguments for atheism presented by his interlocutor, we can only conclude that Con is unwaveringly charitable to Craig, yet intentionally obstructive to me. Such a huge double standard is not only dishonest, but also wrong, because, as Craig argues (3), there is such a thing as debate context, and given this, the resolution must be seen within that context of a debate.

I also submit that this to be poor conduct from Con, both trying to change the resolution and holding a gross double standard.



WSA Evidential PoE

Con begins by noting that:

“My opponent lays out a form for a logical problem of evil”

The problem here is that my argument is evidential, as even the title of my argument explicitly states. If he’d read my post at all, he’d have known that I centred my case around gratuitous evils, which is the unmistakable hallmark for this kind of argument. For those unfamiliar, basically Con attacks a problem which almost everyone agrees is defeatable, while the version that I use is seen as perhaps the biggest challenge to theism. While retreats to the possible and such do refute the logical version, they are completely useless towards my evidential PoE, so Con’s brief criticism sets fire to a straw man. It’s a huge blunder from Con, and alone affirms the resolution if continued to be unaddressed.

Extend argument.



Con’s case for theism

Before I deal with Con’s 3 arguments separately, I want to offer 2 general criticisms of his approach.

Incomplete theism

All FT shows for example (if correct) is that the universe is designed, which is compatible with Bostrom’s simulation hypothesis (4), for instance. In fact, even conceding all 3 arguments together, none of them would give us any reason to prefer theism over Stephen Law’s evil God hypothesis (5). So at best, we have a case for theism which is hopelessly incomplete, falling drastically short of the definition given.


Unjustified argumentation

Key premises of Con’s arguments are often just assumed (such as P1 of his contingency argument). This is apparent throughout his post, to a greater or lesser extent. It’s a big exercise in question-begging, assumptions and scant detail.

Both of these problems are immediately apparent in ALL of Con’s arguments, rendering them totally worthless even before they have been refuted.

Contingency

3 fallacious tactics

The biggest problem with this argument is simply that Con fails to justify any of its content without assumption. No defence or even a mention of PSR is given (P1), and P2 challenges me to “assert a valid proof” of an alternate scenario for the existence of the universe, which is clearly an argument from ignorance, as well as appealing to a multitude of unmentioned scholars. Given these problems, I’ll let Con actually make the argument before I address it in detail, but I will lay out one problem with P2.

Theistic explanation

The problem here is that God explains nothing. No attempt is made to even sketch out how, or why the universe has the features it has. Even worse, God (as an explanation) is essentially unfathomable. Agential causation outside of time, for example, seems at the very least, unexplained, if not downright confused. Lastly, there are alternatives to P2, even if they’re in infancy, such as M-theory (6).


The FT argument

The implicit value problem

FT assumes that these constants are intended for our kind of life, but why suppose that these constants are set with us in mind? No justification has yet been given for this implicit value of life (from the perspective of the universe), and without it, I see absolutely no reason to suppose these constants were geared for our purpose.

Problematic probabilities

The only way to calculate probability is to presuppose that all probabilities are the same, but this is incredibly problematic for FT, for we have no reason to believe each value is equiprobable. As Nicholas Everitt points out,

“ we have no grounds for saying that each combination is as probable as every other. To determine that, we would per impossible need to observe lots of universes and see in each universe what values the forces took.” (7)

Indeed, we don’t even know if the values could be changed independently of one another, much less what differing combinations of these values could lead to. Also, as even these Christian philosophers recognise:

“there is no meaningful way in such a space to represent the claim that one sort of universe is more probable than another.” (8)

The normalizability problem means that the sum of possibilities lead to an infinite number, and do not (as probabilities demand) equal 1. Both limitations simply preclude us from making such calculations meaningful and totally defuse FT.

Alternative explanations

A many-universes model would explain FT better than design because such a postulation is qualitatively more parsimonious than a being which theism entails, as well as this being a much discussed scientific possibility (9). Con is yet to discuss these alternatives, let alone dismiss them.

Personal interaction

Again, generously assuming Con provided a plethora of testimony, this argument still has many problems.

Contrary experience

Con anticipates this, but explains them by reference to creatures who aim to “thwart the Designer’s plan”. Obviously, he begs the question here. Why not assume theist experiences are illusory, precipitated by an evil God? Also, many people (myself) have had no such experiences or belief, which is actually the primary motivation for a powerful argument against theism, particularly Christianity (10).

Demographics of theism

Also, the fact that such experiences are expressed within specific cultural terms is surprising on theism, but not on atheism (11). Do these creatures have border restraint? At the very least, such experience fails in establish theism, and probably do the opposite.

Sources


1. http://www.debate.org...
2. Craig vs. Hitchens debate (14:22 - 14:31)
3. Craig vs. Law (1:33:00)
4. http://www.simulation-argument.com...
5. http://www.uu.blymiller.com...
6. http://en.wikipedia.org...
7. N.Everitt, The non-existence of God, P111
8. Tim and Lydia Mcgrew and Eric Vestrup, Probabilities and the Fine-Tuning Argument, P204
9. http://www.scientificamerican.com...
10. See http://www.debate.org...
11. S. Maitzen, Divine Hiddenness and the Demographics of Theism.
Gileandos

Con

My opponent makes some wild claims compounded with sophisticate attacks that led to this debate challenge and he honestly believes this resolution to be true. I call him on his massive burden and now he chokes? Nothing in round 1 indicated my opponent denied he is Pro and Instigator and the resolution was phrased for his burden.

If my opponent wanted a shared burden or me to understand the burden was shared, he should have restated his resolution to something like, resolved: “Atheism is more reasonable” or some such resolution.

He then cites Craig’s debates, in which both Craig and the opponent assert a positive claim. The resolutions in those debates are clearly NOT the above resolution. Craig makes concessions for shared burden of proof or the atheists would never ‘function’ nicely as a mop for Craig. Sam Harris admits as much [1] and Dawkins tacitly concedes [2]

This appears to ‘set me up’ to look unjust and purely a circumstantial ad hominem. I called him on his assertion and He challenged me.

To the content:

Was my opponents PoE evidential or Logical?

Logical PoE [3]

Evidential PoE [4]

“ Evidential arguments from evil attempt to show that, once we put aside any evidence there might be in support of the existence of God, … Such arguments are not to be confused with logical arguments from evil, which have the more ambitious aim of showing that, in a world in which there is evil, it is logically impossible—and not just unlikely—that God exists.” [4]

The Evidential PoE is not about logical consistency but is saying there is no good evidence to believe the theological claims of the Theologians explanation for evil.

Did my opponent grab the correct premises from Rowe?


Here is the most up to date PoE version from its pioneer Rowe, which my opponent sourced in R1:[5]

P1: No good we know of justifies an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good being in permitting horrendous evils

P2: No good at all justifies an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good being in permitting horrendous evils

C) There is no omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.

Let me be clear with a couple of succinct points:

1: The evidential PoE must ignore all surrounding reasons for theism to even be asserted. My opponent needs to presuppose the resolution is true already to even assert the evidential PoE, which is circular reasoning and fallacious for this debate

Evidential arguments from evil attempt to show that, once we put aside any evidence there might be in support of the existence of God, it becomes unlikely, if not highly unlikely, that the world was created and is governed by an omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good being.”[4]

2: The PoE is NOT a logical problem

the evidential … problem of evil, which seeks to show that the existence evil, although logically consistent with the existence of God, counts against the truth of theism.

3: The PoE is a problem of evidential justification for belief. It is at its face a limited deductive fallacy, and claims there is no physical evidence to assert the theological explanations of horrendous evil existing in a compatible reality of God being all good.

So are there good scientific evidences that the Theologians are correct and P2 of the evidential PoE is wrong?

I cited these in round 1 to head off this line of rebuttal:

1: Memory diminishment of events of pain and suffering and soul awareness [6]

2: 3rd Primal awareness (self awareness to suffering) is shown by brain studies to only exist within higher primates. Animals are unaware of their suffering as a worm is unaware. [7]

We by these scientific evidences, conclude there is very good indication suffering is not as horrendous as claimed and second that God has a way of dealing with it that is evident by practical and scientific means.

***

Arguments for Theism:

Cumulative Case:

My opponent attempts to reface the 3 contentions with anecdotal accusations of assumptions and inferences. He denies the cumulative case these 3 contentions represents.

I already cited Standford Philosophical Department that such criticism is invalid to head off just such an attempt from my opponent. I will again cite:

“That question is: why do design arguments remain so durable if empirical evidence is inferentially ambiguous, the arguments logically controversial, and the conclusions vociferously disputed? One possibility is that they really are better arguments than most philosophical critics concede. Another possibility is that design intuitions do not rest upon inferences at all.”[ibid] Standford Philosophy dept.



Contingency)

P1 - is not an assumption but a working ‘more plausible than not’ premise. My opponent cannot call this an assumption. Is there another scenario besides caused and uncaused entities?

- Also does my opponent suggest there is more than caused and uncaused things in existence? This rebuttal seems absurd to my mind.

P2 - to cite M-theory with no evidentiary support to the Creator God of Theism evidenced throughout history is appalling. That is tacitly saying “anything but God!” That is not a working denial of P2.

My opponent to deny this would have to show why that ‘other cause’ is MORE plausible than God. He appears to merely state he does not understand God as a causal agent. Does this not merely amount to the fact that he has no background with a theological framework?

To deny this premise, a more plausible causal agent must be shown. My opponent must:

- Show that the cause of the universe does not submit to a logical problem of infinite regression, such a being is not possible and show something else is more plausible.




Teleological)

The teleological argument is the logical proof evidence that shows we can reasonably conclude the fine-tuning was for our purpose.

Fine-tuning mathematics:

My opponent cites complaints about fine-tuning that is not the process employed by Theistic fine-tuning. Craig rightly refutes.

Scientists grappling with fine-tuning are not asking what the universe would have been like if it were governed by different laws of nature. Rather they’re asking what the universe would have been like if it were governed by same laws of nature but with different values for the physical constants appearing in them and with different quantities for the initial conditions on which the laws operate. Nobody knows what a universe governed by different laws would be like![8]

Alternate theories:

My opponent says I have not dealt with the other “possibilities”. Any additional physical universe theory model is directly addressed under Physical necessity principle.

Evidential)

Contrary experience:


My opponents reply here amounts to… He does not like the fact that Theology has an alternate explanation? The point was the claims have been tested and verified by the Theologians! You cannot discount the conclusion of the evidence based on one limited element that was already taken into account by the review process.

Demographics:

My opponents complain that cultures and theism run together. Correlation =/= Causation.

My opponent states:

the fact that such experiences are expressed within specific cultural terms is surprising on theism

This line of retort is fallaciously affirming the consequence.

‘If theism does not explain it, then demographics are a problem; If demographics are a problem then theism has not explained it.’

This is patently false and fallacious. Many theistic views recognize a demographic design to God’s plan. Christianities view is God designed the family and tribe and laid out rules governing them.



[1] The Great God debate 2, Video 2 of 9. Craig vs. Harris. 10:00

[2] http://www.bethinking.org...

[3] http://www.iep.utm.edu...

[4] http://www.iep.utm.edu...

[5] http://www.jstor.org...

[6] http://xoomer.virgilio.it...

[7] http://ndpr.nd.edu...

[8] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
Debate Round No. 2
unitedandy

Pro

“In a debate context, to refuse to address and engage with an argument is to tacitly admit it.” (1) - Bill Craig


Burden of proof

The resolution

Firstly, my opponent intimates that I have somehow changed the debate resolution. In RI, the resolution states,

“I will present an argument to try and establish that no such being exists. I'll leave it to Con to present reasons for theism

Both my and Con’s burden is outlined here. Given that he accepted this as a precondition of the debate, he most certainly has to establish a case. Despite what he said in R2, he has to provide the weight for theism. If he fails to do that, the motion is affirmed.

The corrosive PoE

Here I argued that if I can establish that no all good AND all powerful being exists, as the PoE concludes, then given the definition of theism, I will have negated the resolution. No response.

Extend argument

The dishonest gambit and debate context

Con again begs the question here, assuming that the difference between my claim and Craig's is that I alone have the burden of proof, which is exactly what I'm contending. Also, in no way does this remotely change my general claim to an absolute claim. Even if the onus is on me to argue for the resolution, then it certainly doesn't entail that I have to disprove every theistic argument, even though the PoE effectively does so.


WSA Evidential Poe

After Con’s blunder in mistaking my evidential PoE for the logical version, he finally responds . . . to the wrong version! He chides,

“Did my opponent grab the correct premises from Rowe?”

Given my argument is titled the WALTER SINNOTT-ARMSTRONG evidential PoE, Con's above statement, reeking of ill-founded arrogance, sees him yet again show himself to be unable to read even the title of my argument, let alone refute its content.

This straw-man tactic completely backfires, as Con has gone 2 rounds without ever responding to the version I laid out and defended in the first round and this failure affirms both my PoE and the resolution. While I did quote Rowe, it was only to use one his examples supplementarily (given its notoriety) AFTER using both WSA’s argument and his example of gratuitous evil. Con’s target and my argument are quite different (mine is focused entirely on gratuitous evils, Rowe focuses on whether some evils are too great to ever be permissible) which makes his response entirely worthless.


Extend argument. Resolution affirmed.

Let’s look at the responses anyway:

1. Circular reasoning?

Even Con’s source doesn’t claim the PoE to be predicated on theistic arguments failing. For example, an equally good theistic/atheistic argument on either side would give us a 50/50 probability, which may allow Con to affirm the resolution. Secondly, I don’t even need the possibility to be 50/50. Given my unaddressed corrosive PoE point, a well defended PoE would erode the probability of theistic arguments, especially when none 3 of these necessitate an all good AND all powerful being. Also, especially given that I started the debate, I think it’s ludicrous to scorn me in assuming neutrality when making my argument initially.

2. Memory diminishment and primal awareness

First I have to say that merely naming a response and linking to a biased website/book review is a pretty outrageous response to my rather detailed argument. Second, even if both of these are abundantly true, they’re woefully insufficient, simply because they don’t apply in all cases, nor do they even claim to (e.g. they obviously don’t apply to a newly-born baby who dies after days of suffering, among many other examples). Also, they don’t even try to deny the existence of gratuity, which is the whole point of my argument. They only attempt to minimise evil, which isn’t enough. Lastly, these “solutions” are arguably evils themselves. Memory suppression leads to things like multiple personality disorder (2), while one could interpret primal awareness as increased suffering for higher primates (rather than less suffering for other animals).


Con’s theism

Incomplete theism

Here I complained that even taken together, Con’s arguments would simply give no reason to favour (for example) an evil God over a theistic conception. All Con does is give a neutral, generic quote about fine-tuning (WTF?), which has nothing to do with anything I’ve said here.

Extend argument. Resolution affirmed.


Unjustified argumentation

Completely ignored by Con, yet alone enough to derail his case.

Extend argument. Resolution affirmed.


Contingency


3 Fallacious tactics

Con again treats P1 as if it were a given, simply assuming its truth. As we can see however, this just isn’t acceptable:

“The Principle of Sufficient Reason is a powerful and controversial philosophical principle stipulating that everything must have a reason or cause.” (3)

I’m open to be persuasion here, but I find it amazing that Con thinks he can just assume something as crucial in a debate.

No response to my claims he argued from ignorance and dubious authority here.

Extend arguments

Theistic explanation

Here I gave problems with God as an explanation, such as God explains neither how nor why the universe exists, and is ultimately unfathomable. He says that I must show a “more plausible causal agent”, but this is simply arguing from ignorance again. All I have to show here is significant problems with P2, and given that Con hasn't even tried to deal with the criticisms, I have done so.

Extend arguments

FT

Implicit value

Con here admits that he assumes teleology . . . to argue for design! That’s my whole point. Either we argue in a circle, or we have to justify the value of life from the universe's perspective, which Con clearly hasn't even tried to do.

Probabilities

Con quotes Craig here to respond to my objection by Everitt. The problem is Craig is merely correcting “misleading” language from Hawking’s recent book. It has absolutely nothing to do with Everitt’s objection of calculating probabilities. Yet again, Con throws up a link with literally no relevance.

Also, the argument from the McGrews about the probability calculations was completely ignored.

Extend arguments.

Alternatives

He claims to have dealt with this under physical necessity, but his sole case for this was a quote from Hawking, who even his own source recognises uses my approach to explain FT:

“Hawking and Mlodinow appeal to the Many Worlds Hypothesis to augment one’s probabilistic resources (4)”

His argument against chance was a link to paper about God’s use of chance which has nothing to do with FT, as well as yet again begging the question.

Con has yet to argue directly against the multiverse, let alone rule it out or even respond to its virtues as an explanation over God.

Extend argument

Experience

Contrary experience

Con just begs the question here by assuming these experiences have been “verified” without justifying this. Further, even Con admits (with his creatures response) that these experiences are generally unreliable, so why take theistic experience seriously?

Con ignored the evil God point and non-belief.

Extend arguments

Demographics

Here I pointed out that experiences differ most by geography, which would seem surprising on theism, if these experiences were the result of malevolent forces. Now, Con just plays the mystery card, asserting some plan, and yet again assuming, rather than making his case. By changing the words/structure of my argument, Con then manufactures a fallacy. Who'd have guessed that one could identify a fallacy by completely changing an argument? This particular straw-man stands as a symbol of endemic and severe misconduct.

Conclusion

We have seen that Con has evaded my PoE, assumed much of his own case and distorted many of my rebuttals. Given this, one must conclude the resolution has been multiply and resoundingly affirmed on every level.

Vote Pro!

Sources

1. Craig vs Law 1:33:00

2. http://www.lucidpages.com...

3. http://plato.stanford.edu...

4. http://www.reasonablefaith.org...


Gileandos

Con

I am grateful to the readers to take the time to review these arguments diligently as my opponent has worked very hard to distract the readers by shifting BoP and character assaults to win this debate.

Burden of Proof:

Pointing out my opponents BoP =/= a low moral character.

My opponent would like the reader to believe that a statement confirming that we were both going to give arguments, was somehow a ‘clear’ elimination of his BoP as Pro and Instigator and we should all ‘just ignore the resolution’. He again disregard’s that Craig’s debates do not have this resolution. Compounding that Craig is indeed Pro and first position within the debates. My opponent does not seem to understand that he is in fact IN Craig’s place, not I, as he is asserting a positive claim for the resolution as Pro and instigator.


Problem of Evil

WSA is a logical argument even though it is titled with Evidential, as WSA himself states:

Consequently, the only evils that God is justified in allowing are those that are logically necessary to promote some adequately compensating good. That explains why I used the term “logically necessary” in my premise”[2]

It is a logical concept:

PoE Logical=
God is logical inconsistent with Evil

PoE WSA Logical/Evidential=
Evidence is required to make God logically consistent with Evil

PoE Evidential (Rowe’s)=
Evidence is required to ‘trust’ the theologians explanation that an all good God can exist.

We see R1, I indeed cited:

1: logical consistency requires no material evidence as logically God could compensate in the future.

2: Though 1 stands on its own, Evidence does indeed exist that God has ‘handled’ evil: diminishing memories, consequential afterlife/soul awareness, and primal awareness. All of it sourced.[below]

We can conclude then, due to evidence, practically applied just within the last ten years, we can assert, God has solved evil and we can indeed conclude the PoE is not currently an issue.

Let me be clear here. I do not care if God himself! labeled WSA as merely an evidential PoE. It is obviously a logical one, WSA himself asserts as much.
Criag stated that classifications of PoE need to be clarified in order to avoid confusion:

It will be helpful if we distinguish between the intellectual problem of suffering and the emotional problem of suffering.”[6]





Corrosive PoE & Circular Reasoning:


My opponent apparently missed the concept where I asserted that the evidential PoE must “assume” the resolution to even work:

Evidential arguments from evil attempt to show that, once we put aside any evidence there might be in support of the existence of God, it becomes unlikely, if not highly unlikely, that the world was created and is governed by an omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good being.”[1]

My opponent claims my source supports his reasoning, yet did not quote my source saying such.

This is what I am saying my opponent is doing:

‘Assuming ‘No’ good reasons exist then PoE Evidential is a problem, thus the resolution is affirmed that no good reasons exist.’

My opponent cannot use PoE for this resolution.

Memory diminishment and primal awareness -


Here my opponent attempts to finally refute the evidence, in the last round, with a poor qualitative analysis. (And a misrepresentation of my r1 & r2 posts)

Here attempts to detract from the obvious evidence of Memory diminishment:

- My opponent first confuses memory suppression with diminishment. The personal act of suppressing painful memories is significantly different than time oriented natural diminishment. Additionally, many studies detract from memory suppression and assert it is memory implants.[3] Discover Magazine asserts this growing trend of studies.

A growing body of evidence indicates that memory is deeply unreliable and that life-shattering events cannot be buried for years and then winched out of the deep waters of the subconscious

- Next my opponent complains that memory diminishment ‘cannot account for ‘all’ suffering’. He gives an example of a baby dieing days after birth after suffering. This was addressed in soul awareness and practical elements of the mind. We see that the mind in the afterlife would indeed transcend mere physical suffering and pain.[4]

My opponent next takes issue at primal awareness. He claims primates having increased capacity for suffering = greater suffering. That begs the question. How so?

- Given that memory diminishment is active in higher primates, they can learn from their suffering without having gratuitously negative consequences.

- All other animals are unaware of pain cognitively.[5]

Logical flow to my argument:

If evidence exists that animals are not aware of suffering, and higher primates memories of suffering diminishes then suffering is not an issue.

Evidence does exist that animals are not aware of suffering and higher primates memories of suffering does diminish.

Therefore suffering is not an issue.

Incomplete Theism

Here my opponent misses the concept of a cumulative case.

Contingency = a god exists

Teleological = an involved God

Evidence of Interaction = a specific Christian omni-max God

Unjustified argumentation

This was a bogus anecdotal assertion. He was merely making assumptions that my arguments were based on assumptions! He did not even attempt to prove this, but merely made the claim.


Contingency

P1 Here is no assumption. PSR does not apply to contingency argument.

PSR = Everything that is caused has to have a sufficient explanation.

Contingency argument P1 actually states = Everything that exists was either caused or uncaused.

Two very different concepts, and there is no third option for P1 to contend with and is a working premise. Perhaps my opponent confused the cosmological argument?


Teleological

Implicit value & Probabilities

My opponent claims my response is not relevant when he himself is lacking in the ability to comprehend the premises or the response.

Teleology is arguing for purpose from the Fine Tuning for design.

Everitt’s rejection was all possible universes could not be known. Craig agreed! But this is not theistic fine-tuning. As Craig stated Fine-tuning takes all of the known possible variables of this universe.

Alternatives

My opponent spends his characters not addressing any of the content. He source bashes ‘The Design Inference’ which is a Peer and Editorial reviewed directly dealing with physical interaction of chance and the Teleological Argument with literally pages of content.


Stephen Hawking and Mindilow (agreeing with theists) asserted the validity that the physical could not exist prior to the first physical. That was sourced and quoted.

Evidence for Interaction

My opponent uses character assaults rather than telling the readers how it was not obvious he committed a fallacy.

He also claims that the litany of testimonies was not verified! What does my opponent believe Theologians do? Is my opponent aware of the Canonization process for the saints? Councils and theologians rigorously verify the claims of these testimonies.

Even if you disagree with the testimonies you cannot toss them out as unverified!


Summary:

We can see that despite character assassination, hate filled rhetoric, and a distinct level of disregard for the Burden of Proof, this debate has shown the resolution was not supported by my opponent’s single confused contention.

We saw the PoE cannot affirm the resolution and we have 3 really good reasons to think theism is true. The premises stood, within this debate, as far more plausible than not.

I thank all of the readers for bearing through the character assaults and I apologize if you felt I should have responded to the assaults.


[1] http://www.iep.utm.edu...

[2] http://commonsenseatheism.com...

[3] http://discovermagazine.com...

[4] http://xoomer.virgilio.it...

[5] http://ndpr.nd.edu...
[6]I
Debate Round No. 3
128 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by unitedandy 4 years ago
unitedandy
Genesis,

You are aware that links sometimes change content, right? It's weird. One minute, I'm criticised for using books, then for using links, all which are susceptible to change. I even offered to go out and present these sources, so that you could verify them, but you refused, which tells me that this isn't a vote about anything other than preconceived notions.

As for conduct, you were asked in our exchange to provide one instance were I shirked my burden. The fact you refuse to even discuss this point is a case of deafening silence.

On arguments, I purposely tried not to contest this point because I realise it can be highly subjective.

I realise that the organisation has an agenda to pursue, but I think honest should compel you guys to vote fairly.
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
RFD Continued (2): The Arguments

In my view, Pro had better arguments then Con. I will list some of the + and - from each argument.

PRO'S ARGUMENT

The WSA Evidential problem of evil

+This argument is quite appealing at first and appeals to emotion. To open with, Pro argues: "If P1 is virtually undeniable, P2 is even more so. There are things in the world which cause immense suffering, which for the purpose of the PoE is synonymous with evil. Things like droughts, disease and actions like torture are things which one would class as undesirable for a wholly good being to permit, all things being equal. Unless Pro adopts solipsism, I can't seem him denying P2. Typically, the theist will see P3 as his most promising target."

-in order for this argument to work; however, pro needs to do several things: (1) Provide an objective standard of evil and how evil and unecessary suffering is determined; (2) Show how God cannot be good and allow unecessary suffering (which he has done); and (3) Shoe examples of suffering that was unecessary.

Those three things are big minuses in the argument as it will take a ton of space. I did a debate on the PoE and ran out of room in almost every round.

--Continued--
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
RFD Continued

I have given con the conduct point for two reasons: (1) Some of the links in the opening round and throughout Pro's arguments did not necessarily work; and (2) The resolution is an immense proposition for con to defend therefore, he should get the conduct point just for attempting to defend an undefendable position.

--Continued--
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
In the opening round, Pro defined the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good, personal being who created the universe, and is (to a greater or lesser extent) active within the universe.

The resolution was that there are no good reasons to think that the above proposition is true. Therefore, the burden of proof is shared to Pro to show that there are no good reasons to think the above prop. is true; and con's burden is to provide proof that it is true.

--Continued--
Posted by GenesisCreation 4 years ago
GenesisCreation
This is the final response in this matter.

Our organization is familiar with the voting guidelines. We reviewed your debate and we stand with our initial vote. As a final courtesy, we will establish a final, thorough review.

1.> We find that you lost conduct for shifting the burden. We will not entertain further argument on this point. It is a fair judgement.

2.> We find that you lost sources for the following reasons:
A.>Your opponent's sources where easily verifiable and accredited to our liking.
B.>Your sources had broken links. In round one, your two verifiable links resulted in a dead end. One was the homepage of a Calvinistic institute, the other resulted in the following status message:
"Common Sense Atheism has closed its doors. Comments are turned off and there will be no new posts."
Below that post is a list of 10 unrelated debates. Which one of these is relevant to your argument? None are by N.T. Wright.
In round two, one source is by wikipedia, two are links to other DDO debates, one web link is broken, and two sources lack a link entirely. The only source with merit was Scientific American.
In round three, 50% of your sources are unavailable fro scrutiny. One is a broken link, the other is unverifiable due to a missing hyperlink.

By comparison, your opponent had 8 out of 9 verifiable sources in round one.
He furnished 6 out of 8 verifiable sources in round two.
He furnished 5 out of 6 sources in round three.

My any measure of fair conduct, we had to grant sources to your opponent. We will not entertain any further arguments about this vote.

Our RFD concerning the points issued for convincing arguments stands without question by our review. If you find our vote unmerited in this regard, you may ask your loyal supporters to counter the vote. As for us, we are not fickle. Our vote stands justified and rooted in integrity.

Your profile has been blocked from further contacting us.
Posted by unitedandy 4 years ago
unitedandy
GenesisCreation,

I wrote a message which everyone can see below, and if Gil or anyone else cares enough, I'll copy the rest of the messages, or perhaps you could do it yourself Genesis. All I initially wanted was clarification on the source vote, as you clearly have contradicted yourself from a previous debate. Needless to say, I didn't get it. Your response was pretty much to tell me to lighten up, and that I would win anyway, which was wholly besides the point. I expect anyone voting on any debate (particularly my own) to vote honestly, and unlike yourself, I didn't want to descend into ad homs before I heard your side, which is why I wanted to give you a chance to respond. To be honest, you're just the latest farcical vote for Gil (no disrespect to him).

You called my message below (which everyone can see for themselves) "hate mail", after calling me "cowardly" and then questioning my character in your last response. I'll let others judge who is slinging mud here, but it's clear you have no interest in defending your vote, and calling it "fair" after refusing to clarify, and intimating I was a coward in your initial RFD with no provocation whatsoever confirms otherwise.
Posted by GenesisCreation 4 years ago
GenesisCreation
Unitedandy, stop writing us e-mails, stop complaining about the votes. We (GCN) voted against you because you created a massive burden of proof and then dumped it on the opponent. You did not beat him....period. That's our opinion, that's our fair vote. Have one of your cheerleaders counter it. I doubt Gileandos is super concerned with his win statistics anyway. He's got more character than that.

By the way:

Theism is the belief in a deity, not the existence of a deity. Creating vocabulary to build your straw man didn't much help you.
Posted by unitedandy 4 years ago
unitedandy
GenesisCreation,

Without pouring over much of your content or reacting to being called a coward, I would like clarification on one thing. You said on sources,

"Both sides had an excellent use of sources. However, I found Pro consistently citing sources that we could not check unless we owned a copy. It defeats the purpose of citation. It certainly passes in English class, but this is a voted debate. I want to check for consistency. Make your sources available for scrutiny."

I just want to point you to one of your other votes here:

http://www.debate.org...

You said:

"Sources to pro. Excellent usage."

The problem is that while I used 6 sources which were unavailable for scrutiny (as you put it), Pro above, with"excellent usage had 8 such sources, and you GAVE him the point. I also had more sources which were verifiable.

Why the double standard?
Posted by GenesisCreation 4 years ago
GenesisCreation
Conduct- I found myself immediately displeased when the debating became bickering. Who has the burden of proof? Without a single fragment of doubt, the burden fall upon the instigator. Did Pro really expect to furnish a resolution so lofty and arrogant and then expect to dump his burden upon the opponent? I found this lacking good conduct and rank with cowardice.

Arguments - Pro did not establish a baseline morality. If you declare your case of an "all good" deity allowing evil, without establishing a foundational moral relative, then you've left it to the voter's imagination. Does he mean my version of good, or his? Finding this groundwork missing, I used the Christian God as a reference for good. Con adequately refuted Pro's point of intrinsic evil by citing the Christian doctrine of hope in future Grace.
"If we allow for the being to be truly omnipotent then said Being would be all-powerful ‘enough' to eliminate any negative consequences of evil at a future time."

I love that he put "enough" in highlight. Very comical manner to point out the paradox of Pro's case. If God is all-powerful then he is all-powerful, not quasi-powerful, not limited in power or lacking the ability to heal a depraved humanity.

Sources - Both sides had an excellent use of sources. However, I found Pro consistently citing sources that we could not check unless we owned a copy. It defeats the purpose of citation. It certainly passes in English class, but this is a voted debate. I want to check for consistency. Make your sources available for scrutiny.
Posted by unitedandy 4 years ago
unitedandy
Cheers guys. I spoke to Innomen, and he's looking into these 2 "voters" as we speak.
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
unitedandyGileandosTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Full analysis in comments.
Vote Placed by GenesisCreation 4 years ago
GenesisCreation
unitedandyGileandosTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
unitedandyGileandosTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: CVB WxGeo nevermind...
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
unitedandyGileandosTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter WX
Vote Placed by Freeman 4 years ago
Freeman
unitedandyGileandosTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter PSR.
Vote Placed by WxGeo 4 years ago
WxGeo
unitedandyGileandosTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Gileandos wrestled through the red herrings and presented better logic.
Vote Placed by PSR 4 years ago
PSR
unitedandyGileandosTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: So disappointed in how my worldview was represented by such drivel.
Vote Placed by WriterDave 4 years ago
WriterDave
unitedandyGileandosTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Con assumed a shared BoP by offering positive arguments, and he dropped most of his arguments. His attempts to rebut Pro were unconvincing. Also, in at least one place, his final statement, Con was positively venomous toward Pro.
Vote Placed by Atheism 4 years ago
Atheism
unitedandyGileandosTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Not even close. Gileandos blatantly failed to address many of pro's arguments, tried to unfairly put a massive burden on Pro, and was overall a complete douchebag.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 4 years ago
ConservativePolitico
unitedandyGileandosTied
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: Con had to show that there is just one good reason to think theism is true and he managed to do that. His arguments displayed situations in which theism could be applied meaning someone could find a good reason for theism to be true. resolution busted.