Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

RFD: God is more likely than not to exist.

famousdebater
Posts: 3,939
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2015 11:03:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Conduct: Conduct goes to pro because pro keep all of his arguments neatly laid out which is convenient for the voter reading the debate. I have read a few of con's debates and they all seem to be arguments just laid out in paragraphs. Pro's formatting clearly labelled the end of a so that as a voter I can now individually analyze each argument separately and weigh out which side did better.

Arguments: I award arguments to Con.

(1) The Modal Ontological Argument: The argument isn't the strongest ontological argument that could have been used however it well sourced and introduced into the debate. Since the debate regarded probability, this argument was valid since it showed that the argument contained the chance of a God existing. The main problem with this argument was that it showed that God could exist but it did not demonstrate that God exists beyond a 50% chance which is essentially what is being debated here. This is a mitigating factor however it still has a minor impact upon the resolution and therefore it will no be dismissed. The continuation of this contention regarding Anslem's ontological argument does also play a role in why I cannot dismiss the argument entirely.

In Con's rebuttal he makes the mistake of dismissing Pro's first premise of the modal ontological argument. This is not a good move for Con since the debate regards probability not 100% fact. Con then continues to fall into the same trap. He then dismisses Anslem's ontological argument for similar reasoning to the first. Therefore, Pro is winning on this particular contention.

Pro correctly states that Con cannot just dismiss the argument without evidence and reasoning to show why it is wrong so he extends out his point regarding the modal ontological argument. Pro also correctly states my exact thoughts regarding Anslem's ontological argument because this is also primarily dropped.

Con in his following response claims that he didn't drop it and finally goes on to explain his point. Con makes a simple rebuttal stating that you cannot know about all of the possible worlds so you cannot jump to the conclusion and make assertions. Since this was not proposed in any depth earlier I am forced not to consider this argument since it was a new argument provided in the final round which Pro was unable to respond to. At this point it is: 1-0 in Pro's favor.

I am continuing my RFD in the next post ...
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
famousdebater
Posts: 3,939
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2015 11:22:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
(2) Kalam Cosmological Argument: Pro makes the argument regarding the causation of the universe and everything in it. This was referred to as the KCA and was a much stronger way of stating the argument generally. This was stronger than his previous contention however what made this contention difficult was that Con did a better job at his rebuttals on this occasion. Pro used his argument to prove that the premises were true and that the laws of physics proved this to be true. His first premise was undoubtedly true and pro proved it using the first law of physics - ie. the conversion of mass.

Con provided very powerful rebuttals showing the logical inconsistencies with the argument which proved to be vital to the outcome of the debate. He shows that if everything exists has a creator then God must have a creator and the creator must have a creator ... e.t.c. This was a valid point which allowed me to buy Con's argument over Pro's the logical fallacies proved that this argument couldn't be the explanation for God's existence because a valid explanation would not have the amount of inconsistencies that it actually contained. He further demonstrates that you cannot make the exceptions that were being made by Pro. You cannot say that everything is one thing but God is another. You are creating rules that do not apply to anything else.

Pro's response is ... disappointing. I don't know whether it was the character limit that restricted his response however it was poor and didn't prove much. What I don't like about what Pro was doing is that he was stating that his following contention proved this contention. The problem with this is that it gives Con the opportunity to kill two birds with one stone. Due to this following statement, if Con is able to disprove one of Pro's contentions then that renders the Kalam invalid and therefore it has no impact upon the resolution. This is problematic and Pro has put himself in a precarious position regarding this contention.

In the final round Con addresses the Kalam briefly however this does not effect the contention itself because we now need to analyze the next contention to determine the outcome of the two. If Pro wins the next contention then he has gained 2 more points towards his contention. If Con wins then he has also gained 2 points towards his contentions.

This RFD is continued on the next post ...
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
famousdebater
Posts: 3,939
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2015 11:56:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
(3) Monistic idealism: Pro provides 3 premises which lead to two conclusions. I will analyze them individually here. Pro's claim regarding solipsism is rather confusing. It states that we are in our minds and that is where we exist. He uses mind examples to attempt to prove his argument. He asks whether we can imagine a square hexagon. His argument then falls into shape and comes out strongly by using this demonstration to prove that mentally possible coincides with metaphysical solipsism. Pro continue with an example. This is where premise one appears to fail. He refers to 3 spheres that all can exist in one world but only one can exist in another because of its particular properties. This is demonstrated to be possible however what Pro fails to demonstrate is how one world can see something that others cannot. How can a square hexagon be viewed in another world? How is that possible? These questions should have been answered in order to strengthen his case. I wont go into too much detail into substance dualism since if his first premise fails then logic tells us that even if his second does not fail, the conclusion cannot be met without it. Pro shows that the mind and matter must be connected because otherwise it would be impossible for us to tell ourselves to move a certain part of our body without them actually being connected. This is a very strong point which is backed up further. He then goes on to substance dualism. He proves this false by showing that something can way 180lbs but you cannot have 180lbs on its own. Whilst this is a valid point it is unclear what this has to do with the direct existence of God at this point. His 3rd premise is not provided in any great detail however it does not need to be. It is fairly simple that your mind reacts with reality and this is proven by the example. If you are hit then you will feel pain. That is essentially the premise proven itself.

Con chooses to reject the 3rd premise that mind interacts with reality. Con cleverly points out that the brain is in fact, the interacter with reality - not the mind. He shows that it is solely the physical matter that is interacting with reality. The brain is sent messages by the parts of the body that are being hit. It is not the mind that is interacting, it is the physical matter telling the mind what has happened. This is also a valid point and this is an extremely powerful rebuttal to Pro's case. The sphere argument is easily reject by Pro due to the fact that it bares no weight since it must objectively be proven by Pro. He (again) continues to prove that it is in fact your brain that is interacting with reality. The mind has objectively been proven by Con as a representation of the brain but not the direct interacter.

Pro's response is indirect and not as effective as it had the potential to be. He almost dodges the argument presented by Con and instead provides an example regarding cloning yourself and the fact that without mind reacting with reality you would be a zombie (without the rotting and decay). What he missed from Con's argument was that Con specifically stated that it was the brain that was interacting and the mind was the indirect receiver. Therefore, this argument had little or possibly no affect to mitigate Con's argument. Pro misinterprets Con's argument (again). He apparently believes that Con said that the mind is not responsible. Con basically said that the brain was the direct receiver and the mind indirectly received this via the brain. The rebuttal provided was irrelevant and Con's argument still stands.

Con then uses his final argument to show the errors with the argument but really they were unnecessary since Con had already done enough and his argument was still standing. Since Con took the point for this (and therefore the Kalam too), the result is currently 1 - 2 in Con's favor.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
famousdebater
Posts: 3,939
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2015 12:23:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
(4) Teleological Argument (TA): This is quite possibly the weakest argument presented by Pro. He shows that everything has a purpose and it isn't done for no reason. He provides the example of a heartbeat. Does a heartbeat happen for no reason? He used ripples in the time - space continuum and Pro objectively attempted to use this as evidence for God's existence. He shows that a much more simplified version of the teleological argument for God's existence was written in the Bible. The 6th premise was known to be true so that did not require expanding upon. He provides reliable quotes however what made this argument particularly weak was that he offered very little proof. He clearly stated that the reason we have no concrete proof for him is because we cannot travel to other dimensions. This could be viewed as a concession by Pro because he states that there is no concrete evidence. I will not view this as a major concession though, since it is true that there is no concrete evidence. The word concrete saved him this time although I would advice excluding that part of the argument out if you wish to use it again in the future.

Con show that the second premise was an assertion and therefore cannot be viewed as a major argument within the debate. Con uses a counter example in response to Pro's example of the water cycle. His example regarding snowflakes is powerful since it is explained how snowflakes occur in this way without the influence of a designer, more likely the influence of nature. He shows that you should not always judge things by appearance because there are many things that appear to be something but are not always what they seem to be. He successfully converts this example to the universe. If something like the symmetrical-ness(?) of a snow flake can occur by natural means then what is to say that the universe could not occur by natural means. Pro shows that cause requires time to happen and therefore you cannot state that cause can exist while time doesn't (or vice versa). He also proves that although the quote provided by Pro was reliable it made the assumption that there are other dimension other than ours which have not objectively been proven.

Pro tries to argue that Con's arguing for his case because he is showing that nature is in fact a designer however this argument needed to be expanded upon because at the moment I do not see anything major that has been dropped and since Con objectively proved that nature is the designer of things not necessarily God this destroyed the entire argument. He didn't need an individual response onto every point since it wiped out the possibility of the argument itself and therefore the minor details that weren't referred to were irrelevant to the outcome of the contention itself.

To conclude this contention. The current score is 1 - 3 in Con's favor.

This will be continued on the next post ...
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
famousdebater
Posts: 3,939
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2015 12:58:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
(5) Zero Total Energy: This was a complicated contention that I found difficult to understand without reading it over a few times so apologies if I misunderstood any parts of this contention. The overall outcome of this contention was not a deciding factor in the debate and due to this fact, this contention does not play a major role in my overall reason for decision. Con begins by demonstrating that the universe has zero total energy because the spatial curvature throughout the universe is 0. Positive energy is cancelled out by negative energy. Since both energies cancel each other out, logic tells us that there is 0 energy. Con shows that before the big bang the matter and gravity are at the following; [+0,-0] = 0. There is no matter or gravity and due to this simple fact we can come to the evident conclusion that the total energy is 0. According to Con, the empty space in nothing is filled with quantum fluctuations. Nothing = quantum fluctuations according to Con's logic and since I do not have any reason to contest with this I leave it solely up to Pro to argue against this. He continues to demonstrate that they are unstable due to their constant fluctuation. From quantum fluctuations the Big Bang was expressed (not created by an intelligent designer). He then ends by showing that God must be demonstrated physically in order for there to be proof of God (basically). Just a note before I move on to Pro's rebuttals. I found this argument really fascinating (assuming I understood it properly). This helped me to understand how the big bang occurred from nothing in greater detail and what nothing actually is. So, thanks for that Con. Moving on...

Con attempt to refute this by stating that there is no room for universal expansion via this theory presented by Con. He states that there would be no room for energy movement. He shows that it is a known fact that the universe is expanding and it is justified by the words of Steven Hawking. The problem with this argument is ultimately that Pro falls into the trap (again) of relating rebuttals to contentions and contentions to other contentions. His contention regarding God's transcendence has previously gone in favor of Con, therefore bringing this point up was a mistake and makes me doubt the credibility of this rebuttal. Attempting to demonstrate that God operates outside of space-time is massively mitigating to this rebuttal and already gives Con the advantage on this contention.

Con makes a simple rebuttal (winning him the contention). He shows Pro's misunderstanding and mistakes regarding his argument and that universal expansion is still a possibility. I wont go into too much detail on the argument themselves and put my view in because this is beyond my understanding. I am not a scientist so I will just analyze the content and observe who won in the end. Con continued to demonstrate that even the smallest amount of energy released from the quantum fluctuations would be extremely significant due to the proportional circumstances. He continues to highlight Pro's mistakes. Con showed that there is 0 total energy because they were cancelling each other out. Pro assumed that this meant that there was no energy. Con never stated that the energy was not being used and as a result of this Pro's rebuttal falls short and fails. He shows that the numbers provided by Steven Hawking were irrelevant since they were merely hypothetical numbers in order to make it easier to read. It could have been anything because the cancellation result would have been the same. Con shows that the causer cannot be assumed since we do not know what caused the big bang. Stating that you believe that God caused the big bang with no objective evidence is weaker and can be easily dismissed by Con.

Unfortunately the images presented by Pro did not work and so I am forced to just read his content and hope that I understand it. I feel like punching my computer screen right now with frustration. My opponent continues to bring up the fact that God is transcendent. Why would you do this? There was always a chance that this argument was going to go in Con's favor (which it ultimately did). You could have provided a new point or some more justification towards your reasoning, rather than bringing up the same refuted argument again. He seems to try and disprove the objective of the entire argument here by stating that it fails because there was energy before the Big Bang. This is a sound argument however it is brought up late which leads me to the conclusion that Con has less time to respond to it. Therefore the argument bares less weight.

Con did refute it though since although there was no energy due to the cancellation process, the cancelled energy was still being used which was dropped by Pro earlier on in the debate. To conclude this contention is also a con victory. It is now 1 - 4 in con's favor and that concludes the arguments. Con wins!

Additional information on the next post.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
famousdebater
Posts: 3,939
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2015 1:01:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Additional Information

Sources: The credibility of both sides sources was extremely high and although Pro did label his sources to make it easy to find. Con matched this by simply stating his sources directly underneath the arguments that they corresponded to. This is helpful by both users and this cancels out the sources point. Therefore it is left tied.

Spelling and Grammar: I do not vote on spelling and grammar points unless there is an extremely large gap between both sides. Overall, I believe that Con's spelling and grammar was better however I do not vote on this because it had no major affect to stop me from reading the debate. It was not difficult to read either sides arguments and Con did have a few spelling and grammar mistakes too. Therefore this is left tied.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
lannan13
Posts: 23,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2015 9:20:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/29/2015 11:57:15 AM, famousdebater wrote:
WOW! 0.0

Thanks for the vote Famousdebater.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
famousdebater
Posts: 3,939
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2015 10:12:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/29/2015 9:20:43 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 10/29/2015 11:57:15 AM, famousdebater wrote:
WOW! 0.0

Thanks for the vote Famousdebater.

I had a bit of extra free time.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
lannan13
Posts: 23,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2015 10:27:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/29/2015 10:12:17 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 10/29/2015 9:20:43 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 10/29/2015 11:57:15 AM, famousdebater wrote:
WOW! 0.0

Thanks for the vote Famousdebater.

I had a bit of extra free time.

I see that.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~