The Instigator
Con (against)
The Contender
Pro (for)

A Creator's Existence is Apparent

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
DrCereal has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/26/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,499 times Debate No: 100325
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (22)
Votes (0)




Full Resolution: Given the philosophical thought and empirical evidence available to us within the natural universe, we can safely conclude that a creator's existence is apparent.


1. The burden of proof is solely on Pro. My job is to demonstrate any possible errors within his reasoning.

2. Due to this, I will begin my counter-argument in round two while Pro will give his argument in the first round.

3. Pro mustn't provide any new argument in round five to compensate for his advantage of having the first round to present his argument. Round five will be reserved for a concluding remark for Pro.

4. Though it is preferable that Pro sticks with the arguments that he has presented in another debate he is currently participating in, it is not necessary for him to be constrained to these arguments. Pro may mention anything he thinks makes the existence of a creator apparent.

5. By accepting, Pro accepts the following definitions:

Creator (as stolen from Pro's current debate): An intelligent mind that thinks and creates; an actual personal entity which is eternal and everlasting.

If Pro takes issue with any of the proposed rules, then he will comment his complaints in the comments so that I may change them as he sees fit. Good luck!



Thank you for challenging me in this debate. I agree with all that has been said by Con in the first post. My first post is simply a copy paste of my first round in my previous debate. This is fair, because this is exactly what Con wishes to rebuke.

First I believe the following is important to realize,

Whether God exists or not, is not really a scientific question. You´re not going to prove his existence through science nor will you disprove it. Instead, it is a philosophical question. Though, you can use things such as science and history to support your own arguments, or to tackle your opponent´s arguments. But philosophical reasoning, using the rational and intelligent minds we have that can critically think to draw reasonable and logical conclusions, has to be the basis in terms of coming to a conclusion about God.

Btw: I am a Christian, but I want to debate about "a creator" and not Yahweh/Yahushua. Let's begin.

The cosmological argument: what is the best explanation for the origens of the universe, intelligence or non-intelligence?

Christian scientists (etc) have always maintained that the universe had a beginning. A point where time, space and matter came into existance, contrary to it being an eternal universe. After all, the bible says, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Secular scientists have long maintained that the universe was eternal, yet nowadays, for a long while, scientists from any background, or worldview, now basically all (no doubt there’s the exception) agree that this universe does have a point back in time where it came into existance and thus is not eternal. The secular scientists call this the big bang instead of God.

Regardless, the fact that the universe had a beginning is extremely significant. Because, if the universe would be eternal, then there is no point of thinking about a cause that caused the universe to be. However,

1. Everything that begins to exists has a cause
2. This universe began to exist
3. Therefore, this universe has a cause.

Now we can think about this cause, to see if we can find out what this cause could possibly be.

Now then, in terms of the cosmological argument, we will examine our universe to see what seems to be a reasonable cause. After all, the components of the universe could certainly tell us things about the cause.

First observation concerning the universe: Everything hangs upon mathematical patterns and formulas.

Second observation: The universe and our world are finely tuned for life.

Now, let us reason with one another.

Is it more reasonable, to assume that the universe hangs upon extreme complex mathematical patterns and formulas, and that the universe is so finely tuned for life as it is, as result of an intelligent mind or non-intelligence?

I submit to you that it is absurd to say such extreme complex math, and fine tuning of the universe, comes from the unintelligent or non-intelligent such as merely a big bang. There would be a huge logical disconnection there.

The design argument: is complex design absolute proof of a designer (creation of creator, etc)?

First we shall have to establish whether there is a clear design in the universe or not. I shall present a few examples to demonstrate that, indeed, there is a clear design in the universe. Let us once again reason with eachother.

- Example 1: Consider the appletree.
Don’t merely gaze at it. There’s all sorts of things happening inside the appletree, and around it, and it has its function too. The tree requires organic minerals to grow and to remain healthy. It has its roots dug deep in the ground, and by means of photosynthesis, the appletree absorbs the strong energy of the sun in order to absorb the inorganic minerals from the ground and convert them into organic minerals which the appletree now can utilize to grow and remain healthy. Thusly, also apples appear, which now can be eaten by humans who also require the organic minerals which are now found in the apple. To me, clearly this is a process, a system, a design. And then we haven’t even spoken yet on what happens inside the tree at microscopic or molecular level. All sorts of things happen in systematic and orderly ways, a design.

- Example 2: The human body.
Again, think about what all the cells and molecules etc do. But on a more overt level, consider the organs that work within you. Your brains, or you eye with all of its functions and how it is hardwired into your brain with thousands and thousands of wires. The lens, etc. It is clearly designed.

You put the aforementioned apple into your mouth, you chew it, swallow; it falls down your throat into your stomach, then your digistive track/ colons. All clearly in a system or design. We also have the nervousSYSTEM, clearly design.

Consider some of those crazy well-made robots of nowadays, how absolutely inferior they are to the human body, yet it takes an incredible amount of intelligence, manpower, time and money to create it. I would never convince you that such a thing came to be without an intelligent mind. You’d scoff, and call me a fool if I were serious. However, just a single single celled organism in our body is tons more complex than said robot. We call it irreducibly complex. What follows logically, is that to assume that the human body came to be without an intelligent mind is, reasonably speaking, an absurd concept. Again, there would be a huge logical disconnection there.

- Example 3: DNA.
Wow. Just wow. This one nails the coffin. I shall not expand on this too much, because wow. To assume DNA comes to be out of nothing, for no reason what so ever, out of the blue, purely by chance, by natural means and natural laws, without intelligence, is an absurd idea in the light of what we’ve spoken of so far. I would greatly press on your heart, that if you think DNA came about by such means, that you should consider asking yourself the question whether you have been intellectually honest with yourself in studying this matter. The human DNA contains so much ordered information, a written language, actual instructions, that if you’d stretch it all out, you’d reach the moon (and then back to earth again, I believe. But atleast all the way tot he moon!). This is all densily packed into that which we call DNA. What is more reasonable, to assume this comes from an incredible intelligent mind or the non-intelligent? Seems clear to me.

Now, I didn’t mean to go on regarding the design argument after these three examples, but finally I’d also like to point out the greater dependence that everything has with eachother, or symbiosis, which makes it all seem even more like a complex clockwork design. Remove a component and things won’t work as well anymore as it used to, if at all. This also suits nicely with argument one. The symbiosis points out that it all came to existance at once, for else things wouldn’t work or begin to work to begin with. Missing a vital function shuts the entire system down, both nowadays and when you think origens.

Now then,

Is design absolute proof of a designer?

This sounds like a rhetoric question to me. The only possible answer to this question could be yes. Let us keep reasoning here. You will never find a painting in case there has never been a painter before in existance. Likewise, if you do happen to stumble upon a painting, you can bet your billion dollar bank account without breaking a sweat that there either is or has been a painter in existance.

No building without a builder. You see a building? There is or has been a builder. Even if you’ve never seen the builder, or have never seen a building being built, or never had the knowledge of the concept of a builder. It is a matter of truth which cannot change regardless of the scope of your knowledge.

No robot without a robot engineer. No human without a “human maker”. No universe without a “universe maker”.

So then,

1. Complex design is absoluut proof of a designer
2. This universe and all of its components show complex and even irreducibly complex design
3. Therefore, this universe either has or had a designer.

Naturally the secular person then goes on to propose that if such is the case, then who designed God? But obviously, if God has created time, space and matter, then what logically follows is that he’s a timeless, spaceless and immaterial being who lives in the dimension beyond ours, the supernatural, the dimension of eternity. So God is eternal, meaning he has always been, he is and he shall always be. He never began to exist and therefore there is no cause to his existance. (This is in fact the reasoning the secular scientist tried to put on the universe itself prior to everyone being in agreement that the universe certainly cannot be eternal.) Otherwise you’d end up in an endless spiral of paradox, which simply gives us intelectual headaches, despite the infinite, eternal, immaterial and uncaused nature of God also sometimes being hard to grasp for us finite beings. But it is what it is. We're talkin about God after all. But think of it like this: a painter is very alien to the painting, as is a game designer towards his digital game world he created. Of complete different nature.

Is it not obvious that there is a creator of everyone and all things?

Debate Round No. 1



For the resolution to be true, Pro's arguments must be apparent to everyone who examines them. This is a very simple observation because Pro uses his arguments to imply the validity of the resolution. For his arguments to be apparent, his conclusions within those arguments must also be apparent, and for those conclusions to be apparent so must his axioms. If his axioms were too weak or didn't have much reasoning behind their being chosen over others, then we can safely conclude that whichever argument that uses those axioms is not apparent and that, consequently, fails to prove the resolution.


I. The Cosmological Argument

As stated in my clarification, every axiom Pro uses to build this argument must be apparent for the argument to prove the resolution. My first question to Pro is this: Why should we prefer your axiom, "Everything that begins to exists has a cause", to its inverse, "Everything that begins to exist need not have a cause"? You have so far given no concrete reasoning for why your axiom is so "apparent" which means that the conclusion you base this specific argument on is not apparent and therefore fails to prove the resolution.

Furthermore, your first observation of the universe is not necessarily true. There is currently a giant debate within the field of mathematics on whether or not mathematics was "invented" or "discovered" by humans. If mathematics was invented, then we know that the complexity of the universe is not determined by "mathematical patterns and formulas" and that math is just our interpretation of the universe. If Pro were to use this as an argument to support that the universe is complex, then he must demonstrate that mathematics is, indeed, discovered like he claims.

Lastly, I implore Pro to elaborate more on why he believes that "complexity implies an intelligent creator". Pro claims that "There would be a huge logical disconnection there" if we were to assume that, as he puts it, "non-intelligence" caused the universe to exist so my second question would be: What is this "logical disconnection" that would exist if we were to assume the cause of the universe is "non-intelligent"?

II. The Design Argument

With statements such as "All sorts of things happen in systematic and orderly ways, a design.", "It is clearly designed.", and "We also have the nervous SYSTEM, clearly design." it seems that Pro is trying to make an equivalence with complexity and design. Pro has indeed demonstrated that the universe is complex but has failed to demonstrate how it is designed or how complexity somehow implies design. Since Pro's equivalence with complexity and design has failed to be apparent and since Pro has failed to demonstrate how the universe is a design, the conclusion reached in this argument has failed to be apparent.

My two questions to Pro regarding this argument are the following: Why does complexity necessarily imply design? and Can you clearly demonstrate how the universe is designed?


I have just demonstrated that neither Pro's "Cosmological Argument" or "Design Argument" are necessarily "apparent" which means that, at this stage in the debate, Pro has failed to prove the resolution using either argument. If Pro wishes to prove the resolution, then he must either answer the questions that I have highlighted above or must bring new points into the debate to be considered.


Firstly, your first question: “Why should we prefer your axiom, “everything that begins to exist has a cause”, to its inverse, “everything that begins to exist need not to have a cause”.

I believe everyone should prefer my axiom (it isn’t literally mine, by the way. I did not come up with this) because not a single humanbeing has ever seen something come into existence without a cause. Everything we have observed reveals that everything that begins has a cause. The inverse makes no sense because that's something we've never observed before. Why then would you suddenly suggest such for the origens of the universe?

As I asked my contender in the previous debate, can you come up with anything that begins to exist without a cause? It is a ludicrous notion. Things don’t just pop into (or out of) existence just randomly and causeless all the time. We live not in such a chaotic universe, according tot he entire documentation of human history concerning this topic.

So, it is indeed apparent, despite some might claim it is not. I am asuming now, but perhaps they can not see the logic and reasoning here because it’s all pointing towards a designer which gets scary for those who hate such a thought. If not this, then you tell me what the reason is, because what is obvious is obvious and what is the truth is the truth.

Consider the following: If I show you an apple, and it truly is an apple, but some claim it is a lemon regardless. That doesn’t suddenly mean that it is no longer apparent that it is an apple and therefore we can question whether it is an apple. This is objective truth. Not up for debate despite some might debate about it.

Secondly, the math issue.

Of course there is a giant debate concerning this. There are tons of people who just do not want there to be a creator, also in the scientific field, so they'll search for any alternative theories and what not.

Two things come to mind concerning this subject, being the Golden Ratio and Fractals. These two confirm that everything, from us humans to flowers to animals and so on and so forth (truly, look into the subject if you haven’t it’s quite mindblowing. Like the Mandlebroth set.) hangs upon complex mathematical formulas/patterns.

(I’ll give a link for the fractals/Mandelbroth. I asume you’re well known with the Golden Ratio because that is high school material: )

Now, here is the deal: Even if humans would have never existed, these mathematics would still be in place. This means that humans did not create these. They are there regardless of mankind. They are part of the universe, regardless of us humanbeings. In fact humans hang upon this math as well. We merely discovered them, only since the 1980s, but the math has always been there in place (to keep things orderly as it is and has always been). People were even extremely suprised when we discovered this. The suggestion that humans invented/designed this is once again, ludicrous (or shall I say, absolutely ludicrous). It is simply not possible even if all the people in the world would debate about it. It is a matter of truth. Fact.

Thirdly, I shall elaborate for you why I believe that complexity implies an intelligent designer.

Well, to be frank, that wasn’t quite what I was saying. What I was saying is, that complex design demands and intelligent designer.

Here is the logical disconnection, which I’ll show you as per parable:

Suppose I took you to mount rushmoore, and I’d tell you, mate, that mountain with the four presidential heads on it came about purely by chance, without a creator, by means of natural laws and natural events.

If I would truly try to push this on you, you might even become angry with me. Alas, you’d definitely think I’m an idiot.

Yet, you're suggesting that an actual human being can come about by such means, eventhough the DNA of a single cell in the human body is already tons more (irreducibly) complex than that entire mountain with the four presidential/human heads.

Another example:

If I walk with you on the beach, and we see some ripples in the sand, and you ask me, hey Vince, how did that come to be? And I answer, well mate, that came to be purely by chance, natural laws and natural means. There’s no intelligence behind it.

You’d then tell me, alright, thanks friend.

We walk further down the beach, and you point at the sand again. There’s a message this time, saying, hey you two loonies. Now, undoubtfully two kids are watching us behind the bushes nearby, pulling a prank on us. But we don’t know that. I proceed to answer your question, saying: well mate, that also came to be purely by chance, natural laws and natural means. There’s no intelligence behind it. (Consider DNA here, which contains a message, language, coded information if you will).

Will you once again answer me with, ah yes, I believe you, sounds totally reasonable. Would you?

Also, what you are basically doing here, is looking at the message and then questioning me why I think that is designed. Well... if you cannot see that I can't help you. If you can't see the design in humans, dna, flora and fauna, this world (my examples in round 1), then I can't help you.

So if everything is complexely designed with math and processess and systems just as we observe o so clearly all around us, then that simply indicates that everything was created by an intelligent creator, as per the syllogism. That is both reasonable and logical, and thus obvious despite some people cannot see (or are not willing to see) the obvious. As I’ve stated before, often times people cannot see the obvious, for what ever reason. Doesn’t mean it isn’t obvious. Doesn’t mean my apple isn’t an apple despite people calling it a lemon.

See, sir, we’re dealing with truth, facts and logical reasoning here, not with what ifs, unlikely-possibilities and theories without foundation. I don’t dable into the insane and into the paradox.

Fourthly, your question “Why does complexity necessarily imply design? and Can you clearly demonstrate how the universe is designed?”

I do not know if complexity literally always implies design, some food for thought. But I have demonstrated sufficiently with my examples in the first round and now also in the second round, in my opinion atleast, that there simply is a complex design in many ways and fashions, and I need not repeat myself. Not that complexity implies design, but that there simply is a complex design, which demands a designer. I would like to invite you, to not just look at the universe as if it’s a vaste darkness with asteroids flying about randomly. There is much more to it and I hope I’ve made that crystal clear at this point.

Final words for round 2:

I realise that after rereading my second post, you might find the "tone" I am writing with a little offensive or harsh. It isn't meant to be offensive but it is certainly meant to be harsh. Let one thing be clear: I respect you as a debate partner and I love the fact that you're debating me. I truly appreciate that and I am looking forward to the next round.

Debate Round No. 2



Human beings, as objects within the universe, can only make observations of other objects that are also contained within the universe. I will be calling objects contained within the universe “natural objects” from this point onward.

Furthermore, since it might not have been clear, when I say "complexity", I include the ideas of systems and processes. Pro may not have known that so that may have been the potential source of any confusion. This means that anywhere where I say "complex" or "complexity", Pro, or anyone reading this, can assume I mean "complexity, processes, and systems".


I The Cosmological Argument Axiom

When Pro states “...because not a single human being has ever seen something come into existence without a cause.”, he assumes that the universe behaves the same way as natural objects do. Though I couldn’t come up with an example of something beginning to exist without a cause, I also couldn’t come up with a reason for why we should treat the universe’s existence as the same as the existence of natural objects.

The universe is not necessarily a natural object, it contains natural objects. My question to Pro on this matter is this: If we are to believe that the universe, the container of natural objects, behaves like natural objects, then why should we not also believe that a creator would also behave the same way as natural objects?

II Was Math “discovered” or “invented”?

Pro has demonstrated, with the examples of the golden ratio and fractals, that mathematics seems to model the complexity of the universe very well, but he has again failed to demonstrate how this modeling implies that mathematics is embedded within the universe.

I would like Pro to consider this for a moment: Mathematics was invented by humans to describe the universe and the universe remains completely independent to mathematics. If Pro were to consider this, then he would quickly realize that mathematics is nothing more than a model that describes the universe and that things such as fractals and the golden ratio are only products of beautiful modeling of something wonderfully complex.

If Pro wishes to make it apparent that mathematics is embedded within the universe, then he must provide better arguments than “there are tons of people who just do not want there to be a creator, also in the scientific field, so they'll search for any alternative theories and what not” or the products of mathematics.

III Complexity Implies Design

I will be combining my rebuttals of Pro’s “complexity implies design” and “complexity implies a designer” because he has stated that his reasoning for both is the same. His argument breaks down to the former mentioned, “complexity implies design”.

Though Pro claims he has, Pro has still failed to provide any substantial amount of reasoning for why complexity actually implies design.

In round one, Pro gave examples which he believed would demonstrate how the universe was “designed”. As I stated in my original rebuttal to this argument, Pro has not demonstrated that the universe is designed, but rather, he demonstrated that it’s complex. With each example that he gave, Pro described a system (or process) that occurs within the natural universe, and after each example, he explains how it is a system (which I agree with him on). But then after he explains that each is a system or process, he decides to label it a “design”. Why? Why does Pro automatically assume that these complex systems must have been designed?

Furthermore in round two, Pro made the remark “So if everything is complexely designed with math and processess and systems just as we observe o so clearly all around us, then that simply indicates that everything was created by an intelligent creator, as per the syllogism”. He assumes two things in this remark: 1.) he assumes that complexity, systems, and processes imply design and 2.) he assumes that the universe was “designed” with mathematics. Pro has failed to demonstrate why either of these assumptions is preferable to others or how either is “apparent” so far in this debate.

My questions for Pro regarding this topic in the debate will be the same as last round because he has failed to answer it adequately: Why does complexity imply design? How are you making this leap from complex systems to designs? I fail to see the logical connection that you are making here, and I would be grateful for an in-depth explanation.

IV Pro’s Repetitive Analogies

Pro has continuously made analogies throughout the debate that try to connect the universe to a creator. These analogies are “No robot without a robot engineer”, “No building without a builder”, etc. I’m going to respectfully request that Pro restrains from making analogies that convey the same meaning as conveyed in these because they add nothing to the debate at this point.

Not only are they repetitive, but for them to have any meaning, a conclusion must already be assumed to be true. Using these analogies in any context within this debate could be argued to be on the verge of being inappropriate.


Pro has again failed to demonstrate why any of his positions or axioms should be preferable to others. As I stated in the last round, he must make at least one argument completely apparent for the resolution to be true. Since he has failed to do this so far, I would claim that he has failed to prove the resolution at this point in the debate.



You can safely say that the universe behaves like natural objects because the universe is part of this nature. It isn’t constantly popping in and out of existence but behaves exactly as natural objects, according to what we see/experience. It has always been like that. Why think it might not in a few years from now? So just like any natural object, it doesn’t begin to exist without a cause. The universe is tied to the natural laws just as any natural object as per your description. Our universe is not ouside of our universe but within our universe; or rather, it is our universe, our universe is part of our universe, naturally, and to our experience it behaves to our natural laws, which also is nothing but logical.

You’re trying to tell me that our universe, time, space and matter, aren’t natural objects? Well, they aren’t, they are not literally objects but they are natural components. Part of the nature. The universe -is- the laws of nature, etc, so naturally it abides to them. How could it not? Is our universe some unpredictable chaos-show to you? That is not what our universe is, according to emperical data and human experience.


Mathematics isn’t invented by humans, that’s an absolutely ludicrous statement. The TERM mathematics was invented by humans, sure, but how in the world can you interpret me like that? We indeed could’ve given the mathematics the term cat-and-cow-mathics but the math would still be in place. We’re not here to discuss the term, but the mathematics is an actual thing in ths universe. Saying otherwise only displays a lack of knowledge. I’m not a P.hD guy to explain this in great detail right here but there are P.hD Mathematicians or scientists of other fields who do in great length. I suggest you study the matter. This universe hangs upon complex mathematical formulas despite the term we humans give the deal. You’re creating a gigantic strawman here.

Also, when I said that tons of people debate the matter because they don’t want there to be a God wasn’t an argument on my behalve to demonstrate that this universe hangs upon complex math. What another ludicrous statement, and what another gigantic strawman. I just did a guess why people debate the matter, because I really have no clue why people debate the matter. The fact is this universe hangs upon complex mathematical patters. Please look at the mandelbroth/fractal video I linked. Watch it from second 1 to the final.

Sorry but I hate the strawmans. I find them dirty. You pull what I say completely out of context.

Did humans invent the fact that one apple and apple make two apples by the way? Sure, we made up the terms one and two, but regardless of what terms we give to it, one apple and one apple make 2 apples. We can say cow apple plus cow apple makes cowcow apple if you want. This is semantics and you know this has no place in this debate. Even if humans never came to be, one apple and one apple makes two apples. We gave the term tree to a tree but we didn't invent the tree.


Let me rephrase stuff to how I phrased it initially. We (apparently not you and many others. But luckily many do) see a clear and obvious design in the universe. I’ve given you some good examples of this. You say I haven't, I say I have, you say I did a poor job, I say you simply fail to understand on your own accord. Now, when there’s a design, there simply has to be a designer. Why? Look at my arguments and the first and second round. That is both logical and reasonable. All of this was clearly explained in my first and second round and I am not going to repeat myself. You keep trying to change the words I’ve been phrasing and give your own spin to things, but let’s keep it simple. I simply point back towards my first and second round and I fear for the next rounds. This gets really tiresome and unpleasant. You either don’t understand what I am saying or you are trolling with me.

“Though Pro claims he has, Pro has still failed to provide any substantial amount of reasoning for why complexity actually implies design.” (quote from Con)

What kind of reasoning are you looking for? What is your standard of reasoning? Because I find that my first and second round are packed to the rim with reason and logic, where as you’ve been lacking both reason and logic from here (Netherlands) all the way to Australia and this is frustrating. You’re not being intellectually honest with both me and yourself, So, when I say a lot of reasonable and logical things, you can’t just say “Pro hasn’t given enough reason.” That’s absurd.

“Furthermore in round two, Pro made the remark “So if everything is complexely designed with math and processess and systems just as we observe o so clearly all around us, then that simply indicates that everything was created by an intelligent creator, as per the syllogism”. He assumes two things in this remark: 1.) he assumes that complexity, systems, and processes imply design” (quote from Con)

Complex systems and processes, that’s like the definition of design… see, what are you asking from me? You think I am not reasonable and logic but your reasoning and logic seems to come from Mars in my perspective. What is design then according to you?

“2.) he assumes that the universe was “designed” with mathematics. Pro has failed to demonstrate why either of these assumptions is preferable to others or how either is “apparent” so far in this debate.”(quote from Con)

No I have not failed this. You might have failed to understand. Again, I redirect you to my second round.

“My questions for Pro regarding this topic in the debate will be the same as last round because he has failed to answer it adequately: Why does complexity imply design? How are you making this leap from complex systems to designs? I fail to see the logical connection that you are making here, and I would be grateful for an in-depth explanation.”

Again, no, I haven’t failed anything. You fail to comprehend. I’ve stated over and over that it’s a very fair and logical reasoning, that when ever there’s a complex design, there must be a designer. It is the epitome of obviousness and I’ve given clear examples for this.


I can do these things just like you do them. No, YOU have been repetive in declining reason and logic. It’s as if you got your own definition of reason and logic, where blue is red and a circle is square. How can we possible have a pleasant debate like this?


Pro is making strawmans, pulls things out of context and either has no sufficient knowledge to debate concerning these matters or is simply trolling. My respect towards him as a debate partner is dwindling. The intellect is far-fetched. I am astonished. Con will undoubtfully use the fact that I'm slightly losing my cool in debate as argument against the existence of a creator. I find that my first and second round still overthrow everything which Con has said, however. His third round is extremely poor. He's asking for a fictituous standard/definition of reason and logic while displaying unreason and non-logic himself. Stop attacking me for not displaying sense and logic when it is obviously there, in the first and second round.

Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Debating_Horse 2 years ago
" If I wished to have a debate in an uncivil, informal environment, then I would have had this debate in Youtube's comments, not on"

Ha! I've been on that website for a long time and I myself know that there are too many nuts out there. Many morons and trolls there, its an environment in which no one cares what you say (depending on the place of the comment section), I do not think that would be a ideal place for a debate.
Posted by Vinnie_Cross_Briet 3 years ago
Sorry for the spelling mistakes. Just woke up and am typing from my phone.

In the first comment of my reply I wrote "To day" which should be "to say". All the other typos should be clear as to what they mean.
Posted by Vinnie_Cross_Briet 3 years ago
To me the opposite seems more reasonable. You for example dont seem to understand the definition of design or the information and emperical data concerning fractals, eventhough you do heavily attack those points of mine in debate.

Your final comment plus the fact it makes you heated only shows me that you do not have a good reply to what I have been saying. I say things many prominent theistic philosophers/thinkers have been saying and people like Dawkins, Kraus, Hitches etc, prominent atheistic speakers, also never have proper replied to these. In the debates you will noticd they will only point out that christians or muslims do evil things or that God is evil, which simply are no intellectuel arguments against the existance of a creator. They are emotional and logical fallacy.

You simply have no proper reply to the brutal display of logical reasoning I present (which again, I didnt invent myself but learned from elsewhere so I by no means claim to be a genius mind you).

O well, do not know what else to say...
Posted by Vinnie_Cross_Briet 3 years ago
That is not entirely fair, you are blowing it way out of proportion and here is why. I should not have been considering you a troll in the debate and I should have phrased my conclusion in a more mature and polite manner. I have genuinely (and I still mean it) apoligised for this. You seemed to understand my frustration and although you did not type it specifically, you seemed to have accepted my apology too and wanted to head on with the debate.

1. If you have been wrongly accused you can clear this out in debate. I think it is a spot on accusation. In the comment section you say I falsely accuse you of this because I was heated. This is incorrect. I got slightly heated because of what I have written in my previous comment, which you seem to understand. I accused you of a logical fallacy in a calm state. I am calm now and still see the logical fallacy. To day I accused you of such because I was heated is simply not true. Again when you are called out for a logical fallacy or strawman, which is legal, you can defend yourself. Afterall if I made a faillure in calling you such, you can actually use my faillure against me in a punishinh fashion. But you dont give a clear reason as to why it was a faillure on my behalf at all, other than that I was heated (slightly), which I just explained is not true and elaborated on why it is not true.

Your goal was to highlight logical fallacies and unreason, but when this is not succesful, whu not be honest about it rather than giving up pretending as if Im just am annoying debate partner or somesuch?

2.Again I think this out of proportion. I only crossed the line as per what Ive written at the start of this comment. Apologies were made etc etc. A bit of harshness here and there is fair in debate.

3. What is so ignorant about my responses? It is clear that you've failed to point out any logical fallacies and unreason from what Ive written. Please what is ignorant about the things Ive written?
Posted by DrCereal 3 years ago
I will not be responding. For anyone viewing this dead debate, here are my reasons why:

1. I've been wrongly accused of making a logical fallacy because Pro got heated during his response. I made a mistake. I admit that I took Pro out of context, but it was not a strawman. I did not attack it, I merely mentioned it at the end of my response. Labeling it a strawman does nothing but frame the situation like I have no knowledge of the debate and that I used it only in a last-ditch effort to win. My goal is not to win. My goal is to highlight reasoning and to call out fallacies.

2. Pro has been condescending throughout the entirety of the debate, even before my slightly "aggressive" response in round three. If I wished to have a debate in an uncivil, informal environment, then I would have had this debate in Youtube's comments, not on

3. Winning isn't worth the frustration. Every time I slog through Pro's condescending, ignorant responses to build my reply, I get worked up. This has not allowed me to reply in any reasonable amount of time because, unlike Pro, I actually care if my posts are filled with useless anger and confusion. This debate has not left me with intellectual thought, it has left me angered and annoyed. It has left me pissed off at Pro for failing to understand what my points truly meant. This stress isn't worth a meaningless "win" on this site.

I'm sorry to disappoint Pro, but I can no longer "debate" with you. I was expecting a civil debate, and that's not what I got. Think of this comment what you will, but I can't stand this debate any longer. Thanks for your time.
Posted by DrCereal 3 years ago
for beginning to exist.*
Posted by DrCereal 3 years ago
Though I don't truly believe you explained it well, I'm quite aware of why you believe the universe must have a cause for existing. I am a pedant who was just pestering you for the sake of pestering. (Partially because, yes, it would have helped me "win" in a sense, but also because I was trying to push you to present your best argument.) For this reason, I will be dropping this subject from my argument.

As for the others, I will respond to again in my debate response.
Posted by Vinnie_Cross_Briet 3 years ago
What I said, that is how it feels you came across towards me. It's as if you debate just for the sake to win the debate rather than to accept logic and reason, pulling all tricks from your sleeve to make it seem as if I make no sense.

I believe it is fair of me to point that out, but I realise I should've done so in a more polite fashion. I realise I did it in an incorrect manner and I genuinely apologise for that.
Posted by DrCereal 3 years ago
And no, I will not be invoking the argument you suggest, "Con will undoubtfully use the fact that I'm slightly losing my cool in debate as argument against the existence of a creator." It's frustrating that you would even accuse me of doing such.
Posted by DrCereal 3 years ago
I'm going to respectfully request (both in the comments and in the debate) to please remain civil. I am not a troll, nor am I trying to be one. I won't here, but in my response I WILL respond to the accusation of "creating a straw-man argument".

This is one of the few debates I've had with a creationist that wasn't disgustingly boring and pathetic. I'm trying my hardest to articulate my position adequately without coming off "aggressively".
I only ask of you to try and do the same.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.