The Instigator
Con (against)
4 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
10 Points

Occam's Razor Applies To The Theory of God!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/5/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,608 times Debate No: 58582
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (31)
Votes (4)




I have seen that in many debates the argument of Occam's Razor is used to debunk the concept of God. It is argued that because the belief that God does not exists is less complex, we must reach the conclusion that God does not exist.
For this debate we will assume that Occam's Razor is a sound theory.
My opponent should start immediately.

As for the explanation as what is Occam's Razor I present the following:
1. 'we may assume the superiority ceteris paribus [all things being equal] of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates or hypotheses.'
-Aristotle, Posteriori Analytics
2. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. (Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.
-misattributed to William of Occam.

My opponent should begin immediately. This is a relative resolution.

I wish my opponent the best of luck!


Before I begin allow me to clarify two things:

The theory of God as indicated by the resolution is simply a belief regarding the existence of God along with whatever justification is presented in support of that belief.

Con uses an example of someone attempting to use Occam's Razor to conclude that God does not exist. That conclusion however is not the resolution and therefore not my burden to support. My burden is to show how Occam's razor does in fact apply to the theory of God as I just described.

I assume Con does not take issue with any of the above, so let's begin.

Occam's Razor

When engaging in intellectual discussion Occam's razor is often touted as a prescriptive method of reaching a valid conclusion, however I'd argue that it is actually descriptive. Very few people (aside from philosophy buffs) actually know what Occam's Razor is or have ever heard of it, yet nearly everyone uses it in every endeavor of their lives. If someone parks their car in a parking lot and they return to find their window broken and a baseball in the seat next to it, any reasonable person would assume that the baseball flew through the window. What would not be reasonable is to assume that someone broke the window with a hammer to search for loose change, then decided afterward to leave a baseball in the seat as a present.

But why is that not the most reasonable conclusion? Because it violates Occam's Razor. To assume that the baseball broke the window explains all of the observables and paints a complete picture of what happened. The latter theory described makes many assumptions that are not supported. When determining the truth of something, Occam's Razor is essentially the use of reason.

Earlier today I saw a photograph taken in 1941 alleged to have captured an image of a time traveler ( The man in question in this photograph appears extremely modern amongst everyone else at that time and stands out in the picture as a result. It is quite interesting, and even compelling. However, after careful scrutiny one can discover that sunglasses he is wearing may not have been in style till years later but were available 20 years prior to the time of the photograph, and the shirt that was said to have been a t-shirt with a logo on it (not available at that time) actually matches a sweater with a sewn-on emblem readily available at the time. While no one can prove that the person is not a time traveler, the very fact that there are much simpler explanations then the original allegation easily allows us to dismiss that he was a time traveler as unreasonable. The reason we are able to dismiss this is because of that same process we call Occam's Razor.

Applying Occam's Razor

Con in this debate is defending the notion that this principle does not apply to the theory of God, however as I have demonstrated it applies to everything. And the reason it applies to everything is because it is a part of how we reason, not some prescribed method which we can pick or choose when to use it. For Con to uphold his position he must either demonstrate that Occam's Razor is not a valid process of reasoning, or he must explain to us why the theory of God gets special treatment, i.e.: special pleading. I see no other options for Con, but maybe he does. Let's find out...
Debate Round No. 1


I apologize for the late reply, I was, as it were, disheartened with the way this debate is heading. You see it seems that my opponent did not fully read the definitions that were presented. You see he made the same mistake for which I made this debate in the first place. Ideally by the end of this debate I would have changed, if not my opponent's mind, then the readers' mind.
With that before I go on to refute my opponent's case I think it is important to discuss the Spirit of the motion. I should also note that my opponent admits that he has the complete burden of proof here in the comments. In any case the Latin rule should stand: 'Onus probandi incumbet ei qui deceit, non ei qui negat'. As my opponent is making the claim he must show why Occam's Razor absolutely applies to God.
With that let me begin. Often people make the mistake that Occam's Razor applies to everything, it in fact does not. You see Occam's Razor has its origins in Aristotle, more so in the Posterior Analytics: 'we may assume the superiority ceteris paribus [all things being equal] of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates or hypotheses.' I do not want to play on semantics but it is necessary here. The key words here are 'hypotheses'. You see Occam's Razor is used where the other postulates are pure speculation. To show that Occam's Razor applies to God one must show that God is pure speculation, or that there are no logical bases for the belief in a God. Now that we have that cleared let us move forward.
My opponent starts out with accepting that there are some justification presented, but instead of talking about how those justification are wrong (something very much possible) he talks about something which is besides the point. You see his argument is ab absurdo, that I commit the special pleading fallacy. If I can show that it is not special pleading as God is not added in the definition then I win.
So the first point which needs to made very clear is that Occam's Razor applies only to cases where there is speculation, as Pro took the BoP it is his responsibility to show that all justification of God is a speculation.
Now let us consider the example given. You are right we would assume a baseball broke the window. However should it be that a particular psychotic was on the loose who liked breaking windows and then after jacking off in the car's driver seat he would leave the baseball it would not be incorrect then to say that there is a chance that that might have happened. It could even be correct, since it would not longer be based on "hypothesis" but on theory Occam's Razor does not apply.
You see I did not ask my opponent to disprove God, he cannot, and that is precisely the reason why Occam's Razor cannot be applied. Only if God was a purely speculative phenomenon could Occam's Razor be used. So keeping this is mind it is only right to conclude that my opponent has not fullfilled his BoP.

The resolution collapses.



Con claims that I did not read the definition. After reading his last round, I am not sure he did.

'we may assume the superiority ceteris paribus [all things being equal] of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates or hypotheses.'

Postulates in this context is synonymous with “assumptions”. The word “hypotheses” is simply thrown in at the end as an alternative way of thinking about it even though the former term used already makes it clear. Translated into simple English: “All things being equal, the explanation (demonstration) which is derived from the fewest assumptions is superior”.

This definition is no different than any other conventional definition of OR (Occam’s Razor), so I see no reason to go back to whatever Aristotle or whomever Con wants to quote says about it. This debate is about what OR is and how it applies to the theory of God. Not whatever semantic argument Con may try to use to make it seem like we’re talking about some other version of this logical principle.

Application of Occam’s Razor

Con claims that OR is used only where the assumptions are pure speculation. That is simply false. OR is a method of reasoning where one measures the weight of the assumptions necessary to presume any given explanation is true. The weight of those assumptions can then be compared to that of any alternative explanation presented for the same phenomenon. The one that weighs the least is then accepted as the most likely explanation.

There is nothing in this process that excludes any assumption from being scrutinized by this method. In my baseball analogy, the presumption that the baseball flew through the window is in fact an assumption, and must go through the same measuring process as any other. It matters not whether that assumption is based on pure speculation. Of course in the analogy we may not think of the ball flying through the air as a big assumption because it is not. We know baseballs are made for the purpose of flying through the air, and we know people use them for that purpose. We also know that baseballs break windows all the time, so while it is a very small assumption given the circumstances, it is still an assumption and must be weighed along with any other. The concept of pure speculation does not enter into the equation at all.

Con agrees that in my basic analogy we would accept a baseball flying through the window as the most reasonable conclusion. But he then goes on to say that if [insert strange psychotic jacking off in the car story here] was something we know to be happening then we would be correct in assuming that it might explain the scenario. Indeed we would be, that is completely irrelevant.

First of all Con is now adding to the analogy. OR applies only when all else is equal. So in this newly updated analogy Con presented both explanations require a small amount of assumptions since both explanations are consistent with reality as we have experienced it. The fact that both explanations require few assumptions does not mean that they can’t be weighed against each other to determine which one weighs less.

Con made the comment that it “could even be correct” referring to the psychotic jack offer theory. Whether it is actually correct is again irrelevant. If we had enough evidence to conclude that it was correct then the amount of assumptions required for it against any competing explanation would not be close. With every new piece of information that emerges pointing towards one explanation, the amount of assumptions required for the alternative explanation to be true grow larger. For example if the Jack offer comes out and admits to placing it there then the baseball through the window explanation requires us to assume that he is lying, which makes that explanation “weigh more” because it is an unjustified assumption. That is how OR works. There is never a point in comparing alternative explanations where this concept does not apply.

Applying Occam’s Razor to God

Con has essentially made no argument here since this debate has so far been focused entirely on what OR is. The only thing he has stated is “only if God was a purely speculative phenomenon could OR be used”. While I have shown that pure speculation is irrelevant to whether OR can be used, I would still argue that the theory of God is pure speculation. There are two different types of arguments for God: argument based in reality, and arguments that are not based in reality. Since God is predominately defined as a being that exists outside of reality then arguments based in reality are inherently invalid. You cannot use the natural to prove the supernatural, thus speculation is all that any conclusion about existence outside of our reality can be based on. And arguments not based in reality is practically the definition of speculation.

It is because of this that using God as an explanation requires assumptions one can barely begin to measure. Meanwhile the belief in a Godless existence requires far fewer assumptions. One for example can posit that the universe came from nothing, which as far as we can tell is exactly where virtual particles come from. One can also posit that the universe has always existed in some form, which is consistent with the established scientific fact that matter and energy can never be created or destroyed. Granted, there are still many assumptions required in either of those explanations, but far less than that of an invisible, metaphysical (whatever that is), all powerful, and all intelligent being who created us and watches over us just hopping that we will worship him.

The point is that regardless of whichever explanation you choose, you are still choosing the one you think requires the fewest amount of assumptions. That process has a name, it’s called Occam’s Razor.

Debate Round No. 2


Ajab forfeited this round.


Argument Extended.
Debate Round No. 3


I thank my opponent, I should clarify that my opponent and I have agreed to skip the third round; please do not consider it when you deliberate your vote.

It should be noted that my opponent agreed to the definitions when he accepted this debate. I use Aristotle's definition because firstly it is actually present in Aristotle's works, and it is, as I am sure you can note, more precise in general. Occam's Razor states that if there are two competing theories, which are equally valid, then we may consider the superiority of that theory which uses fewer postulates, assumptions or hypotheses. Often I have seen atheists state that since the theory that God does not exist uses fewer postulates than the theory that God does exist, according to Occam's Razor, we may assume the superiority of the thesis that God does not exist.

This is however only possible if it can be showed that Occam's Razor can indeed be applied to God. My opponent's analysis is correct that he need not show that atheism uses fewer postulates, he only need show that Occam's Razor applies to God. The problem is that he cannot do so by simply arguing that Occam's Razor applies to everything, it does not. I am not undermining Occam's Razor but take the example of the First Law of Thermodynamics. It is one of the world's fundamental laws and states: the internal energy of an isolated system is constant. Now would it be denying the law to state that it does not apply to those systems which possess diathermic walls or an open system, I think not. The same way Occam's Razor is quite simple. It applies to theories which are based on 'hypotheses' or 'postulates' which are speculative. Noting that there are certain proofs for God, even if they are incorrect, they are present and first it must be shown that these proofs are nothing more than hypotheses if one should wish to apply Occam's Razor. You see even the miss-attributed quote states: 'Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem' that 'Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity'. Has my opponent truly shown there is no 'necessity' to believe in God, has he truly tackled the points and the arguments which seek to make God a contingent, or a necessary phenomenon. He has not, and as he has not, he cannot apply Occam's Razor.

My opponent starts his round by admitting that in this context postulates 'is synonymous with "assumptions.' Double_R says I am playing a semantic game, and he is right. While sometimes semantics are used to troll, often semantics are important. Just as we cannot take our the word 'isolated' from the First Law, we cannot take away the word 'assumption' from Occam's Razor. As Double_R is Proposition and has accepted the Burden of Proof the onus is upon him to show that any proof or belief in God is purely speculative, or purely based on assumptions. He must show that there is no rational, or analytic proof of God.

My opponent is trying to shift the goalpost as they say. First of all are baseballs made for flying through the air? I thought they were made to play baseball, and hit the ball with a bat. Meh, I must be wrong. In any case right now, while this theory is not based on speculation, the others are. For me to say that an alien came and threw the baseball is pure speculation. Or for me to assert that this baseball was the case of magic is pure speculation. Occam's Razor here is being applies to the alien story or the magic story. If Occam's Razor is applied to the baseball story then we would say that that story is false. For Occam's Razor is used to disprove phenomenon ab absurdo. My opponent has actually in a way conceded this debate for just as this baseball theory has some proof, God also has some proof. While we apply Occam's Razor to every other phenomenon to conclude that this is the most likely we do not apply Occam's Razor to the ball theory itself. Unless of course if there is a competing theory, is there an argument that seeks to disprove God with fewer premises than those which seek to prove God, there may be but without proof I cannot work on much. Especially since the next round will be my opponent's last round (to keep an equal number of argument rounds). I ask that any proof that comes now be disregarded.

Again my opponent accepts that if we knew that a person liked jacking off after breaking windows, we would assume that to be true. Here we would have a competing theory which is not based on speculation and uses fewer premises. Is it clear what I wish to portray? Either my opponent prove that all the proofs for God are speculative, or he show that the proofs against God use fewer assumptions than those for God. He has done neither.

You see when he says that the universe came from nothing he should enunciate this further, and then after doing so actually show how this assumes less than what a proof of God assumes. Until he does this, which he cannot now for the time has passed, the resolution collapses.

Please vote Con!



Con has pretty much ignored every argument I made in the last round. He continues to assert that Occam's razor does not apply to everything while failing to respond to any of my arguments showing otherwise. He also failed to respond to any of my arguments as to why the claim that God exits is necessarily pure speculation, and instead goes on to claim that I failed to uphold my burden because I have failed to show that God claims are pure speculation. The role of the Con position is to refute claims, not declare them false.


Con has again posted the definition of OR, although this time worded slightly different:

Occam's Razor states that if there are two competing theories, which are equally valid, then we may consider the superiority of that theory which uses fewer postulates, assumptions or hypotheses

First of all I think it is important to note that the number of competing theories is absolutely irrelevant. In order to compare two claims you have to be able to evaluate them first. OR refers to the method from which you do that. Think of judges evaluating a figure skaters performance. It makes no difference how many competitors there are, the comparison occurs after they are evaluated individually.

This is important because the method of OR is what must be understood before any assertion can be made as to whether this method applies to the theory of God. In the last round I argued that OR applies to everything because it is a description of how we reason in this context. I showed that everything at some level is an assumption (like the ball flying through the window) and I demonstrated how we change our positions with the addition of new information, as in the scenario of the jack offer admitting to placing the ball in the seat and how that affects our viewpoint on the ball through the window theory. Still waiting on Cons response.

Pure Speculation?

Despite my unresponded to arguments to the contrary, Con still claims that OR only applies to claims that are pure speculation yet the only support for this assertion I can find in this entire debate came in the last round in where he stated "It applies to theories which are based on 'hypotheses' or 'postulates' which are speculative".

Yes, hypothesis or postulates (assumptions) are speculative. But as Con's definition affirms, OR evaluates which theory uses fewer hypothesis or postulates. That is the exact opposite of Cons assertion. If the likelihood of a theory is decided by which one uses less assumptions, then the likelihood is determined by which theory is least speculative. That is the entire point of OR. How Con goes from that to OR only applying to theories that are pure speculation is beyond me and has not been supported otherwise in this debate.

Speculation of God

Not really not much to say here since Con did not respond to my arguments for how the theory of God is necessarily speculative. Con states in the last round that the voters should ignore any arguments I make from here. That's fine, you can find those arguments in round 2 in the section titled "Applying Occam's Razor to God". Not that it matters anyway, since Con has failed to show how this idea of pure speculation has any relevance.

Other Rebuttals

Con states that I have to prove that either all the proofs for God are speculative (which I already did in R2), or that I must show that the proofs against God use fewer assumptions than those for God. The latter is complete nonsense. My burden is not to show that proofs against God use fewer assumptions, it is to show that OR applies to the theory of God. Con has shown that it does with his very statement. Comparing the arguments on both sides and determining which one uses fewer assumptions is OR, and in Con's own example is being applied to God. That alone affirms the resolution.

Con states that I should enunciate further on my argument that the universe came from nothing, and show how it uses less assumptions then the theory of God. First of all doing so would allow us to use OR to evaluate them, the very thing Con is claiming we cannot do. But besides that I have no reason to do so because I once again have no burden of proving that the universe came from nothing. That is an entirely different topic. The arguments were made as a demonstration of how to apply OR to the arguments for and against God. The very fact that we are comparing which argument uses fewer assumptions again affirms the resolution.


The resolution states that Occam's Razor applies to the theory of God. It was my burden to prove this and I have done so in many ways, most clearly perhaps by Cons own assertion that I must argue against God by showing that "the proofs against God use fewer assumptions than those for God". The very notion of doing so as a means of arguing against God demonstrates that Occam's Razor applies to God. That was the point of this debate.

I'd like to thank Con for the challenge, and wish him the best of luck. Thanks as well to the readers for listening.

Debate Round No. 4


I just realized I only have 6 hours left, and I am sitting up at 3 am now writing this. Hai hai any case, I thank Double_R for this match, and for the readers for reading. I do remind the readers that Double_R graciously agreed to skip a round. I thank him most sincerely for that.

Now with that let us move onto the debate arguments. While I always like the rhetoric, it works less on written debates. While my opponent certainly gives a rather spectacular rant the truth is he himself admitted that his own analogy was working against him above. I see from a quick look that he has dropped that analogy. I need to clear one thing though. Let us say you have a mustache and a beard, and you can only shave one off. Lets say they both look equally sexy, but you have to trim your mustache every other day, while you can trim your beard once a week and no one will really notice. Lets say you chose the cut off that which took more work to maintain: the mustache. Would you have used the razor on the beard or on the mustache? Would the razor has applied on the mustache or the razor? To say that Occam's Razor applies to God is not that God cannot be a viable subject of the razor, it means that the razor would chose to cut off God. That the razor would make God redundant. This is what my opponent's arguments should entail, as long as they do not, I win this here and now. So while the razor could have been used on the beard, it applied itself only on the mustache.

The reason I reiterated the definition was because Double_R had also done so. I felt it necessary to once more show the readers what Occam's Razor entails. My opponent in his speech failed to contend how within his analogy Occam's Razor would apply if lets say I said an alien did this. My opponent never engaged this. He makes a new analogy, a roller skates one. Firstly he only now decides to contend the definition in itself, more importantly however he states that Occam's Razor applies to everything. 'Tis I believe is sufficiently explained above and needs no more reiteration. As for the ball I already showed to you how Occam's Razor does not apply, by the very fact that even though it has some assumptions but my opponent takes it to be correct we know that the Razor has not cut the thought off. My opponent is at once arguing against himself. Exactly we can believe that this crazy man placed the ball, for Occam's Razor would not apply. Because even thought there will be some assumptions these assumptions would not be purely speculative. My opponent has somewhat conceded.

The next point of my opponent would only make sense if he can prove that the belief in no God uses fewer postulates than the belief in a God. This is not entirely impossible, but he never did anything like this. He never gave any argument against a generic super natural being, and he never showed why this particular proof uses fewer postulates.

Double_R admits it is his duty to show that all proofs of God are speculative, read the second round again oh dear readers, and tell me if you truly feel he has shown that all proofs of God are speculative, this he has not shown.

Since my opponent has not fulfilled his burden this resolution then collapses.

I remind my opponent he must pass the last round.

Faithfully Yours,



End Debate.
Debate Round No. 5
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Double_R 7 years ago
No problem Romanii, if you feel like it later I'd be delighted to hear what you have to say. I'd say that it makes no difference who's winning in the score column but that's not completely true because seeing that others felt my arguments were stronger helps to assure me that I'm not crazy. Still, the way I look at it is that the key to getting better at debating is to understand what others see, particularly the ones that disagree with you. I highly doubt we would come to complete agreement but at least a better understanding would be helpful. Plus, for whatever strange reason it's just fun to argue. After all that's why we're here isn't it?
Posted by Romanii 7 years ago
DoubleR, sorry, I did not see your comment until just now... I would normally take the time to address it... but tbh, I'm feeling a bit lazy right now, and since you're already winning, I don't really see the point of it.
Posted by Sagey 7 years ago
Finally: In my studies into Neuro-psychology, God is a product of the Brain, so it is not really worthy of developing a Theory, Theology around.
Theology is usually people pondering Nonsense and Lies, mostly produced by Apologists.
Apologists are usually very clever Liars, who produce lies that appear to have some Truth.
Anselm, Aquinas, etc.... ad Nauseum.
Sometimes Apologists think their Lies are truthful, but the trouble is that they have developed them from previous Lies, i.e. Gospels.
So they produced exaggerated lies that they think are Truthful, because they believed the lies they built their exaggerations upon.
Such is Theology, in a nutshell.
Posted by Sagey 7 years ago
BTW, Theory, in it's Empirical Use, is a Scientific Term, so Theory of God does not make Sense.
There is Theory of Mind, which is some person's concept of another person's thoughts.
Theory of God is Nonsensical, that is Theology which is not Scientific and every single person has their own Theory of God, so it is completely Subjective.

If anybody tried to analyze Evidence for God, Scientifically, then Occam's Razor would be applicable and thus it would follow the rules I mentioned below.
Finding Scientific Evidence for the Supernatural is still requires analysis that can produce predictions, so God/Magician cannot be used in the conclusions.
The conclusions can state that Yes, there is evidence for Something Supernatural (Beyond scientific evidence) or there is not, in that it appears to be something Natural.
So the Topic and your arguments did not seem to make any sense, so I had to go on what I know about Occam's Razor from Science. As it does not apply to Theology.
For God to be a Scientific concept, Occam's Razor kills it every time.
Thus in that case Occam's Razor applies.
The Debate really made no sense.
Posted by Sagey 7 years ago
@ Ajab, thus I don't think you fulfilled your Burden of Proof.
Posted by Sagey 7 years ago
This is the principle reason Religion and Thus Creationism can never, ever be considered in Science.
There is a Magician/Designer in their Hypotheses and Conclusions.
Thus making Scientific use of their Hypotheses and predictions from them absolutely Impossible.
Posted by Sagey 7 years ago
Occam's Razor is only applied to Conclusions/Predictions where the Simplest conclusion is always considered by Occam's law as the Best, thus Occam's Razor removes the more complex Conclusions/Predictions.

In Science, Theories (Conclusions) are used to base Predictions on, if the Conclusion contains Complexities or Anomalies, it cannot be used to make accurate predictions. This is solved by the use of Occam's Razor. Since it chooses the simplest, conclusion that it is easiest to make predictions from. Because Science is all about Predictions.
Philosophy is different in that it does not rely as heavily as Science does on making predictions.

When God (Magician) is inserted into a Conclusion, it is automatically made more Complex.
Because a straight Analytic Conclusion is easy to make Predictions from.
With a magician/God in the conclusion, it is now impossible to make predictions because the outcome depends on the Whims of the Magician, who can change it's mind at any time and destroy the prediction.
So with God in a Conclusion, predictions and thus Scientific Analysis and Predictions are Impossible.
All Conclusions with a Magician/God in them will automatically be removed by Occam's Razor Analysis.

Posted by Double_R 7 years ago
Yes but Heliocentrism was not *purely* speculative. It, like all explanations for anything, relied on that which we can observe and test as a starting point then used assumptions to fill in the blanks. So according to your argument they did not use OR to accept it.
Posted by Ajab 7 years ago
Its like this: One of the main reasons Heliocentric-ism was accepted was because it used fewer assumptions than Ptolemy's system. They both had principles which they could not at all prove, which they took on trust, but Copernicus only used his 9 principles, while Ptolemy used 40-something. This is a situation where OR applied to Ptolemy's system.

I fail to understand why you think philosophers spent so much time developing OR? o.O Aristotle made it, Occam (according to popular opinion) introduced it. This is a moment where I wish people could understand Modal Logic, I can demonstrate this decently. I think the problem was more to do with my rhetoric skills than anything else.
Posted by Double_R 7 years ago
That's pretty funny, I felt the same way throughout our debate.

There seems to be a serious communication gap between the two sides on this one. Whiteflame seems to be saying almost exactly what I was throughout the debate. Your view of OR is pointless. For an explanation to be *purely* speculative it must have no reasonable basis, and if we assert that as a condition then any reasonable explanation would automatically be disqualified from discussion. I fail to understand why you think philosophers would devote so much time to such a useless tool, and why we would be sitting here talking about it. I also wonder what method you use of comparing two reasonable yet conflicting explanations for a given phenomenon. Seems to me that you use OR just like everyone else, you just don't call it that.

His second point was about how you didn't respond to any of my arguments. All you did was restate your position and assert that I failed to uphold my BOP.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 7 years ago
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro upheld his argument strong while con's rebuttals simply didn't work out, especially since his logic worked out pretty strongly, proving the Occam's Razor wrong and then showing the connection to God
Vote Placed by Sagey 7 years ago
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: I find Con's arguments difficult to follow, though I understood Pro's as being more convincing, a Hypothesis containing Magic is not the simplest explanation, as it is begging the question fallacy, why did the magician do it? Which increases the complexity to a greater degree than an evidence driven explanation. So philosophically I would have to swing Pro's way on this one.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 7 years ago
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: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by Romanii 7 years ago
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: RFD in comments.

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