It is likely God exists
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 8 votes and with 38 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
BoP is shared
Definitions:
God - the creator of the universe
Probably - 'is likely to happen or be true'
Exist - 'have objective reality or being'
Format
R1: Opening case
R2-4: Rebuttals
R5: Rebuttals with no new arguments
"things, as a whole, needn't have been just as they are. Rather, things might have been different in countless ways, both trivial and profound. History, from the very beginning, could have unfolded quite other than it did in fact: the matter constituting a distant star might never have organized well enough to give light; species that survived might just as well have died off; battles won might have been lost; children born might never have been conceived and children never conceived might otherwise have been born. In any case, no matter how things had gone they would still have been part of a single, maximally inclusive, all-encompassing situation, a single world. Intuitively, then, the actual world" [1]
- God exists. (Gnostic Theism)
- God doesn't exist. (Gnostic Atheism)
- I don't know if God exists or not. (Agnostic Athesm - I'll explain why not just agnosticism below.)
P1: Probability can either be conditional or unconditionalP2: The probability of God's existance is neither conditional nor unconditionalC: The probability of God's existance cannot be measured as it doesn't exist.
P1: If the probability of God's existance cannot be measured, he either exists or doesn't exist.P2: There if no proof that God exists, and there is no proof that God doesn't exist.C: The only logical conclusion is - we don't know if God exists or not.
"Everything metaphysically possible has the probability of existing".
"If something has a 50% chance of occuring, asserting it is likely to happen would fall under inductive reasoning and would constitute as proof."
P1: The probability of "Heads" is 50%. The probability of "Tails" is 50%.P2: The coin is tossed, but we are not shown if it landed on "Heads" or "Tails".C: The only logical conclusion can be that we don't know if it's heads or tails.
I'm not sure if Pro and I are debating the same thing. Are we debating that it is probable that God exists (50%) or that it is likely that God exists (over 50%)? Because I agree with the first claim and disagree with the second one.
"My opponent has misunderstood Descartes' idea. Descartes meant only this: "I think, therefore I exist". He only said that because he can think about if he exists or not, he must exist"
P1: 'Greatness' is a positive attributeP2: God by definition, is the greatestP3: Existing necessarily is greater than existing contingentlyP4: If P2, then God must exist necessarilyC: God exists necessarily.
This argument is flawed. It assumes that just because God is, by definition, "the greatest", he must exist. It only proves that a being greater than all other beings must exist, which is true. It doesn't confirm that a creator of the universe exists, which is the definition of God according to Pro.
"Reality cannot be mental. Our perception of reality is mental."
"There can only be one reality, since the definition of reality is "the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them"
"A mental perception of reality is subjective and unrealistic"
"Greatness is a subjective term, which is impossible to measure."
"1. It is possible that I have an infinite amount of money in the bank.2. In some alternate world, I have an infinite amount of money in the bank.3. An infinite amount of money is the greatest amount of money you can have.4. Therefore, I have an infinite amount of money in my bank account."
"What does Pro mean by "Our mind isn't incorporated into reality"?"
"Consciousness is subjective and cannot be measured."
Con conceded to pro, so that's better arguments. Both provided equally good sources, CUPS, and conduct.
Con conceded the debate.
Pro provided a source to back up every single one of his points from places like Stanford, and the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Con provided sources but his sourcing was less complete.
Concession
RFD in Comments
C
Concession
Concession.
Con(cedes)? haha
Better arguments ✔ ✗ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✔ ✗ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason:Con(cedes)