Instigator / Pro
19
1485
rating
92
debates
45.65%
won
Topic
#1315
Atheism vs. Theism: Atheism is more probable than Theism
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 3 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...
David
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
9
1762
rating
45
debates
88.89%
won
Description
Intro
I'm going to do something different this debate and argue for the atheistic perspective. I haven't argued the atheist perspective in a while so I thought I'd give this a chance.
Definitions
Atheism: The position that God does NOT exist
Theism: The position that a god exists.
Probable: likely to be the case or to happen.
God: For the purposes of this debate, "God" will be defined as the God of classical Theism which God is characterized as the absolutely metaphysically ultimate being with the 4 O's (omnipotent etc.)
Structure
1. Opening arguments
2. Rebuttals
3. Defense
4. Close
Round 1
Thank you, Christopher, for accepting this debate.
C1: God is incoherent
P1: Anything with contradictory attributes cannot exist
P2: God has contradictory attributes
C1: Therefore, the God cannot exist.
In philosophy there are several types of entities: (1) actual entities that exist (such as humans, cats, apes, etc.); (2) entities that could exist but do not (such as a fire breathing dragon); and (3) impossible entities that cannot exist due to their contradictory nature (a married bachelor, for example). I contend that the Christian concept of God is utterly and hopelessly incoherent.
Subpoint A: All-Knowing vs. All-Powerful
God is said to be both all-knowing and all-powerful. This leads us to an absurd contradiction. Since God has perfect knowledge about what will happen in the future, God cannot act in anyway contrary to that perfect knowledge. If I had perfect knowledge about tomorrow, for example, then nothing I can do will change that. Thus, a being with perfect knowledge cannot act freely contradicting the idea of an all-powerful god; indeed, the idea of any being with perfect knowledge negates any possible
Subpoint B: The word “God” is incoherent
If I ask 100 people on the street to define God or ask them what God is, I will get 100 different answers. This is hugely problematic for the Theistic position. God is supposedly unknowable and indefinable, yet we define God as having properties of being all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving, present everywhere, and transcendent. For something to be unknowable and indefinable, the God of classical Theism simply assumes far too much. Thus, the most rational view is theological noncognitivism.
C2: The Problem of Evil
P1: If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god exists, then evil does not.
P2: There is evil in the world.
C1: Therefore, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god does not exist.
The Problem of Evil is one of the oldest arguments against the existence of an all-loving deity. Indeed, Epicurus noted: “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
I’m sure would have no problem accepting premise 1. What about premise 2? Unnecessary evil undoubtedly exists through no fault of our own. For example, in WWII over 75 million people were killed in the worst genocide and bloodiest war in human history [1]. If God were, in fact, all-good, then why didn’t He step in to stop this evil? On a biological level, when DNA replicates itself, it often makes serious errors that cause suffering and serious deformities. Neurofibromatosis, for example, causes tumors to appear all over your skin [2]. If God designed this, then He did a Godawful (pun intended) job.
C3: Atheism better predicts our universe
Both Theism and Atheism makes predictions about what we should find in our universe. If Atheism were true, then we should find a naturalistic cause of the universe and life. As it turns out, we do. The Big Bang Theory and Evolution are both naturalistic causes of the universe and life respectively and are well-documented and well supported. Paul Draper put this into a nice syllogism form [3]:
P1: We know that E is true.
P2: Naturalism has much more predictive power with respect to E than theism does (i.e., E's truth is antecedently many times more probable given naturalism than it is given theism).
P3: Naturalism is more plausible than theism (i.e., naturalism is more probable than theism independent of all evidence).
C1: So, other evidence held equal, theism is very probably false.
In this case, let E = Evolution.
Before I present evidence for evolution, I want to first provide some definitions:
Proof 1: Fused Chromosome #2
If evolution were true, humans and other great apes share a common ancestor, then either humans have a fused chromosome or chimps and other great apes had a split chromosome. We found that human chromosome no 2 is fused, just as the Theory of Evolution predicts. Daniel Fairbanks notes:
C1: God is incoherent
P1: Anything with contradictory attributes cannot exist
P2: God has contradictory attributes
C1: Therefore, the God cannot exist.
In philosophy there are several types of entities: (1) actual entities that exist (such as humans, cats, apes, etc.); (2) entities that could exist but do not (such as a fire breathing dragon); and (3) impossible entities that cannot exist due to their contradictory nature (a married bachelor, for example). I contend that the Christian concept of God is utterly and hopelessly incoherent.
Subpoint A: All-Knowing vs. All-Powerful
God is said to be both all-knowing and all-powerful. This leads us to an absurd contradiction. Since God has perfect knowledge about what will happen in the future, God cannot act in anyway contrary to that perfect knowledge. If I had perfect knowledge about tomorrow, for example, then nothing I can do will change that. Thus, a being with perfect knowledge cannot act freely contradicting the idea of an all-powerful god; indeed, the idea of any being with perfect knowledge negates any possible
Subpoint B: The word “God” is incoherent
If I ask 100 people on the street to define God or ask them what God is, I will get 100 different answers. This is hugely problematic for the Theistic position. God is supposedly unknowable and indefinable, yet we define God as having properties of being all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving, present everywhere, and transcendent. For something to be unknowable and indefinable, the God of classical Theism simply assumes far too much. Thus, the most rational view is theological noncognitivism.
C2: The Problem of Evil
P1: If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god exists, then evil does not.
P2: There is evil in the world.
C1: Therefore, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god does not exist.
The Problem of Evil is one of the oldest arguments against the existence of an all-loving deity. Indeed, Epicurus noted: “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
I’m sure would have no problem accepting premise 1. What about premise 2? Unnecessary evil undoubtedly exists through no fault of our own. For example, in WWII over 75 million people were killed in the worst genocide and bloodiest war in human history [1]. If God were, in fact, all-good, then why didn’t He step in to stop this evil? On a biological level, when DNA replicates itself, it often makes serious errors that cause suffering and serious deformities. Neurofibromatosis, for example, causes tumors to appear all over your skin [2]. If God designed this, then He did a Godawful (pun intended) job.
C3: Atheism better predicts our universe
Both Theism and Atheism makes predictions about what we should find in our universe. If Atheism were true, then we should find a naturalistic cause of the universe and life. As it turns out, we do. The Big Bang Theory and Evolution are both naturalistic causes of the universe and life respectively and are well-documented and well supported. Paul Draper put this into a nice syllogism form [3]:
P1: We know that E is true.
P2: Naturalism has much more predictive power with respect to E than theism does (i.e., E's truth is antecedently many times more probable given naturalism than it is given theism).
P3: Naturalism is more plausible than theism (i.e., naturalism is more probable than theism independent of all evidence).
C1: So, other evidence held equal, theism is very probably false.
In this case, let E = Evolution.
Before I present evidence for evolution, I want to first provide some definitions:
- Theory:
A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can
incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. [4]
- Species:
A group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature. In
this sense, a species is the biggest gene pool possible under natural
conditions. [5]
- Evolution:
Genetic change over many generations ultimately result in the emergence of new
in different species [6]
- Microevolution:
The change in the frequency of alleles over generations [7]
- Macroevolution:
Evolution above the species level. Macroevolution encompasses the grandest
trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the
radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we
see when we look at the large-scale history of life. [8]
Proof 1: Fused Chromosome #2
If evolution were true, humans and other great apes share a common ancestor, then either humans have a fused chromosome or chimps and other great apes had a split chromosome. We found that human chromosome no 2 is fused, just as the Theory of Evolution predicts. Daniel Fairbanks notes:
“The DNA sequence at that site (chromosome 2) has 158 copies of the six-base-pair repeat found in telomeres in the middle of the chromosome 2 right where we expect these repeats to be if human chromosome 2 arose when two ancestral chromosomes fused with each other head-to-head at their telomeres.” [9]
Proof 2: Speciation
If evolution were true, then we should observe the emergence of new species. Indeed, that is the very definition of evolution! It turns out that we have observed speciation no less than a dozen times [10]. In fact, creationist themselves admit that speciation is real. Answers in Genesis, for example, uses speciation to make all the animals fit in Noah’s Ark! [11] On a hilarious note, they try so hard to deny that it is actually evolution and they try their best to rationalize it
Proof 3: Transitional Fossils
Creationists love to claim that there are no transitional fossils and there are still “missing links.” Wikipedia notes a list of over 100 known transitional fossils [12]. One of my favorite fossils is Tiktaalik. What makes this fossil so fascinating is that it was predicted before it was found! It was in the exact geological layer that they predicted it to be [13].
Another great example of transitional fossils is that of whales. The fossil record is rich with that demonstrates step by step on how whales evolved from an aquatic mammal. [14]
This just scratches the surface.
I now send the debate over to con!
Sources
1. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldhistory2/chapter/casualties-of-world-war-ii/
2. https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/neurofibromatosis-type-1
3. https://infidels.org/library/modern/paul_draper/serious.html
4. https://ncse.com/library-resource/definitions-fact-theory-law-scientific-work
5. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_41
6. Fairbanks, D. Evolving: The Human Effect and Why it Matters. Page 16
7. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evoscales_02
8. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_48
9. Fairbanks page 137
10. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
11. https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/speciation-yes-evolution-no/
12. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
13. Neil Shubin: Your Inner Fish: A Journey Into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body
14. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03
If evolution were true, then we should observe the emergence of new species. Indeed, that is the very definition of evolution! It turns out that we have observed speciation no less than a dozen times [10]. In fact, creationist themselves admit that speciation is real. Answers in Genesis, for example, uses speciation to make all the animals fit in Noah’s Ark! [11] On a hilarious note, they try so hard to deny that it is actually evolution and they try their best to rationalize it
Proof 3: Transitional Fossils
Creationists love to claim that there are no transitional fossils and there are still “missing links.” Wikipedia notes a list of over 100 known transitional fossils [12]. One of my favorite fossils is Tiktaalik. What makes this fossil so fascinating is that it was predicted before it was found! It was in the exact geological layer that they predicted it to be [13].
Another great example of transitional fossils is that of whales. The fossil record is rich with that demonstrates step by step on how whales evolved from an aquatic mammal. [14]
This just scratches the surface.
I now send the debate over to con!
Sources
1. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldhistory2/chapter/casualties-of-world-war-ii/
2. https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/neurofibromatosis-type-1
3. https://infidels.org/library/modern/paul_draper/serious.html
4. https://ncse.com/library-resource/definitions-fact-theory-law-scientific-work
5. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_41
6. Fairbanks, D. Evolving: The Human Effect and Why it Matters. Page 16
7. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evoscales_02
8. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_48
9. Fairbanks page 137
10. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
11. https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/speciation-yes-evolution-no/
12. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
13. Neil Shubin: Your Inner Fish: A Journey Into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body
14. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03
Thank you, Virtuoso, for allowing me to debate this topic with you. I am more of an agnostic at this time, but I do love a good theism debate!
The resolution is as follows: ”atheism is more probable than theism.”
I am supporting, as per description, “the God of the four O’s.”
Given these facts, I will make four observations before I begin my contentions:
Indeed, there are many instances of brain damaged individuals, or individuals in comatose who have had activity within their consciousness.
While more research is required, this is solid evidence that the consciousness just might be separated, immaterial and spiritual in nature, as opposed to being solely dependent on physical factors.
I am supporting, as per description, “the God of the four O’s.”
- I needn’t show that theism is immensely probable, I must only show that the two positions could rationally be considered equal or more in probability. Keep this in mind, judges: if you are not thoroughly convinced that atheism is the only rational explanation, then by default I win the debate.
- Classical theism is not mutually exclusive with evolutionary cosmological theory. Evolutionary cosmological theory and theism do not contradict one another. To say otherwise, as Virtuoso implies, is an example of false dichotomy.
- Occam’s Razor states that that which has the fewest adjustable parameters (least assumptions) should be chosen. Things that can only exist with innumerable adjustable parameters cannot be labeled “probable” under Occam’s Razor.
- There is a saying employed by many atheists: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Objectively speaking, to posit that the universe spontaneously created itself, inflated at speeds 10^1,649 times faster than the speed of light, and then eventually resulted in every living thing on Earth originating from an organic soup in a desolate lava wasteland 4 billion years ago is an extraordinary claim. Pro must be able to give undeniable proof that this was pure naturalism, or be subject to lose this round simply because of vast improbability. On the flip side, theism posits a mechanism by which these claims are made much less extraordinary: a God controlled these events.
Immaterial truths such as consciousness and morality are evidence of an immaterial creator: God. Indeed, how can immaterial truths exist apart from a metaphysically ultimate being?
A. Consciousness
Consciousness is beyond the understanding of science. Indeed, humanity has not been able to create nor understand consciousness, whether it be because we lack the skill to create or understand the brain components necessary or because the consciousness is truly immaterial. Either way, it is a testament to a creator that such a complex phenomenon is present in us; such that each individual has their own tailored consciousness that reaches beyond the physical human condition and human comprehension.
B. Morality
All of humanity is subject to a sense of morality, or moral law. This moral law is objectively true.
And so, without a proper naturalistic explanation, it must be true that morality originates from a metaphysical source. Thus, if God (the metaphysical lawgiver) does not exist, then objective moral values and duties can not exist.
Whatever exists has to have had a cause. Something does not spontaneously appear from nothing. Given this premise, and given that the universe evidently exists, the conclusion that the universe must have had a cause is the only rational one.
Ask any scientist with merit, and they will praise the laws of physics as the constants that dictate the universe in an orderly manner.
Contention 3: Intelligent Design and Biogenesis
He goes on to say:
Science has no grasp on what life is, nor how to create it. To expect to have arrived to the answer on Earth by chance from a primordial soup is nonsense, even if you give trillions of “tries” in the form of billions of years. It is impossible to create life with our labs. Things we can create in labs often do not appear in nature, not the other way around.
Again: the one logical assumption that there is a God is vastly more probable than the infinite line of illogical assumptions that one has to make to otherwise justify pure naturalist theory.
Round 2
Thank you for your speedy reply. I will now rebut my
opponent's case.
I. Immaterial Realities
A. Consciousness
First and foremost, this argument commits the fallacy of "I don't know; therefore God." It is true that we don't know much about consciousness yet or how it works, but there is no need to jump to God. But it gets worse. Let's look at con's source. Con's source is called Bahai Teachings. As its name suggests, it is a website dedicated to the teachings of the Baha'i faith. Indeed, their "About Us" page states this [1]:
I. Immaterial Realities
A. Consciousness
First and foremost, this argument commits the fallacy of "I don't know; therefore God." It is true that we don't know much about consciousness yet or how it works, but there is no need to jump to God. But it gets worse. Let's look at con's source. Con's source is called Bahai Teachings. As its name suggests, it is a website dedicated to the teachings of the Baha'i faith. Indeed, their "About Us" page states this [1]:
Welcome to BahaiTeachings.org! We helped create this platform so individuals could share their personal perspectives and insights as they strive to implement the Baha’i teachings in their everyday lives. Therefore, the opinions expressed here do not represent any official views of the Baha’i Faith and BahaiTeachings.org is not an official website of the Baha’i Faith.
Thus his source is suspect. But it gets worse, let's look at
the article he cited. The very first thing that the article cites is a passage
from the Baha'i holy text -- which is not science. Moreover, one of the
scientists cited in the article has long been discredited. Dr. Alexander had a
long history of medical malpractices and was in need to reinvent his image [2].
Professor Jerry Coyne writes this [3]:
In sum, the story looks like a sham, confected by a once-brilliant but now failed neurosurgeon who reclaims his time in the spotlight by pretending that he saw heaven. He may indeed have had such visions, but the story around them—about his parachute episode, the weather, his call to God, and the fact that his brain wasn’t working—are crucial to his story, and they don’t stand up to Dittrich’s examination.
Now let's look at Jill Bolte Taylor. Taylor's book makes no
claims of NDEs or mind being a non-physical property. If you look at her
website, you see this [4]:
Based upon her academic training and personal experience, Jill helps others not only rebuild their brains from trauma, but helps those of us with normal brains better understand how we can ‘tend the garden of our minds’ to maximize our quality of life. Jill pushes the envelope in our understanding about how we can consciously influence the neural circuitry underlying what we think, how we feel, and how we react to life’s circumstances. Jill teaches us through her own example how we might more readily exercise our right hemispheric circuitry with the intention of helping all human beings become more humane. “I believe the more time we spend running the deep inner peace circuitry of our right brain, then the more peace we will project into the world, and ultimately the more peace we will have on the planet.”
None of this supports Con's claim that the mind is
immaterial.
B. Morality
I will first bring up the famous dilemma: "Is morality good because it is already good, or because God says it is good." Indeed, this dilemma I believe completely refutes the moral argument. If it is already good, then no god and no holy texts are needed; if it is good because God says it is good, then God could command us to commit atrocities. Furthermore, which "God" are we talking about here? The "God" of the Bible that says stuff like this:
II. KCA
Con's KCA goes against his position. Con says "Whatever exists has to have had a cause. Something does not spontaneously appear from nothing. Given this premise, and given that the universe evidently exists, the conclusion that the universe must have had a cause is the only rational one." If this is the case, then God also has a cause of his existence. So, what exactly caused God? If you say that God has no need for a cause, then your argument commits the fallacy of special pleading and is thus soundly refuted.
III. ID and Abiogenesis
I already touched on this point in my third contention in the last round. In that contention, I mainly focused on the issue of biological evolution. Since my opponent brings up the physical universe, I think I’ll bring up some points I find interesting.
First, let’s consider the mere size of the universe. The universe is 13 billion light-years across. We have found over 100 billion galaxies [8] and over 2,000 known exoplanets [9]. One must pause to wonder why an intelligent designer would place that much effort into crafting a place for humans. Moreover, the universe is rather lethal to life. Gamma-Ray bursts, for example, release more energy in 10 seconds than what the sun will put out in its 10 billion + year lifespan [10]. These bursts are so deadly that they could cause a global extinction event and may already have done so [11]. Black holes are also abundant in the universe [12]. These objects are so massive that not even light can escape its gravitational pull. This is not the work of an intelligent designer. Indeed, Richard Carrier noted in his essay Why I am Not a Christian that the Universe is, in fact, fine-tuned for the creation of black holes! [13]. This fits perfectly in line with an atheistic worldview. He further writes:
B. Morality
I will first bring up the famous dilemma: "Is morality good because it is already good, or because God says it is good." Indeed, this dilemma I believe completely refutes the moral argument. If it is already good, then no god and no holy texts are needed; if it is good because God says it is good, then God could command us to commit atrocities. Furthermore, which "God" are we talking about here? The "God" of the Bible that says stuff like this:
- "See,
the day of the Lord is coming — a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger.
. . . I will put an end to the arrogance of the haughty. . . . Their
infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be
looted and their wives violated." (Isaiah 13:9–16 NIV)
- "And
if ye will not for all this hearken unto me, but walk contrary unto me;
Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will
chastise you seven times for your sins. And ye shall eat the flesh of your
sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat." (Leviticus
26:27–29 King James Version)
- "O
daughter Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall they be who pay you back
what you have done to us! Happy shall they be who take your little ones
and dash them against the rock!"(Psalm 137:8–9 NRSV)
- Quran
(2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah
Heareth and knoweth all things."
- Quran
(2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it.
But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that
ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know
not."
- Quran
(3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the
Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had
sent no authority".
II. KCA
Con's KCA goes against his position. Con says "Whatever exists has to have had a cause. Something does not spontaneously appear from nothing. Given this premise, and given that the universe evidently exists, the conclusion that the universe must have had a cause is the only rational one." If this is the case, then God also has a cause of his existence. So, what exactly caused God? If you say that God has no need for a cause, then your argument commits the fallacy of special pleading and is thus soundly refuted.
III. ID and Abiogenesis
I already touched on this point in my third contention in the last round. In that contention, I mainly focused on the issue of biological evolution. Since my opponent brings up the physical universe, I think I’ll bring up some points I find interesting.
First, let’s consider the mere size of the universe. The universe is 13 billion light-years across. We have found over 100 billion galaxies [8] and over 2,000 known exoplanets [9]. One must pause to wonder why an intelligent designer would place that much effort into crafting a place for humans. Moreover, the universe is rather lethal to life. Gamma-Ray bursts, for example, release more energy in 10 seconds than what the sun will put out in its 10 billion + year lifespan [10]. These bursts are so deadly that they could cause a global extinction event and may already have done so [11]. Black holes are also abundant in the universe [12]. These objects are so massive that not even light can escape its gravitational pull. This is not the work of an intelligent designer. Indeed, Richard Carrier noted in his essay Why I am Not a Christian that the Universe is, in fact, fine-tuned for the creation of black holes! [13]. This fits perfectly in line with an atheistic worldview. He further writes:
Even if a God made this universe, it could not be the Christian God because no God who wanted us to know the truth would conceal it by making a universe that looked exactly like a universe with no God in it. The simple fact is that Christianity does not predict our universe, but a completely different one. Atheism, however, predicts exactly the kind of universe we find ourselves in. So the nature of the universe is another failed prediction, confirming our previous conclusion that Christianity is false.
As far as the origins of life itself, we are not quite sure.
But once again, “Godditid” is a pathetic answer.
Conclusion
If we apply Occam’s razor, it is abundantly clear that an intelligent designer did not create our universe.
Sources
1. https://bahaiteachings.org/about-us
2. https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/interviews/a23248/the-prophet/
3. https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/01/06/eben-alexanders-bogus-trip-to-heaven/
4. http://drjilltaylor.com/book.html
6. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2018/08/orca-mourning-calf-killer-whale-northwest-news/
7. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/do-animals-experience-grief-180970124/
8. https://www.space.com/25303-how-many-galaxies-are-in-the-universe.html
9. https://www.space.com/17738-exoplanets.html
10. http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/G/Gamma+Ray+Burst
11. https://www.nature.com/news/2003/030922/full/news030922-7.html
12. https://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/abundant-black-holes.html
13. https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/whynotchristian.html
Conclusion
If we apply Occam’s razor, it is abundantly clear that an intelligent designer did not create our universe.
Sources
1. https://bahaiteachings.org/about-us
2. https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/interviews/a23248/the-prophet/
3. https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/01/06/eben-alexanders-bogus-trip-to-heaven/
4. http://drjilltaylor.com/book.html
6. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2018/08/orca-mourning-calf-killer-whale-northwest-news/
7. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/do-animals-experience-grief-180970124/
8. https://www.space.com/25303-how-many-galaxies-are-in-the-universe.html
9. https://www.space.com/17738-exoplanets.html
10. http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/G/Gamma+Ray+Burst
11. https://www.nature.com/news/2003/030922/full/news030922-7.html
12. https://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/abundant-black-holes.html
13. https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/whynotchristian.html
After discussing with Virtuoso, we agreed upon waiving the next two speeches and resuming as planned. I have had to deal with huge, unanticipated schoolwork as of late and unfortunately couldn’t get a response written.
That said, I waive.
Round 3
Waive per agreement
Thank you Virtuoso for being a good sport about my needing to waive the last round! That said, let's dive in.
Here is where my problem lies: I am required by the description to agree with the classical theistic God of the four O’s, yet I fail to see the relevance of this requirement in this debate.
Belief in the existence of a divine being, the definition of theism, does not entail that one must agree to a certain set of characteristics of that deity. It is abusive in nature to require me to prove the omnibenevolence of God in order to prove his existence, correct?
We can argue whether you think it is moral for a deity to “allow evil,” but that has no relationship with whether one created the universe.
Now, there are three characteristics of the four O’s that are a given:
Omnipotence is a given when you are able to spontaneously create a universe with laws of reason and physics ex nihilo, correct?
Omnipresence is given when you can observe creation as an artist does his painting, unbound by space, correct?
Omniscience is a given when your observations, direction and instruction are unbound by the flow of time (as you created time itself), correct?
However, omnibenevolence is not given and is an unfair thing to make me defend.
That said, I believe it fair and fitting for judges to drop the following two points made by my opponent:
Subpoint B: The word “God” is incoherent
My opponent’s claim in sum:
“God is unknowable and indefinable and subject to large dissention. Since people on the street do not agree on his characteristics, how is it that you can argue these characteristics of God outlined in classical theism?”
C2: The Problem of Evil
My opponent’s argument in sum:
“If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god exists, then evil does not. Since evil exists, the God of classical theism cannot.”
Now the biological point given is relevant, and I will respond to it, but the first premise is not.
Looking at these two points, one must realize that whether God fits the definition of omnibenevolence is of no relevance to the debate over whether a God exists.
Now let’s move on:
In the fallacy of hasty generalization, my opponent has made the following unsubstantiated premise: “anything with contradictory attributes cannot exist.” Not so fast!
If the creator of the universe invented the laws of reason, what then is the limitation on his ability to defy them? An artist is not confined to the lines he paints in his canvas, instead he exists outside and able to exercise free will upon it: creating new lines, erasing others, or defying them completely.
Next, the notion of omniscience and omnipotence being contradictory in the first place is reliant upon several false premises.
False premise 2: God changes his mind.
A premise that my opponent relies on is that God should be able to change his mind.
This is a false view of God, as we see that God is immutable and eternal. God does not change his mind simply because he does not change at all. Thus, this proposed contradiction is not based upon a valid circumstance.
False premise 3: God’s will is a limitation.
God’s will is not inherently a limitation. Suppose, being presented with options A or B and being omniscient, God knows that A rather than B is what he wills to bring about. Does his choosing A mean he could not have chosen B? Not at all, God COULD have chosen B. He simply did not out of his perfect knowledge.
False premise 4: God’s action in the future is reliant upon his decisions in the past.
The very nature of this argument is based upon the false premise that God's action aligning with his will is a limitation of some sort.
In order for my opponent’s argument to be true, God must make a decision at one point in time and thus be confined to carry out that decision on a later date. Yet, there is no temporal gap between a transcendent God’s willing and his acting. Rather, God is altogether outside time. He wills and acts simultaneously. Therefore, this argument is reliant upon false premises.
Contention 2 Claim: “Bad design” undermines the notion of a God.
An initial response to my opponent’s first two contentions (C1 + C2):
The resolution is as follows: ”atheism is more probable than theism.”
Subpoint A Claim: God cannot be omniscient and omnipotent simultaneously.
False premise 1: “anything with contradictory attributes cannot exist.”
If the creator of the universe invented the laws of reason, what then is the limitation on his ability to defy them? An artist is not confined to the lines he paints in his canvas, instead he exists outside and able to exercise free will upon it: creating new lines, erasing others, or defying them completely.
In order for my opponent’s argument to be true, God must make a decision at one point in time and thus be confined to carry out that decision on a later date. Yet, there is no temporal gap between a transcendent God’s willing and his acting. Rather, God is altogether outside time. He wills and acts simultaneously. Therefore, this argument is reliant upon false premises.
False Premise: Mistakes in DNA means that God is a bad designer.
- We must recognize how amazing the proofreading systems for DNA replication is. When taking into account the massive task of continually replicating billions of nucleotides, one becomes amazed that our complex bodies do not make more mistakes than they do, instead of dismayed at how many get past the proofreading. Enzymes make mistakes at a rate of about 1 per every 100,000 nucleotides. During proofreading, DNA polymerase enzymes recognize this and replace the incorrectly inserted nucleotide so that replication can continue. Proofreading fixes about 99% of these types of errors. (1)
- Secondly, we must sit and admire the system that evolution certainly could not have achieved without a God. Let me reiterate something from my constructive:
For a singular gene to arrive by chance, as Creation 1, no 1 (June 1978): 9-10, explains: “let us use as many sets as there are atoms in the universe. Let us give chance the unbelievable number of attempts of eight trillion tries per second in each set! At this speed on average it would take 10^147 years to obtain just one stable gene.”
Contention 3 Claim: Atheism better predicts our universe
False Premise 1: Cosmological theory and theism are mutually exclusive.
Evolutionary cosmological theory and theism do not contradict one another. To say otherwise, as Virtuoso implies, is an example of false dichotomy. False Premise 2: Naturalism has much more predictive power with respect to cosmological/evolutionary theory than theism does.
- An existence without a cause is absurd.
- Naturalism posits that everything appeared ex nihilo.
- Therefore, naturalism is inherently absurd.
On the flip side, theism makes no such fallacy. Once again: a timeless, metaphysical being (in other words, having no beginning nor end) has no trouble providing the mechanisms to create the universe. This one logical assumption that there is a God is vastly more probable than the infinite line of illogical assumptions that one has to make to otherwise justify pure naturalist theory.
Round 4
I totally forgot about this debate and thus I am waiving the last round. Please vote on teh arguments presented
It is unfortunate that Virt forgot about this debate. I will defend as agreed originally.
I. Immaterial Realities
A. Consciousness
Judges, notice how much my opponent hounds on this argument and the argument on morality. All other arguments seem to be quite neglected. Ironically, the arguments my opponent focuses most on are the ones that do not matter! The points about the formation of the universe are more important than speculation, yes?
My opponent jumps on one thing in particular:"I don't know; therefore God."
This is a pretty blatant strawman fallacy. “Goddidit” (This thing that we do not understand is evidence for God.) is NOT a fallacy when the very nature of a thing is immeasurable to science. Without being measurable by science, there is no way to explain certain phenomena WITHOUT God. In these cases, it is not “Goddidit” that is a fallacy, but instead the fallacy of indefinitely waiting for science to (never) answer your question when the answer is right in front of your nose.
For brevity in my constructive, I did not elaborate much about how the nature of consciousness is immeasurable insofar as giving what I thought were cool examples of this concept: the hard problem of consciousness.
My opponent simply discredits my source. Fine, but that does not discredit the argument as the essential components are within the public domain of science. It does not require a source to argue this, but let me cite well-respected atheist Michael Shermer who even acknowledges this:
A. Consciousness
Judges, notice how much my opponent hounds on this argument and the argument on morality. All other arguments seem to be quite neglected. Ironically, the arguments my opponent focuses most on are the ones that do not matter! The points about the formation of the universe are more important than speculation, yes?
This is a pretty blatant strawman fallacy. “Goddidit” (This thing that we do not understand is evidence for God.) is NOT a fallacy when the very nature of a thing is immeasurable to science. Without being measurable by science, there is no way to explain certain phenomena WITHOUT God. In these cases, it is not “Goddidit” that is a fallacy, but instead the fallacy of indefinitely waiting for science to (never) answer your question when the answer is right in front of your nose.
“The hard problem of consciousness is represented by the qualitative experiences (qualia) of what it is like to be something. It is the first-person subjective experience of the world through the senses and brain of the organism. It is not possible to know what it is like to be a bat (in philosopher Thomas Nagel's famous thought experiment), because if you altered your brain and body from humanoid to batoid, you would just be a bat, not a human knowing what it feels like to be a bat....By definition, only I can know my first-person experience of being me, and the same is true for you, bats and bugs.”
In other words, consciousness is by nature an unknowable reality, and that makes God a whole lot more probable under Occam’s Razor.
“Is morality good because it is already good, or because God says it is good? Indeed, this dilemma I believe completely refutes the moral argument. If it is already good, then no god and no holy texts are needed; if it is good because God says it is good, then God could command us to commit atrocities.”
Let me quote Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati:
“This dilemma can simply be turned around on the atheist: Do you approve of an action because it is good, or is it good because you approve of it? If the latter, then your moral standard seems to be subjective and arbitrary, so you complain about God’s alleged arbitrariness. And if the former, then you are back to explaining where this objective moral standard comes from. As shown above, evolution can’t provide this, so the above Divine Nature Theory is back on the table.
Similarly for social theories of good—is something good because society makes a rule about it, or does society make a rule about it because it’s good?”
The essence of the theistic argument would be that since God is the definition of perfect goodness, all morality comes from his nature. In this way, the theist can avoid the quandary my opponent proposes, yet the atheist is soundly trapped and refuted.
Surely, my opponent can cite Bible verses out-of-context and paint an unloving God, but I do not believe that the fallible human is in any position to make judgments of God’s morality. Further, my opponent does not respond to questions I presented in my case, such as:
Occam’s Razor is the friend of the theist.
II. KCA
My opponent’s quote:
- what makes aggressive psychopathy non-rational?
- Why isn’t the sole purpose of every person to fulfill all in their self-interest?
- where is the rationality in sacrificing oneself for another?
- why would altruism exist at all in a world devoid of objective morality?
My only conclusion is that my opponent does not respond because he simply can’t. In other words: he stands soundly refuted and can not use his position to answer any of these quandaries, whereas the theist has no trouble at all.
Occam’s Razor is the friend of the theist.
My opponent’s quote:
“If this is the case, then God also has a cause of his existence. So, what exactly caused God? If you say that God has no need for a cause, then your argument commits the fallacy of special pleading and is thus soundly refuted.”
Tut tut tut, not so fast! There has been no “special pleading,” as the very nature of God versus the physical universe is vastly different and incomparable. The character of a “metaphysically ultimate deity” is that of an eternal, immutable, time-transcendent being. God does not require a creator. While counter-intuitive, it is more plausible than a physical universe (in which the first law of thermodynamics applies) spontaneously creating itself.
Once again, Occam’s Razor is the friend of the theist.
“One must pause to wonder why an intelligent designer would place that much effort into crafting a place for humans.”
You are implying that an omnipotent being gets tired.
“Moreover, the universe is rather lethal to life.”
God displaying his power does not mean that he malicious in intent. While the rest of the universe may be deadly, Earth is in a safe position. Perhaps God is trying to contrast his power with his love in the way that the Earth is shielded by Jupiter from asteroids, or how the Earth is in the narrow habitable zone in the sun’s orbit.
- If protons were 0.2 percent heavier, they would decay into neutrons, destabilizing atoms.
- the chance of finding such an atom as Carbon through the blind forces of nature would be less than 1 part in 10^40000.
- 10^50 blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik's cube.
- it would take 10^147 years to obtain just one stable gene.
Once again: my opponent does not respond because he simply can’t. In other words: he stands soundly refuted and can not use his position to answer any of these quandaries, whereas the theist has no trouble at all.
Once again: It is impossible to create life with our labs. Things we can create in labs often do not appear in nature, not the other way around.
And so, when utilizing the rational mind and applying Occam’s Razor, it is absolute madness to believe the blind forces of nature arrived at current conclusions with probabilities of these extremities without a guiding process.
Thank you Virtuoso, and to any judges who have made it this far!
Agreed
Yes, I think that is fair. If we were to award conduct based on rhetorical statements debate would be much more difficult.
I agree with that. The COC says
In order to award conduct points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:
Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
Demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate
Compare each debater's conduct from the debate
Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic. In the case of awarding conduct points solely on the basis of forfeits, there is an exception to these steps: a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points (or explains their decision not to award argument points in a manner which meets the argument points voting standards).
One or two examples of less-than-perfect conduct would not be sufficient for me to award a conduct point
In my opinion, "good conduct" should be understood to mean "non-abusive." In this case, non-abusive means no ad hominem attacks (unwarranted attacks based on personhood, not topic.)
For example, saying it is "madness" to BELIEVE IN something after giving a statistic about WHY it is madness to believe that thing while still knowing that statistic is true is understood to be rhetoric for judges, not abusive. This is because it is NOT ad hominem: it is directly related to the topic, not just personhood, and it is also warranted with evidence.
Now, saying "you are utterly mad" IS abusive, because it is ad hominem and unwarranted.
"I struggle to see any semblance of bad conduct from either side. "
I differ. I also did point it out in the comments if you think they were not bad conduct on either side. Please one at a time if you can as in give me the best example of your complaint in what I said in the comments and hopefully I will address it.
"A debate is meant to be a debate, not a hair-braiding session."
I don't get it. Maybe it is not supposed to be a friendly experience? If that is the case then there shouldn't even be a conduct point to vote on. Given there is one I will vote on it. Ask bsh1 to change it if you feel so strongly about it.
I did tally what I considered bad conduct from each side then as a whole made my decision. Was this wrong or something?
"The problem is so long as they are not calling the arguer themselves pathetic, it's not so much a conduct violation as it is just a glaring weakness in their case."
I differ on that because we don't know who someone is on the inside so what we have to go on is our interpretation of what they have said. Even if I don't take this stance it would still ad-homs since it wasn't addressing the arguments instead calling the argument something.
"One suggestion I'll make is writing RFDs in a word editor, and copy/paste segments in reverse order (the end gets posted first). It makes long RFDs much easier to read."
Okay I'll do that next time.
I struggle to see any semblance of bad conduct from either side. A debate is meant to be a debate, not a hair-braiding session. I have great respect for Virtuoso, he beat me fair and square with this topic. Perhaps we could try another one sometime, Virt? I'm more of a PFD debater than a philosophical one, anyways.
I get annoyed at certain weak bits of arguments, like calling someone else's argument pathetic... The problem is so long as they are not calling the arguer themselves pathetic, it's not so much a conduct violation as it is just a glaring weakness in their case.
One suggestion I'll make is writing RFDs in a word editor, and copy/paste segments in reverse order (the end gets posted first). It makes long RFDs much easier to read.
How about now?
If it wasn't clear Con was less conducive so Pro gets the conduct point.
"And so, when utilizing the rational mind and applying Occam’s Razor, it is absolute madness to believe the blind forces of nature arrived at current conclusions with probabilities of these extremities without a guiding process."
Calling someone absolutely mad is not cordial. This could've easily been removed given your arguments don't require this.
Bad conduct 8 christopher_best
"After discussing with Virtuoso, we agreed upon waiving the next two speeches and resuming as planned. I have had to deal with huge, unanticipated schoolwork as of late and unfortunately couldn’t get a response written."
Given this neither of them did anything in Con's round 2 and Pro's round 3. This is bad conduct by Con because they weren't able to schedule something and it was good conduct by Pro to simply waive the round as well. As we soon see later Con didn't do the same with Pro.
Bad conduct 2 christopher_best
"I am required by the description to agree with the classical theistic God of the four O’s, yet I fail to see the relevance of this requirement in this debate."
Con decided to bring this up 2 rounds after he accepted it by saying this "I am supporting, as per description, “the God of the four O’s.” " If it wasn't clear changing your mind on what you are going to do in a debate is bad conduct.
Bad conduct 3 christopher_best
"I totally forgot about this debate and thus I am waiving the last round. Please vote on teh arguments presented "
Virtuoso forfeited but christopher_best didn't waive as well so basically Pro accepted a waive from Con due to time constraints but Con won't do the same for Pro.
Bad conduct 2 Virtuoso
Bad conduct 4 christopher_best
"but let me cite well-respected atheist Michael Shermer who even acknowledges this: "
This is a supporting argument given in the final round. The problem is that Pro has no chance to respond to new evidence.
Bad conduct 5 christopher_best
"Let me quote Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati:"
Yet again bringing in new evidence that was not given previously. No way for Pro to argue against it.
Bad conduct 6 christopher_best
"Tut tut tut, not so fast!"
I consider this demeaning language to Pro's arguments.
Bad conduct 7 christopher_best
Conduct since what I said earlier wasn't enough
"The Problem of Evil is one of the oldest arguments against the existence of an all-loving deity. Indeed, Epicurus noted: “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”"
Not cordial because the point could've been made with less questions while also not simply repeating similar questions over and over again. If you expect Con to answer this it is unfair. If it wasn't supposed to be answered you admit this was persuasive rhetoric aimed to pander to the crowd instead of being informative.
Bad conduct 1 Virtuoso
"I needn’t show that theism is immensely probable, I must only show that the two positions could rationally be considered equal or more in probability. Keep this in mind, judges: if you are not thoroughly convinced that atheism is the only rational explanation, then by default I win the debate. "
Trying to change the burden of proof even though they have accepted it. A better thing would've been to ask Virtuoso to change the format so that both of you are not challenging instead debating the topic at hand before the debate started.
Bad conduct 1 christopher_best
"But once again, “Godditid” is a pathetic answer."
Wasn't needed since Pro can demonstrate it to be the case without the need of name-calling a reduction of an argument.
I can't mod votes on my own debate so *shrug*
Hi there - your vote didn't get handled in time. The biggest issue I see in your vote is the conduct point:
Virtuoso made the better arguments which can be seen above.
christopher_best was less cordial.
Virtuoso gets the argument point and the conduct point from me.
The conduct point isn't sufficient. What is meant by less cordial, and more importantly, how it is excessive, frequent, or when it makes the debate tobecome incoherent or toxic.
Thus your vote would have been removed if I was modding it.
Is my vote sufficient?
To summarize:
Virtuoso made the better arguments which can be seen above.
christopher_best was less cordial.
Virtuoso gets the argument point and the conduct point from me.
Con then quotes a question about God reason for creating life to it being about God being tired. Guess a misreading of what was said or something. Then Con decides to counter a point about life being lethal that God is displaying its power without bad intentions. Given that this hinges on the morality question and since Con decided to say whatever God wills is moral in the last round it does fit but doesn’t make it well placed.
Again Con decided to well not show the best of words with essentially saying Pro made no arguments but I did. It wasn’t that bad of a comment nor does it for me make his argument more convincing so I am moving on.
Con quote a comments that I didn’t read. Upon reading it Pro has also been less cordial. Even so if I count how many times either side has been less than cordial Pro will still have the conduct point. Con also said it is impossible for life to exist randomly or in labs. Not developed.
I didn’t understand the last 2 lines before the congratulations so this ends my debate summary. Only talking about the arguments and conduct. Please bsh1, Ramshutu, Virtuoso don’t make me do the others.
christopher_best Round 4:
Starts off with calling out the argument of ignorance as a strawman and used science not being able to measure it as a justification? I find this not convincing because it is a non-sequitur. The argument of ignorance was used due to the lackluster justification not because science isn’t philosophy.
Con accepts the criticism Pro gave of his source and then gives a quote of an atheist. He then uses the quote to state since consciousness is unknowable God is more probable explanation. This yet again is not explained which require explanation because it isn’t inherent to the argument.
Next my opponent decides to not directly address the critiques brought by Pro. Instead stated a quote then decided to make another argument. This means Pro’s claims went unchallenged while Con twice now brought about new information which could’ve been brought up earlier given 700 characters were left in Con’s round but d decided to bring up supporting arguments in the last round. I find this to be unfair to Pro since he had no chance to rebut it and having space in earlier rounds give no real good justification to do so now.
Con starts off the KCA by being less than cordial. If it wasn’t clear already even though Pro forfeited Round 4 Con has shown more than enough to present his arguments in a less than formal manner. It would be something if Pro did the same but apart from the paragraph of questions nothing else was less than cordial. Again Con decides to say no to Pro’s arguments without explaining it. Simply saying God is not physical doesn’t help like in earlier rounds because for people to understand how God is simply different it would require a comparison or something that helps people understand. I know Con is a theist in this discussion but they need to present in a way where they made a worthwhile effort in explaining their side. I didn’t see that here nor in most earlier arguments.
The second premise in contention 3 was really bad. A rhetorical question was asked. 3 lines saying he would contend but didn’t then finishes it off with Occam’s Razor. The problem of course is that it needed more than we can’t answers these things therefore God. It was also kind of mean to Pro’s position which nudges the conduct point to Pro since the same level of ad-hom was not shown.
Premise 3 in contention 3 was kind of hypocritical given if we consider Pro’s side to be involved with creatio ex nihilo then the theist must also be given when God created something it would have to come from nothing unless Con decides to state God is something. What created that something would be the most likely question asked which I don’t think Con would be accepting. Even if it is accepted that God is timeless and metaphysical it would still have to engage in something out of nothing.
Virutoso Round 4:
Virtuoso forfeited. This would either mean the conduct point is a draw or still barely on Pro’s side.
christopher_best Round 3:
Instead of actually arguing against the points being made he instead simply rejects an attribute to God. I didn’t find it very convincing because they didn’t really state why it was unfair instead just stated it was.
Next Con decides to argue against contradictions are not contradictions. The argument is not good given what we do see is not contradictions so it is very difficult to make a comparison so Con’s point is weak. I guess Quantum Mechanics could’ve helped.
Next Con decides to make an argument that God changes its mind. I found no reference of that in the earlier rounds so this is based on something Virtuoso didn’t say.
In Premise 4 it kind of goes against the third one. If is not confined by the past, then that would entail or would be fair to state God can change. That could be further leapt on that God can changes its mind. I don’t know what Con was thinking about the false premises since it works against his favor.
Con then decides not to actually address the DNA point Pro made instead simply ignore the faults of bad DNA and simply stated the complexity. It would’ve been something else that to say that was no mistake but that would also be easy to critique given God’s all good nature. In my eyes whatever Con decided it would’ve ended up as either a non-sequitur or going against what God is.
For some reason Con didn’t decide to explain the problem brought about with Cosmology and theism. That being it isn’t contradictory. It was nice he stated it was a false dichotomy but it would’ve improved his point if he demonstrated why. This would be Theism is that God exists. Cosmology is occurring after God or not in the same area. So basically God does not inherently contradict with Cosmology. This is still a really good point made by Con but lacked development.
christopher_best Round 2:
Waived a round. Was agreed upon but Virtuoso did agree upon something he didn’t need to so the conduct point now will go to Virtuoso for accepting to waive instead of reinforcing his points.
Virtuoso Round 3:
Waived.
Pro also did a good job at showing God goes against the very first premise. If Con does not show the problems with an infinite regress, then this point will also go to Pro.
Good job also showing the less fine-tuned points of the world. Don’t think there is a counter that Con can give since God is supposedly perfect so making an argument it is more fine-tuned than not would be going against what God is a perfect being.
I guess it would less conducive that Pro used Occam’s Razor (a not developed point by Con) to state he is correct so Virtuoso is less likely now to get the conduct point.
Virtuoso Round 2:
Sheesh starts off with the argument of ignorance. Clearly showing the problem with saying science doesn't know therefore God. Guess jumping the gun fallacy already has a name. It is an argument of ignorance. I am still leaving that in. He also clearly lays out the problems with the source. Basically a non-sequitur to Con's position.
Pro then brings up a point that morality is good because it is inherent or because God said so. Good point. I am going to yoink that one. A better argument would be simply stating the is and ought gap but this is more than serviceable given if answered because God said so then it isn't inherent and if answered it is inherent then God is simply parroting something more powerful thus being self-defeating. Great argument. I only hope what I say is what occurs. Pro also brings up which God which is vital in making his side much easier to defend. Now either his opponent has to specify the God leaving himself open to more arguments or doesn't which gives Pro a point not answered. It was also persuasive to use the Bible and the Quran to show the negatives of a specific God and its teachings.
Morality because of evolution. More specifically reproduction? I would've thought a more persuasive argument like without an objective morality we can't be sure on what is right or wrong so basically we can't for sure say killing a pregnant lady or having sex with dead person is wrong would be made. The obvious problem I find is the is and ought gap. If Virtuoso didn't bring this up then the appeal to nature can work because there is no rebuttal to it.
Uses the KCA for theism. Good argument given Pro didn’t lay out a specific God so Con has less to do for it to be a good argument.
Probability therefore God. Basically a lot of ifs were use. A clear counter would be using instances where the world isn't finely tuned. If that does not happen then Con has the better position while also being more persuasive.
christopher_best Round 1:
Didn't really like where he stated he doesn't need to show theism is more probable to win but if more unfair burden is shown guess I am judging more on just arguments.
Great job showing theism is not contradicting science. Given theism is only a belief in God which happens before anything we perceive today so I hope he uses this to show the problems with Virtuoso's third argument later on.
Occam's Razor is used. I can only know if it was used well when I read it in the argument.
Don't know about the strawman given about spontaneous combustion. I guess another point in favor of Virtuoso for conduct given that comment is not warranted. I guess it is comparable to Virtuoso asking a ton of questions but they weren't delivered typically in an unfair manner so I will let that slide.
Consciousness can't be explained through science therefore God exists. Weak argument given science is the best thing we have to observe the natural world. I wouldn't know how to improve the argument since I think it was flawed on arrival. I don't know a better word for it so I will call it jumping the gun fallacy. This is when a person doesn't explain why they have that conclusion instead assume it.
God is supposed to be all-good yet allows evil.
Almost anything would work here. Virtuoso went with the DNA route. Enough to demonstrate the problem with God. At the time I can't think of a better argument that supports his arguments more so great job. Don't know about the multiple questions. I guess it is more persuasive so guess it is not something I like to do but can see the benefits of persuasive rhetoric.
Atheism predicts the world better? F*cking weird argument and first I heard of this. First problem I found is that atheism doesn't equal naturalism. Under Pro’s definition it is that God does not exist. Naturalism is separate. A theist can represent a naturalistic argument and still say God exists so I don't think this is a strong argument. For example, be for evolution while God at the start of it. Best argument for christopher_best to show the flaws in it. I guess generally atheists support science more but it isn't inherent.
I am only speaking about the arguments and conduct.
Virtuoso Round 1:
God cannot exist because it contradicts itself.
Supported by all-knowing and all powerful. Don't think this is the best argument given all-powerful and all-loving/good would contradict one another. If God was all good why did God create bad or not stop bad. The framing wasn't the best because it didn't state the infinite regress that is much more important. If God knows all then does he know how powerful he is? If yes, then God is not more powerful than its knowledge. If no, then God is not all-knowing. Hopefully Virtuoso sees that so I am not talking from my a$$.
Frankly, I think you're better at this topic than I am. It's regrettable you could not get your last speech in.
I appreciate the votes
---RFD (1 of 5)---
Interpreting the resolution and BoP:
Pretty straight forward, IF P(X)>Y, pro; IF P(Y)≥X, con.
X=Abrahamic God does not exist.
Y=One or more gods exist.
Gist:
The debate ends up favoring non-existence of any creator deity, largely by cons own arguments as flipped by pro. Pro’s arguments on the other hand were in large part intentionally dropped for disproving God, so there’s not much of a contest left…
1. God is incoherent
God (capital G) contradicts reality.
A simple syllogism backed up by a look at traits that prevent free will. (I will note that I do not buy the word itself being incoherent, just because people put God in a box … con later asks that I drop said point, which at least for the word itself is already without impact)
Con complains that he is not required to defend God’s existence (which is true, but it leaves the probability impact of this point wholly unrefuted). Then goes on to defend it via saying reality is meaningless to God which is supposed to somehow make God seem more likely… So there’s a point in debates where you should just drop a point and move on, rather than drawing more attention to it; this was that point.
2. The Problem of Evil
Did God not exist during WWII when “over 75 million people were killed in the worst genocide and bloodiest war in human history”? It’s an implied question for con to delve into, or otherwise prove the probability of some other god existing as greater than the probability of God not existing.
Con also chooses to drop this in a manner which also hurts his #5 talk of morality, since he drops morality as a component to the divine. His request to drop this whole point from the debate is seems to be without foundation; double so when con himself chose to include morality as one of his arguments.
On the DNA if designed then tumors and such are God’s evil will or the result of poor (rather than perfect) design, to which con does not give a real defense “You can claim that DNA is designed with flaws, but without a designer, DNA would not exist for you to criticize.” Pro had literally just argued that it was unlikely with a designer, so claiming he can’t have done that, leaves this point stronger than it otherwise would have been (I initially skimmed past any talk of DNA here, had it not been mentioned in the rebuttals I would not have known it was there to strengthen pro’s case beyond the wholly dropped WWII introduction).
3. Atheism better predicts our universe
Pro does a very good job by basically tying prophecy into favoring the non-existence of any god.
Con says these things are not mutually exclusive (fair point), but goes on to cite his didit fallacy (“are instantaneously solved” and calling anything which requires deep thinking “nonsense”). The didit fallacy only becomes weaker by repetition.
4. Immaterial Realities
Some of these ties closely to #2.
Con asks “how can immaterial truths exist apart from a metaphysically ultimate being?” So once I read this, I would have easily bet $50 that what was to follow would contain a chain of didit fallacies, which pro would point out.
Con explaining that bears and humans obey the same objectively enforced code of morality… I’m lost trying to figure out where con was going with this.
Pro of course counters by pointing out the didit fallacy, discredits sources, and uses the bible to show that at least the capital G God is immoral by our apparently objective standards (for commanding rape and murder of children), which while not refuting every God, hedges the probabilities against the one to favor his side of the resolution.
5. KCA
“Whatever exists has to have had a cause. Something does not spontaneously appear from nothing.” Linking this to Occam’s Razer is self-refuting that any god is less probable as they needed a cause, and tossing them before a chain of causes is just adding extra complexity. Or as pro predictably puts it “Con's KCA goes against his position. … So, what exactly caused God? If you say that God has no need for a cause, then your argument commits the fallacy of special pleading and is thus soundly refuted.” Con counters with literal special pleading and more didit fallacy (or “Goddidit” as he expends it it).
6. Intelligent Design and Biogenesis
This ties closely to #3, without refuting it. So I did not find this convincing, as it is but one more didit fallacy in the chain; and using the word of religious people as evidence rather than finding any neutral sources, kind of damns itself… This debate is not about the probability of religious people existing.
Pro counters that if the universe is designed, it is designed in such a way as to make intelligent people disbelieve in God (fine-tuned to make black holes, hostile to life, etc.).
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. Con started to lose ground during his opening preamble, when he described how we should believe whichever theory or hypothesis has less variables, and then said he’s going to take all he same ones and add another to be less (it’s like saying 10+1≤10).
Also on debates you can use continuous numbering rather than reset it. Contention 4-6 as I listed above, would not have been hurt had they been listed as such inside the debate (rather I would have had an easier time following the replies).
Sources:
Evidence is a powerful tool when discussing probabilities. Had pro just said ‘ha! E=evolution, and chickens came from dinosaurs, therefore I win!’ his points would not have carried. From supporting his WWII death toll onward, there were links we could double check (WWII is a very neutral thing, only the most deranged YEC think it wasn’t in the bible therefore it did not happen. Further, it is not generally written about as Nazis suck therefore there is no God).
In contrast, the very first line of cons first source was disavowing said source (“The views expressed in our content reflect individual perspectives and do not represent the official views of the Baha'i Faith.”). Worse pro immediately challenged it, in particular for the first source using a discredited doctor who repeatedly engaged in malpractice. Con of course never defends the credibility of his sources when they are under attack (“My opponent simply discredits my source. Fine…”)
Conduct:
First, I got it say it, be blood careful putting anything inside quotation marks. If I see a contention with quotation marks, I do a word search for what’s inside those to double check what is being referenced.
Con missing a round is still noticed, and it decreases his margin of victory (admittedly had I not been giving him arguments and sources, I would probably leave it within the tied range for not being an outright forfeiture, especially in light of him having previously given con an extension).
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: AvoidDeath // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 points to Con for conduct
>Reason for Decision: Forfeiture on PRO.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter improperly awarded conduct points by not also awarding argument points. According to the site's voting policy: "a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points."
************************************************************************
I agree we need new votes, these votes have no substance.
Enjoy your date
I am about to go on a date, but I expect to have some time tomorrow.
I will quickly say that intuitively it looks like you're farther behind than you are. Con's back to back postings was only actually one extra round, not two. (when I was much less experienced at voting, I would have been biased by that; but I am less and less convinced by what goes into the final round, as much as I usually read that first these days to see which points each debater thinks are important and thus deserve the most of my attention).
Can we get a few real HONEST votes for once
Bump. Need a couple votes
Thanks for the advice. I will try to vote better next time.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: AvoidDeath // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 4 points to Con for arguments and conduct
>Reason for Decision: Amazing debate, sad to see it not being completed. Arguments go to con for providing more convincing rebuttals and points. Conduct to con for obvious forfeit s
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote fails to adequately justify awarding argument points. To award argument points, the voter must (a) survey the main arguments in the debate, (b) weigh the main arguments against one another, and (c) indicate how the weighing process produced a winner. Importantly, "weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments." This vote lacks demonstrable surveying and weighing, presenting only the voter's conclusions.
************************************************************************
Death,
Your argument point is very short on detail. This could be written of literally any debate: "providing more convincing rebuttals and points." You should list at least your favorite point and why the defense against it failed.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Lazarous // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Con for arguments, conduct, and S/G; 2 points to Pro for sources
>Reason for Decision: Pro – Fabricated logical inconsistencies that in and of themselves included logical inconsistencies.
Con – Did make a pore choice in citation. This pore choice was overly extorted by Pro however.
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is removable for two reasons. First, the voter fails to justify any of the points they award specifically. Reasoning must be provided for each category of points awarded and that reasoning must meet the criteria set out in the site's voting policy (see COC for details). Second, the voter is ineligible to vote. According to site rules: "In order for users to be eligible to vote on debates, user's current accounts must reflect that they have read the site's COC AND either completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits or posted 100 forum posts." The COC can be found here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
The proposition is illogical anyway.
Because theism and atheism are simply opposing points of view, and both are demonstrably occurrent.
Probability is completely irrelevant.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Drogon // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con
>Reason for Decision: It's rational
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is removable for two reasons. First, the voter fails to justify any of the points they award. Second, the voter is ineligible to vote. According to site rules: "In order for users to be eligible to vote on debates, user's current accounts must reflect that they have read the site's COC AND either completed at least 2 non-troll debates without any forfeits or posted 100 forum posts." The COC can be found here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
Yes, you will need to read the site's COC and complete 2 debates/100 forum posts in order to vote. Also, your vote must be constructive and in-depth.
Drogon, first welcome to the site... Unfortunately your vote will be deleted by the admins, for falling short of the standards we use. It's not a big deal, enjoy the site, take part in a couple debates, and then when you've seen what you like and hate in other votes, you should be able to start crafting your own (in short, they should give feedback to the debaters on their arguments).
I do not currently have the time to redo this debate with additional arguments unfortunately, I think I would like votes on the arguments presented for now... Perhaps a redo with no additional content other than allowing Virt to publish a defense.