Instigator / Pro
0
1549
rating
9
debates
66.67%
won
Topic
#5561

God probably exists

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
0
Better sources
0
0
Better legibility
0
0
Better conduct
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Rated
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Minimal rating
None
Contender / Con
0
1420
rating
398
debates
44.1%
won
Description

On balance, I currently think God probably doesn’t exist, but I’m open to changing my mind on this question. Hence, I thought I’d try and take the position of Pro.

Definitions:

"God" is defined as "the intelligent, powerful, and benevolent creator of the universe."

"Exists" means "have objective reality or being."

Rules:

1. Judges should treat this as a "select winner" debate. They should exclusively award points in the "more convincing arguments" category, and determine who "won" the debate, using tabula rasa judging. Voting moderators should remove all votes that award points in other categories.

2. For the purposes of this debate, epistemic skepticism/nihilism is false. Judges should automatically discount such arguments.

3. Con can't defend agnosticism or a 50% chance of God existing. Pro defends a greater than 50% chance of God existing and Con defends a less than 50% chance of God existing. This is not the same as saying "the burden of proof is equal" -- who has the burden of proof, if anyone, is up for debate. Broadly, Pro is defending theism and Con is defending atheism.

4. No new arguments in the final round. New rebuttal in the final round should exclusively be answers to the immediate previous round (i.e. in Round 3, Pro can't have new answers to Con's Round 1 arguments, and Con can't have new answers to Pro's Round 1 and Round 2 arguments). This is in line with standard debate convention.

5. No kritiks (e.g. "Pro's use of Western metaphysics is exclusionary, and hence Con should win the debate"), theory that calls for a role of the ballot that contradicts rule 1 (e.g. "you should vote for whoever best advances fairness in competitive debate"), or similar attempts to win the debate without debating the topic. If you're Con and don't know what these terms mean, you're probably fine (but maybe Google them if you want to be sure you have no plans to do this).

Round 1
Pro
#1
Unfortunately, once more, I’ve fallen sick. Any chance you’re down to have the debate deleted and try again in a few days when I’m feeling better? Thanks!
Con
#2
Well being that I took the time to prepare, I'll post this anyway.

So the major points of burdens:

"Con defends a less than 50% chance of God existing. "

"Broadly, Pro is defending theism and Con is defending atheism."

The straightforward argument to present are the more variable amount of explanations for something, the further process of elimination to go though whittling out the least likely scenario based on the strength of those in-depth, intricate explanations.

Now does this disprove a God, no. Why?

For even in the most sacred of religious writings, it teaches about faith and that must persevering, steadfast faith one must have.

This isn't a biblical debate so I won't start quoting scripture that is coming to mind as I type this.

Each one of these rigorous explanations have layers and layers of analysis and testing and micro experimentation. It may take several lifetimes just to scrutinize one and possibly debunk as it has taken may be centuries of developing. This in turn further shrinks the room or likelihood for opening a probability of a least likely irrelevant scenario that cannot fit into or grasp consistency with any of the more developed, plausible, scientific theoretical explanations.

That is , the explanation for the existence of everything. Is it or was it God or one of these other consistent, trailing indicative explanations connecting empirical observation of reality extrapolating, deducting backwards from the present view of things. Things we can test, experiment with repeatable results that posit the most likely scenario.

Here are several theories that have to be worked out that if it's more likely for a god to exist, would have to corroborate with:

From sources across the web



Electric Universe theory



Simulation theory



The accelerating universe



Theory



A big bang alternative



Primordial black holes

I say corroboration because these theories are already established via deductive reasoning, fundamental evidence and analysis.

Meaning the opposing side would have to have some sort of fundamental proof that would support the theory of the intelligent, powerful, and benevolent creator of the universe that would somewhat coincide with these already established theories.

Otherwise how can a stance holding no evidence of any kind at any level -deductive, abductive, inductive, etc . win over a stance that holds something of the sort?

That's really all for now .

I'll add these in addition.

These two theories upon which all modern physics rests are general relativity and quantum mechanics.

These are just what is to be considered to look into. Again unless you are well versed in these subjects, the time, study and research must been taken and done to rule these theories out as suggested to increase the probability of a theory that is presumably immaterial, non physical and is a complete negative.




Round 2
Pro
#3
As stated, I've been ill this month. I appreciate your arguments, and would love to try doing this debate again in a few weeks and delete this one if you're down for that.
Con
#4
I would rather not delete because I took time to put these points together.

That's why I posted anyway.

You seem to have time to respond.

You can just respond with your immediate thoughts on the subject without using extra energy to research and craft expansive arguments if you wish.

You know, something that doesn't take as much energy and time.

It's up to you .




Round 3
Pro
#5
Sadly I can’t this time, so I concede! But I’d love to do this over once I’m better.
Con
#6
That's a wrap .