THBT: Theism is more likely true than false

Burden of proof

Shared

Pro argues that theism is more likely to be true than false. Con argues that theism is more likely to be false than true.

Definitions

Theism: The belief in a god or gods
God(s): An intelligent being or beings who created the universe

Theism is broadly defined as the belief in the existence of at least one deity. Ideas of what a deity entails often vary, but in this debate, the deity will be defined as an intelligent being or beings who created the universe.

Round 1

1 of 3

LancelotDuLac

Pro #1

To preface, it is impossible to know the true nature of God. As such certainty requires accessibility to realms or galaxies beyond that which our resources and limited minds can reach or comprehend.

This debate is not about whether god exists or doesn’t exist as much as it is a debate about christianity versus atheism.

The resolution requires me and Con to both acknowledge and concede that God or gods’ existence is a possibility.

So our framework is to observe the available evidence and then decide which speculation is more reasonable.:

The assumption that there is a god/gods.
The assumption that there are no gods.

The more reasonable assumption is therefore the one that is supported by the more convincing explanations and evidence. A battle of probability in a debate where certainty is not a factor and thus irrelevant.

Which makes this an on-balance debate. This debate is not winnable by Con nullifying my evidence or saying there is no proof of god. Con is required to contribute their own version that suggests the possibility of God’s existence is an unlikely one.:

Universe - The universe is all of space and time and their contents.

Time is broken up into three parts.: The past, present, and future.

The past, present, and future of a universe is referred to as a timeline. The past, present, and future of our current universe is therefore our current timeline.

Timeline - a chronological arrangement of events in the order of their occurrence.

Furthermore, what is a reasonable definition of being or create that best matches the application of this debate?

Create - To cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes. (dictionary.com)
Being - 1. Essential substance or nature. 2. Something that exists: (thefreedictionary.com)
Intelligent - Having knowledge or information. (thefreedictionary.com) . 2. Able to vary its state or action in response to varying situations, varying requirements, and past experience. (Oxford Languages)

Defending The Definitions & Semantics

It is a misunderstanding to assume that gods need to be omnipotent or all-powerful. Neither of these are requirements for creation. Another misconception is to believe that intelligent creation requires consciousness or intent. Computers and AI are very intelligent but manage to create programs or other designs without either of these characteristics. Which proves that intelligent creation can happen independently of both consciousness & design. The human and other animal bodies have intelligent builtin mechanisms to produce offspring, fight germs, viruses, or intruders, heal wounds, or even control heart-beat, and regulate their body temperature. Functions they have no conscious control over.

The process of intelligent creation can therefore be automatic, biological, or even mechanical.

Intelligence is a very relative term, but mine is perhaps the most reliable.

Me and Con had no control over the topic we were assigned, nor the definitions we received. The definitions for God in the description are so loose, as to be vague. And there are so many different versions of gods/goddesses in religion where the term is constantly defined differently. Whether it be a single, all-powerful creator, a bunch of different gods/goddesses, or God being the source of creation.

Or in Lovecraftian terms, Azathoth. The god who is eternally asleep and the universe being a figment of his imagination, so his awakening results in everything ceasing to exist.

Considering these factors, my use of the terms & definitions at least provides a realistic way of arguing my side and proving my BOP without resorting to bold claims such as “Jesus is the savior” or “intelligent design necessitates an omnipotent creator.”

Only that there is an intelligent being or beings that created the universe.

Whether these beings be conscious creators, aliens, or inanimate forces acting without intent or consciousness is not something that can be proven or disproven.

But objectively speaking, these beings are gods from a human point of view. These forces are intelligent, as they are acting with information.:

Information - The creation of form; the imparting of a given quality or characteristic; forming, animation.

(Wikipedia)

Life, The Multiverse, & The Butterfly Effect

The future is a set of separate hypothetical timelines.

And within each set of hypothetical timelines exists a series of chronological events. But the decisions that humans make in the present is choosing one of those separate timelines and making them a part of the current timeline. Taking two timelines and merging them into one singular timeline. This is how linear time and cause & effect work. Of course, the other causes are current factors or limitations, and external factors. Think of life as a Telltale video game with more than different options. Except each different timeline is defined by what could and couldn't happen rather than something scripted or predestined to happen.

I don’t believe neither me nor Con would disagree on that.

One single action (the cause) can produce a reaction so profound that it derails and spirals out of control into utter chaos, creating an unpredictable cycle. This is The Butterfly Effect in general terms.

According to science,

“In chaos theory, the butterfly effect is the sensitive dependence on initial conditions in which a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state.”

Now everything that exists has a beginning, and something cannot come from nothing.

Which suggests that prior to The Big Bang, there must have been a pre-existing reality that produced our current one. This is a reasonable assumption, as the only other alternative would be to assume that we were manufactured from nothingness. An absurd theory.

There must have been circumstances or something that triggered the rapid expansion of our universe, gradually leading to everything that exists today. But according to the timeline, the universe did not begin at the singularity. It begins when the singularity becomes the universe.

Now there are alternative possibilities, which leads many scientists and physicists to The Multiverse Hypothesis. An interesting thought experiment which suggests that our universe exists in a cosmos, with many other universes. The birth of our universe from the growth of a mere singularity is simply one example and is a very logical idea.:

“We call this a singularity. Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity describes how spacetime is shaped. Spacetime is a way of describing the three-dimensional geometry of the universe, blended with time. A curvature in spacetime gives rise to gravity.

But mathematics suggests there are places in the universe where the curvature of spacetime becomes unlimited. These locations are known as singularities. One such example can be found at the centre of a black hole. At these places, the theory of general relativity breaks down.”

It all started with a Big Bang – the quest to unravel the mystery behind the birth of the universe » MIT Physics

Which also means there are infinite cycles where singularities grow to become universes which eventually produce their own singularities that birth other universes. So on and so forth.

It is illogical and even narcissistic to assume that we are the only life in this universe. It takes a huge degree of self-importance that contradicts the subtle signs of reality.

If there were a universe or universes that birthed our own, it is logical to assume there was also life in these universes. And in this life may have existed organisms or civilization making certain choices, triggering certain outcomes. Choices are choices, no matter how small, which lead to outcomes no matter how big which eventually lead to bigger outcomes that eventually led up to today, regardless of the time gap. So, our predecessors, whether living or nonliving beings, are gods.

The forces in this universe that cause singularities are also gods, symbolically speaking anyway. As they represent the birth of a foundational potential for new life.

All of these different possible explanations, regardless of which, all suggest that theism is true.

GreatfulGoy

Con #2

Hello judges, for this debate on Theism and God, I am going to solely focus on constructive, Round(R) 1. I will rebuke in R2.

Disclaimer: I am playing Devil's advocate in this debate.

Framework challenge

Pro suggests this is Christianity vs atheism. I accept if Pro wants it to be this way, however, I will cover my bases in case he backs out.

The 5 contentions I shall present in this debate are:

The deity can exist but should be assumed to be unintelligent.
Any deity Pro can suggest exists doesn’t already contradict many other equally viable ones, proving that each iteration of a Theistic deity renders one atheistic to all others without valid justification.
The deity needs its own origin justified along the same logic which justifies itself as a necessary origin-point of reality.
Polytheism refutes itself as it leads to monotheism.
Agnosticism leaning towards doubting God (not hard atheism) is the most rational conclusion for a human to make regarding Theism.

Definitions

The definition of God in this debate entails that it’s an intelligent god/deity. This is seen above the description.

Google AI:

An "intelligent god" definition points to a divine being with infinite wisdom, perfect knowledge, and the capacity for reasoning, planning, and understanding, often seen as the source of all intellect, wisdom, and truth in the universe, encompassing perfect awareness and purposeful action beyond human limitations It's a concept rooted in faith, suggesting God is not just powerful but profoundly knowing, a perfect, active Mind that orders creation and understands its deepest needs and meanings.

4 Sources it utilises:

crosscourier.co.za

biblehub.com

wisdomhunters.com

thegospelcoalition.org

Theism thus has a longer definition:

belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially a god who created the world and who acts to influence events:

dictionary.cambridge.org

I note that Pro avoided justifying omniscience but omniscience is a necessary component of a theistic God as per the debate’s definitions set in stone in the ‘settings’.

Contention 1

A realistic extension of an intelligent creator (god) is that it also intelligently designed the creation.

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

intelligentdesign.org

If Pro wants to argue that God lacked intelligent design (ID) in creation, I would argue that Pro fully acknowledges that intelligent design does not exist in our reality, and I will use this as a key point for my rebuttals.

In modern times, only since 1859 due to Darwinian theory getting the ball rolling, there has been a shift in the claims most Theists make about reality. While a select minority of fundamentalists still assert flat earth theory, pure creationism (as opposed to guided evolution) and that the design of reality is fully intelligently done by the deity they assert, most have conceded to mainstream scientific consensus on these matters. What they instead do is find ways to say that the intelligent designer ‘tweaked’, ‘guided’ and many other verbs like ‘predestined’ evolution and other matters, all the while ignoring the reality that this would mean the deity had in fact rigged things so that every baby born with diseases so bad it’s in pure agony or dies very young are all by the design of the creator.

ID is only properly defended, anymore, by fundamentalists in the West which are a select minority of Theists there. In contrast, the Islamic world has more asserters of this but that’s not something I need to prove in this debate.

ID is not some ‘yes, but the designer gently guided it’ aspect. For an intelligent creator to design the creation means every facet of the creation, including what Pro himself calls the ‘butterfly effect’ means the designer is responsible for absolutely every part of it. This fact means if I prove that the design suggests lack of intelligence, organisation and/or justification by any means of ‘intelligence’ it is up to Pro to back that it’s justifiable and beyond my comprehension, not merely that it can be. This debate it about probability and plausibility (as it is a 'more likely' resolution), not absolute truth. If there is an intelligent designer that designed reality to hide its existence from us, Con should win this debate.

I will save rebuttals to ID (such as mass extinction of dinosaurs and other aspects including the Problem of Evil and Noah's Flood for R2 as it depends on the parameters of the design and agenda Pro ascribes the Theistic deity).

Contention 2

The affirmative side avoided this issue at the start of the debate, claiming it was a debate between Christianity and atheism. However, what follows is solely a vague justification for an intelligent deity. I am not rebuking in R1, merely pointing out that this contention is to cover my bases in the case that Pro backsteps his framework and also to trap him even if he doesn’t, by being able to raise all other deities possible than the Christian one.

It is the case that for Pro to properly present God to you, he has to present indirect disproof of all other viable deities. This idea isn’t as simple as that only unintelligent deities are an alternative, all other intelligent deities that may exist require Pro disproving them to affirm any specific intelligent agenda or pattern to reality linked to 1 or a few plausible intelligent deities. I did not limit Pro to 1, but Pro should definitely be limited to a small number of deities whom fit the intelligent reality organization he perceives and presents.

It would mean he’d have to give 1 agenda that justifies killing off infants with diseases as early as miscarriages and stillbirths. He (if he states a moral deity) needs to prove that it is reasonable for God to have foreseen and created rapists, to allow them to rape, and to reward them with heaven if they repent and pray in time. Yet, the same rapist if they killed the victim (and the victim died lacking faith in the deity) potentially dooms the victim to end up in the variant of Hell of the theistic system. This issue gets more extreme in cases of mass murderers as for example on Bondi Beach in Australia in 4-5 days ago (timezone variance), it would mean if the Jews killed died either in the wrong religion or not having repented enough even with Judaism being true, they get robbed of their shot at heaven but the shooters, especially if Islam is true, have the potential to get to Heaven.

Since all I can do is refute the agenda and reality construction methods proposed by Pro in R2, I'll just leave it at that.

Contention 3

Basically, there are 2 main ways God’s existence gets justified; god of the gaps and the "First Cause" or "Unmoved Mover" line of thinking. Both of these end up with the same issue, it’s just that the latter runs more complex syllogisms to get there.

The logic used is that in general, most things need an origin point. Not just in time, also in the sense of what sets them in motion or grants them existence at all. The problem with this is that God itself/etc doesn’t escape us logically applying this idea to it/him/etc.

The deity is oft argued to be outside time and space and thus not need it. However, the need to explain the mechanics of this basically always gets dodged by Theists in a cowardly way. If the argument that the prime mover need not be moved because it is outside the part of reality with time and space as constraints, why wouldn’t it be viable that an unintelligent deity or unintelligent non-deity ‘essence of reality’ is at the core instead. This debate does not regard something like the Brahman of Hinduism as God since it’s the essence from which Hindu deities.

This means, Pro cannot elude this issue merely by the ‘outside time and space’ logic. He has to explain how the deity has intelligence and can think without time to think and how it can at all exist without taking up any space at all, not even the size of an electron.

Furthermore, there are 2 other ‘elements’ of reality to consider. How is the entity conscious and thinking if it lacks anything equivalent to a brain and neuron network to think with? Additionally, does the deity possess intelligence from the beginning and remain unchanged, or does it gradually evolve from a state of initial lack of intelligence to possess intelligence? If so, how did it gain and alter its intelligence without time to do that? Can it forget, lose intelligence and more?

For us to believe in this entity, we need parameters in which both the one justifying it as valid to believe in and the one justifying doubting it can fight on fair ground.

What moved God? What enables God to think, and what initially gave God the ability to think? Why doesn't God need a creator, enabler, or designer, while everything else in reality supposedly does?

Contention 4

If Pro raises polytheism to avoid contention 3, refer to this. Eventually, you need an apex, an Odin, a Gaia (one the first ‘intelligent' deities in Greek mythology before Zeus later couped most of the others weren't intelligent), so on and so forth. This issue leads us back to the problem of ‘what moved the first mover’ and ‘what created the first creator’ that Contention 3 covers.

Contention 5

Agnosticism:

the view that any ultimate reality (such as a deity) is unknown and probably unknowable : a philosophical or religious position characterized by uncertainty about the existence of a god or any gods

Merriam-webster

This variant of doubting Theism is more rational than the one outright denying an intelligent deity as viable at all. I do not see how Pro can tackle agnosticism as opposed to atheism. Pro absolutely must do so to win the debate given that it states ‘more likely’ false as what Con (me) argues not absolute definite disbelief.

I shall rebuke both R1 and R2 of Pro, in my R2.

Thanks for reading.

Round 2

2 of 3

LancelotDuLac

Pro #3

Just to be crystal clear, this subject is not christianity versus atheism.

Con acknowledges that my arguments do not add up with someone defending christianity, but does not realize that I am playing an entirely different ballgame. His round 1 is wasted on addressing generic arguments I did not make, refuting a script that a lot of christians would use in this discussion.

Here are my dropped arguments.:

Something cannot come from nothing.
Intelligent design can happen independently of consciousness and intent.
All signs and explanations point to there being a pre-existing reality prior to the universe.
Cause and effect dictate the flow of all reality. Therefore, any forces, creatures, or beings that existed before our universe are our predecessors that impacted the events that led to us. No matter how small or insignificant their actions were. They are our gods, our creators.
The singularities in our universe, as well as the origin of our universe once being a singularity suggests there are other universes out there. And that we are not the first to exist.

So just so we’re on the same page. I will rephrase and clarify what I already said in Round 1.

In my opening, I declare that we are not arguing certainty, and that certainty is impossible.

Here is the context of my quote that was misread.:

“This debate is not about whether god exists or doesn’t exist as much as it is a debate about christianity versus atheism.”

It’s not a discussion about god’s existence or non-existence, in the same way that it is not a debate about christianity or atheism.

It is a discussion about whether acceptance of God's existence as a concept is more logical than rejection of the idea.

This is separate from knowing, which agnostics believe is impossible to know. But since I am denying certainty as a factor, that makes my position agnostic.

More specifically, agnostic theist. That makes Con’s fifth contention void, since he is already conceding that my position is the most rational conclusion toward God.

Rebuttals

“An "intelligent god" definition points to a divine being with infinite wisdom, perfect knowledge, and the capacity for reasoning, planning, and understanding, often seen as the source of all intellect, wisdom, and truth in the universe, encompassing perfect awareness and purposeful action beyond human limitations It's a concept rooted in faith, suggesting God is not just powerful but profoundly knowing.”

This is a contradiction.

For it to be the source of all intellect, then it would be the intelligent god. Not an intelligent god. “Source” implies central or primary, “an” implies one of many.

This is not an official definition, but a Christian definition for God.

And the sites Con provided as sources are Christian. My Round 1 does not require me to choose between one or multiple gods and allows room for polytheism.

They do nothing to address the broader range like Athena and Hephaestus who are otherwise “intelligent gods” but do not fall into such a narrow category that they are the source or display infinite wisdom. As they are fallible and prone to letting emotions cloud their judgment.

Such as when Athena let her ego get the better of her and she transformed Arachne into a spider because Athena lost a weaving competition. Or when Hephaestus captured Aphrodite and Ares and exposed their affair because Aphrodite was cheating on Hephaestus.

None of this diminishes their intelligence per se, but it establishes that gods/goddesses are not necessarily infinitely wise.

“I note that Pro avoided justifying omniscience but omniscience is a necessary component of a theistic God as per the debate’s definitions set in stone in the ‘settings’.”

Irrelevant.

Nothing about the resolution or definitions mention omniscience, the factor is intelligence. Which I defined.

“A realistic extension of an intelligent creator (god) is that it also intelligently designed the creation.

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”

This quotation will confuse readers, but this is your first contention which you summarized. I’ll quote the summary for context.:

“The deity can exist but should be assumed to be unintelligent.”

By what arbitrary criteria is Con using to describe intelligence? And why would Con infer unintelligence?

Any force capable of feats such as the production of the universe, as well as human existence is therefore superior to us. And since this being is the cause of our existence, it is therefore responsible for any contributions we make as a species. And even the most advanced versions of human civilization pale in comparison to this being.

“ID is not some ‘yes, but the designer gently guided it’ aspect. For an intelligent creator to design the creation means every facet of the creation, including what Pro himself calls the ‘butterfly effect’ means the designer is responsible for absolutely every part of it. This fact means if I prove that the design suggests lack of intelligence, organisation and/or justification by any means of ‘intelligence’ it is up to Pro to back that it’s justifiable and beyond my comprehension, not merely that it can be. This debate it about probability and plausibility, not absolute truth.”

As I have already demonstrated, intelligent design doesn’t have to be deliberate. Or even perfect.

And error or imperfection do not diminish the intelligence of the designer in any way. If anything, it humanizes them and portrays them in a way that is realistic. We do not question the elo rating of chess grandmasters when they occasionally blunder a pawn, we do not criticize or assume unintelligence of professional programmers when they make a syntax error or a grammar mistake.

If there were a group of forces or beings in this pre-existing reality, then they all bear the burden of responsibility for their creation, our universe. Their actions, no matter how small, have contributed in some way. Therefore, this god or these gods, if plural, have created our universe.

“The affirmative side avoided this issue at the start of the debate, claiming it was a debate between Christianity and atheism. However, what follows is solely a vague justification for an intelligent deity. I am not rebuking in R1, merely pointing out that this contention is to cover my bases in the case that Pro backsteps his framework and also to trap him even if he doesn’t, by being able to raise all other deities possible than the Christian one.”

As I mentioned.

Intelligence can be mechanical or autopilot. It does not require sentience or consciousness. I defined it as having information, knowledge, or being adaptable.

Since I am not arguing christianity, I will give two more examples to defend my definition. White blood cells work to carry out the instructions of the brain by detecting and fighting off intruders. Immunity works through wiping out new invaders from recognizing their original counterparts. These happen without conscious thought or deliberation, it is pure autopilot. These cells are recognized by copying information.

When you request a certain design from AI, it produces a high-quality image. The mechanisms behind this Black Box process are automatic. But it happens through knowledge and information. Your words, prompts, or inquiries trigger a different effect which demonstrates adaptability.

Why then would intelligent beings be unable to replicate these same processes in a different capacity, producing our universe and existence on autopilot?

Why couldn’t evolution and natural selection have been an experiment? For each organism that passed, they were prototypes that failed the experiment. For the survivors, why couldn’t they have been successful prototypes and evolution was just an upgrade in the product?

“In modern times, only since 1859 due to Darwinian theory getting the ball rolling, there has been a shift in the claims most Theists make about reality. While a select minority of fundamentalists still assert flat earth theory, pure creationism (as opposed to guided evolution) and that the design of reality is fully intelligently done by the deity they assert, most have conceded to mainstream scientific consensus on these matters. What they instead do is find ways to say that the intelligent designer ‘tweaked’, ‘guided’ and many other verbs like ‘predestined’ evolution and other matters, all the while ignoring the reality that this would mean the deity had in fact rigged things so that every baby born with diseases so bad it’s in pure agony or dies very young are all by the design of the creator.”

Perhaps this argument would have merit at face-value, if I were arguing for an omniscient or conscious creator. But nothing I mentioned necessitates that.

Extend my following arguments.

Con will have to push back on my actual points the next round. It is not sufficient enough to attack cliches or popular theist arguments that make no sense.

GreatfulGoy

Con #4

The Semantics and Distortion

A huge amount of disagreement here is the semantics.

He states:

It is not sufficient enough to attack cliches or popular theist arguments that make no sense.

Yet, I clarified in bold text that my Round 1 was purely constructive, not rebuttals.

The word intelligent in this debate is not a standalone typical meaning akin to an intelligent human. The intelligent deity of Theistic beliefs has omniscience and made absolutely everything. I will show you that Pro is intentionally misleading you by using his own source against him.

Oxford Learner’s dictionary.

He actually ignored the definition applying to humans entirely and used one that refers to intelligent machinery as in AI or animals

1. good at learning, understanding and thinking in a logical way about things; showing this ability

2. (of an animal, a being, etc.) able to understand and learn things

3. (computing) (of a computer, program, etc.) able to store information and use it in new situations

Oxfordlearnersdictionaries

None of these definitions are Theistic referring to the deity. Pro knowingly abused semantics there.

‘the free dictionary’

This source had many definitions none directly Theistic but what’s extremely alarming is yet again it seems he didn’t even use the definition for humans and went as far as to utilise computer based and archaic ones:

5. (Computer Science) (of computerized functions) able to modify action in the light of ongoing events

6. archaic (foll by: of) having knowledge or information

thefreedictionary.com and it cites Collins Dictionary for these.

It’s clear that Pro intentionally distorted this subdefinition of a word inside that of ‘God’ in this debate to unfairly win it. By doing this, he believes he can dodge literally all my constructive points by saying ‘well I didn’t define it that way I am playing a totally different ballgame’ proving he was malicious in intent, having intentionally planned to deceive you, not accidentally doing so.

I will explore 3 Theistic religions specifically and see how they all explain it.

1 Christianity

When we say, in light of the Bible, that God is intelligent, we mean that He is a personal, self-aware Being who thinks, plans, judges and possesses perfect knowledge. This is far more than simply being “smart.” God is the source of all wisdom and understanding. His mind is infinite, beyond human comprehension, and absolutely flawless.

crosscourier.co.za

2 Islam

Here is what Google AI extrapolated from multiple Islamic sources:

That Allah is intelligent means He possesses ultimate knowledge, perfect wisdom (Al-Hakeem), flawless understanding, and the ability to design creation perfectly, with His intelligence revealed through the intricate signs in nature and the divine guidance in the Quran, making true intelligence for humans recognizing these signs and acting upon them. It signifies His supreme intellect, not limited by human comprehension, as the source of all wisdom, capable of judging rightly and understanding everything perfectly.

A primary source it uses backing this is this Wikipedia page.

3 Judaism

Google AI:

In Judaism, God's intelligence signifies His perfect, infinite knowledge (omniscience), encompassing all past, present, and future, including our thoughts, making Him the ultimate source of wisdom, a personal self-aware Being who plans and judges, and whose "thoughts are not our thoughts". It's a concept of divine unity where God is the knower, the known, and the knowledge itself, revealed to humanity through Torah and acts of wisdom, even as His infinite nature remains beyond full human comprehension.

This used the 3 following ones (among others) to formulate this:

rsc.byu.edu

thehouseofdavid.org

aju.edu

It’s essential to realise that for Pro’s definition of ‘intelligence’ as vague and computer/animal oriented as it is, there would need to be no way at all for him to uphold most of Theism today.

I want to reiterate the full definition of Theism:

belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially a god who created the world and who acts to influence events:

dictionary.cambridge.org

An alternative known as Deism exposes how bad it is what Pro has done.

deism

1. belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (theism ).

2. belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.

theism

1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation.

2. belief in the existence of a god or gods

https://www.dictionary.com/compare-words/deism-vs-theism

Note that the 2nd definition of ‘Theism’ there is what the debate is utilising. However, it is missing over half of what Theism is as opposed to alternatives such as Deism.

Theism does indeed necessitate an intervening, knowing deity. My opponent has tried to abuse semantics over and over but in doing so has himself violated tenets of Theism.

Pro has backed Con immensely vs major religions and is only suggesting a select minority of Theism today is valid to believe in and leans towards Deism.

If you explore Pro’s entire Round 1 and Round 2, he is going out of his way to intentionally and in Round 2 very abrasively and rudely demean other religions and their core tenets. This heavily backs my 2nd contention that he’d need to be atheistic to a severe extent to many religions, in order to back 1 Theistically. I would give examples but character count limits me.

All 3 Abrahamic religions back that humans are an extremely unique species made either in God’s image (Judaism and Christianity) or to be the greatest serving species ever, for the deity (Islam). None of them suggest multiverse theory is occurring and thus Pro in Round 1 already was heavily insinuating that major Theistic religions are narcissistic assumptions or at least entail them.

Pasted from google’s AI:

As of 2025, roughly 54-55% of the world's population follows Abrahamic religions (Christianity ~29%, Islam ~26%, Judaism ~0.2%), with Christians and Muslims making up the vast majority, while about a quarter are unaffiliated, according to Pew Research Center and Wikipedia data updated for 2025 estimates.

Many Pagan takes, the hugest one being Hinduism, have the essence Brahman as the chief thing at play and thus the Deities themselves are not necessarily all-knowing or the highest intelligence. It was not made clear the entire debate which Pagan religions, Pro is even backing. Buddhism and Daoism have arguably unintelligent deities (or lack of one in Buddhism).

Pro is suggesting that having any data at all makes something intelligent yet denies this entity that has the data is even conscious or using the data knowingly.

It’s sufficient to say that Pro has actually conceded all of my points and the debate. What Pro has blatantly backed is the idea that it is not logical or truthful to be Theistic to at least any of the Abrahamic religions. He has denounced their Theistic God as absurd and even tried to ridicule me for bothering to debate against it while simultaneously ridiculing their arguments as ‘nonsense’.

He decided that because my source says:

An "intelligent god" definition points to…

What my source says ‘an’ to is the definition, hence why it puts “intelligent god” in quotation marks to make it clear that is a phrase that becomes a characteristic of the word after it, namely ‘definition’. Instead, Pro decided this is conceding the debate as I didn’t say ‘the intelligent god’. Either he truly made a severe reading comprehension error or is maliciously deceiving you.

I will now list out his points that he says I haven’t addressed:

Something cannot come from nothing.

My contentions actually handled this, especially the third.

Intelligent design can happen independently of consciousness and intent.

That would mean atheistic reality or a non-intelligent deity under deism or any non-theistic variant is viable. This is a major concession.

All signs and explanations point to there being a pre-existing reality prior to the universe.

This is a bare assertion and doesn’t clarify what would be there before that pre-existing reality either. Furthermore, it doesn’t clarify why we should assume that ‘reality’ is an intelligent God rather than any alternative to it.

Cause and effect dictate the flow of all reality. Therefore, any forces, creatures, or beings that existed before our universe are our predecessors that impacted the events that led to us. No matter how small or insignificant their actions were. They are our gods, our creators.

This is semantic abuse. In the debate it’s clear that we are dealing with Theism and God, not deism or pagan alternatives with an unintelligent deity or deities instead of an intelligent God and/or Gods.

The singularities in our universe, as well as the origin of our universe once being a singularity suggests there are other universes out there. And that we are not the first to exist.

This doesn’t at all tackle proving all originates from an intelligent God or that the other ‘entities’ are Gods. Pro has to prove it, not allude to it being possible.

I will reiterate mine and defend more in R3.

The deity can exist but...

The assumption it intervenes and actively thought all of reality out contradicts things like evolution, stillbirths etc.

Any deity Pro can suggest exists doesn’t already contradict many other equally viable ones, proving that each iteration of a Theistic deity renders one atheistic to all others without valid justification.

This was proven true by Pro himself in R2, repeatedly.

The deity needs its own origin justified along the same logic which justifies itself as a necessary origin-point of reality.

Counters Pro's 1st contention.

Polytheism refutes itself as it leads to monotheism.

Hard-counters Pro's main case.

Agnosticism... is the most rational conclusion for a human to make regarding Theism.

Pro conceded this but irrationally leans Theism.

Round 3

3 of 3

LancelotDuLac

Pro #5

As we have now approached the final round, I wish to mention to remind everyone that it is now too late to bring up any contentions/constructives.

Only retorts/rebuttals, and clarifications on any previously made constructives are allowed. And any contentions that remain unaddressed are known as dropped arguments. I will focus on all of this here.

My Case: I clarified in Rounds 1 & 2 that the position I am taking is agnostic theist.

Defending the possibility of god or gods without siding with any one religion. So in actuality, I was only required to defend that there were intelligent beings preceding our current reality who caused our existence, whether directly or indirectly.

Agnostic theism is the philosophical position of individuals who believe in the existence of a deity or deities but also maintain that the nature or existence of such a being is ultimately unknowable or cannot be proven.
Agnostic theism allows for a more flexible approach to spirituality, as adherents can explore various beliefs without committing to a specific dogma.

Agnostic theism Definition

I presented several different versions of intelligence including biological, mechanical, and autopilot, and I believe I specified that intelligent design can happen independently of consciousness or intent and gave multiple examples of this happening. Reproduction is the perfect example of biological design.

Let’s extend the following arguments.:

My side is agnostic theist. I said in round 1 that it is impossible to know the true nature of God, and that certainty is impossible. That is the definition of agnostic. Con’s fifth contention is that agnosticism is the most logical position toward God.
Something cannot come from nothing.
Intelligent design can happen independently of consciousness and intent.
All signs and explanations point to there being a pre-existing reality prior to the universe.
Cause and effect dictate the flow of all reality. Therefore, any forces, creatures, or beings that existed before our universe are our predecessors that impacted the events that led to us. No matter how small or insignificant their actions were. They are our gods, our creators.
The singularities in our universe, as well as the origin of our universe once being a singularity suggests there are other universes out there. And that we are not the first to exist.

Final Statement: Before I move onto rebuttals. I shall make my closing announcement.

Con has conceded more than 50% of leverage in this debate. His first contention is that the god can exist, which enables most of my case to stand unchallenged.

The second thing is he hasn’t responded to my primary evidence, which is the correlation between singularities and other universes. Since our own universe formed from a singularity, and there are other singularities in our universe which mean other universes. This establishes a high probability there was a pre-existing reality before ours and we are not the original universe.

Rebuttals

“The word intelligent in this debate is not a standalone typical meaning akin to an intelligent human. The intelligent deity of Theistic beliefs has omniscience and made absolutely everything. I will show you that Pro is intentionally misleading you by using his own source against him.

He actually ignored the definition applying to humans entirely and used one that refers to intelligent machinery as in AI or animals

1. good at learning, understanding and thinking in a logical way about things; showing this ability

2. (of an animal, a being, etc.) able to understand and learn things

3. (computing) (of a computer, program, etc.) able to store information and use it in new situations

None of these definitions are Theistic referring to the deity. Pro knowingly abused semantics there.

‘the free dictionary’

This source had many definitions none directly Theistic but what’s extremely alarming is yet again it seems he didn’t even use the definition for humans and went as far as to utilise computer based and archaic ones:”

My definitions are the most practical and reasonable to argue.

While they can be used to describe living organisms or computers, they are applicable to the debate too.

Your version is a false dichotomy that insists I must defend omniscience. That position is unnecessary and fundamentally irrelevant to proving intelligence.

Since omniscience = infinite intelligence. I am positive that Con agrees that something doesn’t have to have infinite-intelligence in order to be considered “intelligent.”

My reasoning to bolster this argument is that any being responsible for the creation and our universe is obviously superior to us. This complexity makes it immeasurable in any human way, and that capacity reinforces its intelligence. There is a huge gap between us and the level on which our hypothetical creator operates.

Furthermore, not all the gods of theistic religions were omniscient. I literally named Athena and Hephaestus as examples. Athena is the goddess of wisdom and strategy, but she is not omniscient. Same as Hephaestus.

There are countless examples of theistic gods who are not omniscient.

“I want to reiterate the full definition of Theism:

belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially a god who created the world and who acts to influence events:

dictionary.cambridge.org

An alternative known as Deism exposes how bad it is what Pro has done.

deism

1. belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (theism ).

2. belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.

theism

1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation.

2. belief in the existence of a god or gods

Note that the 2nd definition of ‘Theism’ there is what the debate is utilising. However, it is missing over half of what Theism is as opposed to alternatives such as Deism.

Theism does necessitate an intervening, knowing deity. My opponent has tried to abuse semantics over and over but in doing so has himself violated tenets of Theism.”

Deism IS Theism.

Deism is a form of theism, in the same way that catholicism is a form of christianity. In that sense, all catholics are christian. But not all christians are catholic.

All deists are theists, but not all theists are deists.

I have not specifically argued for deism in the same way that I have not argued against it either.

Semantically speaking, deism is considered a form of theism.

Theism refers to a broader category.
Deism refers to a subset of theism.

On the page for theism, deism is categorized as a type of theism.: Theism - Wikipedia

“Theism does indeed necessitate an intervening, knowing deity. My opponent has tried to abuse semantics over and over but in doing so has himself violated tenets of Theism.”

I am arguing for the definition for theism, as it was auto-assigned in the description. I did not choose it. Therefore, I am not violating the rules of the debate or abusing the definitions.

Secondly, theism does not require an intervening, knowing deity. Alterity theism believes that the creator is so transcendent, that it has no conceivable form at all.

“Many Pagan takes, the hugest one being Hinduism, have the essence Brahman as the chief thing at play and thus the Deities themselves are not necessarily all-knowing or the highest intelligence. It was not made clear the entire debate which Pagan religions, Pro is even backing. Buddhism and Daoism have arguably unintelligent deities (or lack of one in Buddhism).

Pro is suggesting that having data at all makes something intelligent yet denies this entity that has the data is even conscious or using the data knowingly.

What Pro backed is the idea that it is not logical to be Theistic to any of the Abrahamic religions.

He decided that because my source says:

An "intelligent god" definition points to

What my source says ‘an’ to is the definition, hence why it puts “intelligent god” in quotation marks to make it clear that is a phrase that becomes a characteristic of the word after it, namely ‘definition’. Instead, Pro decided this is conceding the debate as I didn’t say ‘the intelligent god’.

That would mean atheistic reality or a non-intelligent deity under deism or any non-theistic variant is viable.

This is semantic abuse. In the debate it’s clear that we are dealing with Theism and God, not deism or pagan alternatives.

The deity can exist but...

This was proven true by Pro himself in R2, repeatedly.

The deity needs its own origin justified along the same logic which justifies itself as a necessary origin-point of reality.

Agnosticism... is the most rational conclusion for a human to make regarding Theism.

Pro conceded this but irrationally leans Theism.”

My round 1 opening is, “To preface, it is impossible to know the true nature of God. As such certainty requires accessibility to realms or galaxies beyond that which our resources and limited minds can reach or comprehend.”

Agnostic, according to Merriam-Webster means someone who holds the view that any ultimate reality, such as God, is unknown and probably unknowable.

Meaning my position is agnostic. Agnostic theist.

Most theistic religions like christianity are faith-based. And faith means belief without knowledge. There are a lot of agnostic theists who are likewise christian. I am not arguing for an abrahamic god or any specific religion, so I am not siding with christianity, judaism, or islam.

I am defending the general idea of god’s existence being more likely. And Con seems to imply that if a god is not omniscient, then it is unintelligent. That is a false dichotomy fallacy.

Extend arguments about Athena & Hephaestus.
Extend contentions & dropped arguments about the correlation between singularities & multiverses.

Sources: Singularity

Big Bang

Agnostic Theism

Theism - Wikipedia

GreatfulGoy

Con #6

Happy Christmas (and end of Chanukah for Jews).

I apologise for betraying God in this debate, however I ironically found a way to be true to you as my opponent backs polytheism and deism far harder than monotheism.

Semantic abuse, misdirection and incoherence.

In the debate description 2 definitions occur:

Theism

The belief in a god or gods

God(s)

An intelligent being or beings who created the universe

Pro decided to abuse a lack of precision in these. He found at least 2 loopholes. First, he takes advantage of the half-definition of Theism that wrongly includes Deism. Secondly, he capialises on 'intelligent' inside the definition of God(s) to include unintelligent, unconscious deity variations. This is a malicious abuse of semantics as I exposed across R1 and R2.

I beg all voters to sympathise with me on this; context abuse loopholes were the fault of the one setting up the debate, my opponent stretched it beyond acceptable boundaries.

I will establish in full why his abuse isn't just malicious but ends up being objectively wrong.

Let's begin with Theism vs Deism.

I will use more sources this Round to back up what I exposed in Round 2.

Belief system:

Deism Deity created the universe, started it functioning, but is no longer actively involved in it. Panentheism Deity is the inner spiritual essence of everything in the universe, but it exists beyond the universe as well.

Pantheism Deity is the inner spiritual essence of everything in the universe.

Theism Deity created the universe and continues to actively participate in the world’s actively.

theosophical.org

Theism is the belief in god or gods that created the world, and are actively participating in events, past and present. It is a belief in a personal god that is involved in your life. This type of god can suspend the laws of our universe to enact miracles. Modern day Christianity is an example of a Theistic belief system. Many Christians believe in having a personal relationship with Jesus, and in the existence of miracles. Belief in faith healing is an example of a Theist belief. By definition, all Monotheistic religions on the planet believe in a god like this. It’s important to note the key element of Theistic belief is God’s involvement in world events large and small. This is the opposite of Deism.

Deism is a belief in a god of first cause. What does this mean? It means a, non-specific, undefined god ordered and set into motion the world and universe as we know it, but he/it is no longer involved with its creation. This type of god is not personal. It does not speak to you, and it does not involve itself in any of the affairs of the universe. No miracles, no interventions. It is important to discern between these two concepts of god, Theistic and Deistic, especially in debate or argument. Theistic god’s are very specific, have names, and are involved. A Deistic god is not specific and is not involved.

It is relatively easy to debate the existence of a Theistic god, because the claims for this type of god are so extraordinary and specific. They require extraordinarily specific evidence. Arguing the existence of this type of god is easy since evidence is in short supply, and the little there is is subjective and does not stand well to scrutiny. The Deistic type of god is a tougher nut to crack since it is a far more abstract concept. This god lacks the specific definitions of modern day religions deities. Deism, on its face, is not a provable or disprovable idea. Oftentimes, in debate, Theists will try to angle their arguments into this Deistic realm specifically for this reason. It is important to notice when this happens, and to not let it trick you into thinking they are scoring points on you. They are no longer speaking about their specific god anymore. They are also, oftentimes, jumping headlong into something known as the Appeal to Ignorance logical fallacy which asserts that just because you can’t prove something (I think this meant to say 'doesn't) exist(s) it means that that something must exist. Here watch. You can’t prove to me there isn’t a flying spaghetti monster which means he absolutely must exist. Ramen!

thedeconversionpodcast.com

What was my issue with Deism being argued for by my opponent?

It was that Deism has 2 elements that defy this debate's true semantics when taken in 'good faith' (pun intended).

Deism defies the Theism of the debate because the deity isn't intelligently aware and intervening contextually to Theism and if you fuse the 2 definitions of this debate, it would mean that there is truly no room for an unaware deity as that defies what 'intelligent' means when referring to God (proven in both Rounds by multiple sources).
Deism cannot work within Theism because Theism itself has the God both active, with an agenda and active manipulation of reality.

This is not sufficiently denied by my opponent in the final Round. He uses rhetoric to dupe you into feeling Deism is merely a type of Theism but the key isn't the Deism itself, it's the Deistic deity not fitting what a Theistic deity has to have as traits and nature.

The entire debate ends up coming down primarily to that semantic clash. Literally all debate long, my opponent is trying to back an unconscious, unintelligent deity (or deities) and abuses semantics to trick you that this can fit a Theistic God.

Nonetheless, I did set groundworks in Round 1 to win constructively, so let me also double down on my Round 1 contentions.

The deity can exist but should be assumed to be unintelligent.

This comes down to the semantics clash. My opponent fully concedes that what I describe as unintelligence is what his proposed deities likely possess, however he denies that this qualifies as unintelligence.

He takes the stance that the creator of all reality's intelligence need not be perfectly aware, strategic etc. Yet, this is ultimately what 'intelligent' in Theism means. My opponent went so extreme as to suggest the deity doesn't even need awareness and thought, to be intelligent. This is denied by me on semantics, we both agree the deity should be assumed to be unintelligent.

Any deity Pro can suggest exists doesn’t already contradict many other equally viable ones, proving that each iteration of a Theistic deity renders one atheistic to all others without valid justification.

This seems grammatically incorrect but isn't. I am saying that Theism does not actually lead to logically disproving other deities, it tends to just be 'assumed' into the doctrine. In this way, Theistic religions and non-religious 'takes' have a gaping hole.

Throughout, Pro has denied all Abrahamic religions and really any religion at all that relies on intelligent Gods with moral codes to follow and that made reality and humans in particular to obey Theistically. Instead, he runs some multiverse theory logic to suggest there's some realm of uninitelligent deities that exist with no agenda. That is not Theism. He loses this point.

The deity needs its own origin justified along the same logic which justifies itself as a necessary origin-point of reality.

This was fully explained in R1. This automatically counters his issue of 'something cannot come from nothing'. Pro didn't even try to refute this as far as I can see.

Polytheism refutes itself as it leads to monotheism.

This links to the former point but gives leniency for a first creator. Essentially all variants of polytheism end up having the dilemma that they too need a creator of them, a 'singularity' as my opponent says. This doesn't seem to occur to Pro as a point needing addressing. Instead he says:

And the sites Con provided as sources are Christian. My Round 1 does not require me to choose between one or multiple gods and allows room for polytheism.

Monotheism renders polytheism moot. Polytheism, if fully true, renders monotheism false. It's not a mutual relationship. There are variants of monotheism that lead into a 'made many other deities' scenario, Hinduism is based on this and has over a billion adherents. As I said, the Brahman of Hinduism is an unintelligent essence rendering it as a key religion proving Theism can even end up self-disproving in terms of the definitions of this debate and intelligence being a key trait of the God(s).

If my opponent argues for polytheism, he is saying Monotheism has to be false pretty much completely and that backfires as he needs the original creator. If he argues for monotheism, he has to prove all polytheistic variants as partial lies. He ended up going the polytheism and deism routes and denied huge portions of Theism, almost setting a win up for Con, in my opinion.

Agnosticism leaning towards doubting God (not hard atheism) is the most rational conclusion for a human to make regarding Theism.

The clash here is over which way to lean. My opponent insists we must lean towards Theism yet never defines what the deity actually is, does or why all religions that deny his deity are lies. Instead, he makes the case that I fail to comprehend fully. In one way he says there definitely is a deity, in another he says how dare we deny alien life and multiple versions of reality as anything is possible. If that's true, atheism could be the reality too, however I am backing an unintelligent creator primarily, my contentions build a case far more towards the conclusion that if real, the deity isn't intelligent and this debate defines God as necessarily intelligent.

My opponent rebuked nearly all religions that exist in this debate, in order to defend his conceptual polytheistic tangled up nonsense. That isn't ad hominem, I am attacking the logic. It's tangled up, makes no sense and has him simultaneously backing directly contradictory versions of the deity. One minute he backs Athena and Greek mythology the next he says a singular monotheistic unintelligent deity is what's occurring, the next he says it's aliens from space that made us. What is that other than tangled up nonsense?

GreatfulGoy

#54

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

5 months right?

What an anticlimax.

LancelotDuLac

#53

--> @whiteflame

Shame, genuinely.
He's scared, so now he's not gonna show up for Round 3.

GreatfulGoy

#52

--> @whiteflame

Tail between legs

whiteflame Global Moderator

#51

--> @GreatfulGoy

I disagree with a good deal of that, but it doesn't seem like you really want to discuss this and I've lost interest, so I'll leave it at that.

GreatfulGoy

#50

--> @whiteflame

Framework was probability.

In faxt my.opponent messes up badly saying it was Christianity vs atheism. I knew he'd weasel out of that claim.

I agreed to that framework. He struggled to establish one.

He kept defining intelligence like an AI or animal instead of a theistic deity.

I addressed all of this in the debate.

He basicallynhad 0 shot at winning in the end. He contradicted.his own god model with others.

whiteflame Global Moderator

#49

--> @GreatfulGoy

A definition is not a framework.

GreatfulGoy

#48

--> @LancelotDuLac

0 theists are deists.

The difference between deities paying attention and judging vs next to 0 attention or 0 sentience deities is irreconcilable.

LancelotDuLac

#47

Theism is an umbrella term, deism is just a subset of theism.
All deists are theists. Not all theists are deist.

All catholics are christian, but not all christians are catholic.

GreatfulGoy

#46

--> @whiteflame

Younwould never say to Pro of this debate that he had to address my definition in Round 1.

Instead youd let him flesh out his semantic rebuttals like he tried in Round 2 and count all of them.

I did address the definition of intelligence inside Theism in my Round 1. I thene xpanded on it in Roubd 2 and clarified that mynopponent is describing Deism which is not Theism.

The only added thing was I clarified there is Deism. Even without that, my Round 1 pushed on that active attention and knowing a huge amount or even everything are necessary facets of theistic intelligence on a deity.

I expanded on this heavily in Round 2. Roind 1 Ibused almost all available characters as I had a lot of constructive to get out.

I want you to tell menwhat I should habe conpletely deleted in order to flesh out the semantics just in case a voter fixated harder on that.

LancelotDuLac

#45

--> @whiteflame

Dude.
Don't even bother

whiteflame Global Moderator

#44

--> @GreatfulGoy

I've made a point of explaining what, specifically, you failed to address in his argument. Your response was that I didn't mention things you did say. I pointed out that, yes, I did mention those points and explained why they weren't sufficient.

And, no, this statement is inaccurate:

"He just dislikes that I wanted equality and use my Round 1 for constructive just like you did, leaving rebuttals for Round 2 just like you did."

If you're going to challenge the definitions in a debate, then yes, that has to come up in your first round. That's part of a constructive, to explain how you're framing the debate and why. Just saying you didn't want to rebut your opponent in the first round isn't enough for me to accept that you decided to tackle definitions, especially those that were pertinent to your own argument, late. It's also not the "sole justification for" my vote. That's just an absurd reading of my RFD.

GreatfulGoy

#43

--> @LancelotDuLac

The fact you believe I am the same as way back is your own lack of perception.

I blatantly tackled the exact thing Whiteflame says I failed to address.

He just dislikes that I wanted equality and use my Round 1 for constructive just like you did, leaving rebuttals for Round 2 just like you did.

That is Whiteflame's sole justification for his incorrect vote.

LancelotDuLac

#42

--> @GreatfulGoy

Cool.
So you're still the same thin-skinned toxic narcissist as before.
You insult me first, but I'm not allowed to insult you back.

Glad to see how it is.

GreatfulGoy

#41

--> @LancelotDuLac

You are so obsessed with them thay you dehumanise me every single time you notice others will allow you to.

First for being autistic and a presumed incel.

Second for apparently nobody liking me or respecting me.

Thid for being a dog that fails to be a good bitch for its owner.

I remember all the abuse.

You have behaved disgustingly and do it the moment someone seems powerless to defend themselves.

You are predatory and sided with evil.

LancelotDuLac

#40

--> @GreatfulGoy

I don't give myself that credit. Plus, I'm not obsessed with coups & power dynamics.
That's your own weird thing you've got going on

GreatfulGoy

#39

--> @LancelotDuLac

😂😂😂

So instead of admitting you were sycophantic you pretend you were this mastermind puppeteer who made me rise and fall.

Yet you yourself have been incapable of gaining any power here.

Why is that?

LancelotDuLac

#38

--> @GreatfulGoy

How are you powerful? All it took was me telling Barney to demote you and then look what happened.
I can clearly see that you're angry, so I won't stoop to your level by attacking you with ridiculous claims.

GreatfulGoy

#37

--> @LancelotDuLac

Hahahahaha!

Making alts and votebombing, degrading, abusing and manipulating...

Not to mention turning into a bootlicker the millisecond RM was modded vs abusing him s soon as his position was removed.

That is how YOU habdle defeat and lack of power.

The ONLY reason you arent permabanned is your meltdowns and sycophancy got you sympathy.

LancelotDuLac

#36

--> @whiteflame

Just deal with it, whiteflame.
At least you and I can lose with dignity.

Some people are psychologically wired to have meltdowns and take everything personally.

whiteflame Global Moderator

#35

--> @GreatfulGoy

Literally one question about the substance of my RFD, a point that Savant basically made in his own RFD, but because mine is a vote against you, it’s unreasonable and I did a bad job voting on this debate. Got it.

GreatfulGoy

#34

--> @whiteflame

This conversation is over.

You are the single most overrated voter ever on this platform.

That is all.

whiteflame Global Moderator

#33

--> @GreatfulGoy

You’re right that I didn’t mention that part of the debate directly. You tacitly accepting Pro’s framework since you never addressed it directly and that is where he set up came up in the first place. You did eventually get to this semantics argument in R2 and then revisited it in R3, but that is both too late for a topicality argument and it would leave me entirely without a framework, since you never presented one. I get that you were avoiding direct responses to Pro in R1, but when it comes to establishing what has to be done to win the debate, that has to appear in your first round.

GreatfulGoy

#32

--> @whiteflame

I noticed you ignored how I exposed that he is backing Deism not Theism.

I dedicated 2 Roubds to exposing that flaw and you.ignored that a non-interventionalist non-involved deity is Deistic, not Theistic.

GreatfulGoy

#31

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2012%3A17-23&version=NCB

whiteflame Global Moderator

#30

--> @GreatfulGoy

So, you won't be taking me up on my offer to talk about what I actually said in my RFD? Instead you'll just say I lied by referencing things I drew attention to in my RFD as though they aren't there? Got it.

GreatfulGoy

#29

--> @whiteflame

I can say it is lying, agreed.

It is lying.

whiteflame Global Moderator

#28

--> @GreatfulGoy

I talked about your view on the definition of intelligence a good deal and explained why it wasn't relevant to the outcome of this debate. You can say that's "lying" or you can address what I wrote about it. That's your choice.

As for the truism, again, if you read my RFD, you might notice that I didn't accept the argument you found so frustrating. I didn't even grant him that any sign of intelligence was sufficient to uphold his position, nor do I think the chief argument he gave that I found persuasive was a truism.

If you want to discuss my RFD, please do. I'm happy to go over any details. I'd just appreciate if you engaged with what I actually said.

GreatfulGoy

#27

Mockery of voting.

GreatfulGoy

#26

--> @whiteflame

You lie in your rfd, I heavily addres why his definition of intelkiuence is wrong, out of cotnext and nothinng at all to do with the word inside the context of a god.

I provided muktiple sources and religions backing me.

You lie that I didnt takcle his application, I did. He applied a wrong definition of intelkigence that made it a false truism that an unintelligent deity instantly is intelligent.

whiteflame Global Moderator

#25

Sorry I've been slow to get to this one. I finished reading it, I'll try to get up a vote in the near future.

Leaning Global Moderator

Criterion	Pro	Tie	Con
Winner

Reason:

RFV
Pro opens many possibilities,
Con closes Pro possibilities and cannibalizes arguments,
Large part of debate seems to hinge on "intelligent" and probability.
Burden of Proof: Shared
Pro argues that theism is more likely to be true than false. Con argues that theism is more likely to be false than true.
. . . (Expletive) (Expletive) Just wanted to look at the Ruberik again. Got another debate to judge other than this one. (Expletive)
How does one 'gauge probability here?
Tie, the lack of solid definitions at 'start leaves question of how to define intelligence difficult per this debate.
Though 'personally I disagree with Pro's idea of intelligent unintelligent being. . Hm, I don't want to spend more time on thiiiiss. Well, being also wasn't defined at very start, was something disputed. I'm voting tie.

RFV Longer
LancelotDuLac Round 1
Does well to rephrase debate framework, guidelines, definitions.
Does well, (Though cheap, even if understandable) to twist definitions and minimum requirements for all he can.
Not as well, Suggests universe needed a cause, and argues chance intelligent being in other universe caused it. The 'potential error here is if Con argues it is nature of world end and start itself. Maybe universe just got cold killing everything, then contracted and exploded.
Does well, to use sources for Big Bang
RFV
GreatfulGoy Round 1
Use of numbers 1-5 is nice for contentions, makes them easier to follow.
Does well with 1. Head off unintelligent Gods. But may need to address Pro intelligent unconscious systems, even though I think such is bad argument by Pro, it 'is an argument.
Does well to argue intelligent design needs 'intelligent 'design. Theists may accept evolution as a 'means of intelligent design, but they don't consider it the intelligent designer itself. Certainly atheist scientists wouldn't call evolution intelligent design/er.
Error, Contention 2 miscommunication between debaters.
Does well, suggests Unintelligent deity or mechanism.
RFV
LancelotDuLac Round 2
Does well to clear of Christianity vs Atheism misunderstanding.
Does well to reinforce cause and effect previous inhabitants are Gods argument (Even if I think it's kind of dumb, darn debate initial definitions) But Con will need to address argument.
Does well to defend Polytheism angle.
Not as well, Limited intelligence okay argument, 'no intelligence, harder to defend.
Does well to argue God could have 'used evolution as their method, but Con 'did state God of the Gaps earlier.
Not 'as well, is 'possibility of God or previous people. 'But Con has not pushed back on this yet I think.
RFV
GreatfulGoy R 2
Does well, to argue against human level intelligence, would need to address Greek gods intelligence level, possibly argue their true form was not the characters in myth, but as allegory symbolism for what they actually are, unintelligent thunder, bad luck, causation karma, art of smithing, so on.
Which Con 'does do, indirect by way of Hinduism.
Not as well, pre-existing reality, Pro 'did use sources for Big Bang Claims.
Does well, asks why assume an intelligent God cause, instead of alternatives such as unintelligent Gods.
Not as well, such Gods need be argued for. Debate is feeling bit 50/50.
RFV
LancelotDuLac R 3
Does well to head off any introductions of new ideas to debate, as I think Pro has more arguments 'for his probability than Con. But Con 'has done fair bit of damage to Pro arguments (In my view) Reason why this may be tie in end.
Does well to hijack agnostic into agnostic theist.
Does well to argue singularity.
Not as well, the unintelligent intelligent process.
Does well in defense of Deism being form of Theism.
RFV
GreatfulGoy R 3

Mumblings RFV

LancelotDuLac Round 1
Argues both sides hold BoPs, argues debate about probability,
I don't believe in multiple timeline or multiverses.
Universe. . . Hm, maybe existence isn't the same thing as universe,
Definitions Pro is using seem very. . . 'selective.
Argues the God or gods don't need to be all powerful or all knowing to qualify for theism.
I don't find the intelligence argument very convincing, but debate itself is very scant in definitions.
Would one call a 'clock intelligent? AI is 'artificial 'intelligence, faux pretend intelligence is what.
Be harder to prove a more fictional god such as one of Lovecraft's I'd think.
"God(s)
An intelligent being or beings who created the universe"
I dislike the argument that the universe before the last Big Bang, might as well have had some intern called Bob, cause next universe, therefore he is a/the god.
"something cannot come from nothing." - Seems a bit of a sidebar paradox, that I've never heard resolved to my satisfaction. Why consider time before Big Bang a 'previous universe?
But is sidebar, is sidebar. and from certain point of view, time before big bang 'was previous universe, but one sees the infinite regression yeah?
'Forces of universe also weak in my view, over application of the word intelligence to non intelligences. Attacks idea of nonintelligent intelligence.

GreatfulGoy Round 1
"Pro suggests this is Christianity vs atheism" Error by Con, I see 'why they thought that, but Pro went right offtrack of Christianity in round 1, and in round 2 Pro explains self how he did not mean it the way Con interpreted it.
1. If Unintelligent Cause means Con win.
2. Error by Con misunderstanding Pro. Pro ought to have used deist or theist vs atheism, so I can see 'where misunderstanding came from, but 'does appear to be misunderstanding.
3. 'Does deity need origin, Atheism 'or Theism, both have infinite regression paradox I 'think?
4. Doesn't seem strong case, apex god would still be a 'god per debate description definition.
5. Agnostic is more 50/50 I think, needs to lean at least 1% more into Atheism I think.
Ahhh, I hate both sides self serving limited definitions, course debate description starting position is greatly to blame.
@Self, if Pro's Intern Bob died when Big Bang happened, could we still have belief 'IN them? I may believe in Mencius's teaching or previous existence, but I don't 'currently believe in him. . . Because he's dead.
Course on another hand, a number of polytheist gods might have gotten killed off, yet people believe IN them? Unsure.
Bad things happening is not strong case against god I think, plenty of evil gods or good 'and evil gods.
I'm also not convinced 'every step needs to have been intelligently done by the creator. Some theists figure god/s just set ball in motion, then let it go where will. Some desists for instance.
@Self, Consciousness is weird, some people depict stars as neurons, universe as giant thinking thing, us like little cells of bigger organism.
Who moves the mover argument by Con.

LancelotDuLac Round 2
Ugh, I often think 'everyone has dropped arguments to some degree.
Pre reality is still just reality, I assume. But you could leverage universe definition.
@Self, 'is it a new universe though? Or just flower opening and closing? Eh, point of view.
Also I don't think intelligent design argument was 'dropped by Con, but possibly you felt it should have been better addressed.
Defends existence of errors and intelligence limits.
Autopilot or mechanical intelligence is fine IF there is an intelligent being who designed or set it in motion.
Intelligent blood cells seems a stretch, why specify 'intelligence in debate start description, why not just say 'being.

GreatfulGoy Round 2
Unfortunately, definition of intelligence was left to debaters to disagree on. Is not more detail defined in start conditions.
I 'think deists 'are theists?
'Personally, debate still 'feels tied to me.
I think Pro currently winning, but only because Con not addressing a couple arguments in ways that I would. But then on another hand, Pro not quite 'elucidating his arguments to show all meaning I am thinking.
BoP shared, Con focusing more on attacking Pro arguments, than building his own?
But Con 'has made arguments such as God of Gaps.
Con pointing out multiverse not mentioned in lot of religions is not bad argument, but Pro made multiverse argument more by ways of 'some science claims I think.
@Self Control F searchwords is your friend.
I don't think (Per this debate) that deity needs their own origin, Some of Pro's 'gods are pretty mundane previous universe people butterfly effect.
Con 'could stand to state better alternative causes than intelligent God/s. Con did offer Hinduism, but that would still need to be 'argued for to an extent.
Intern Bob God 'is semantic abuse, but debate starting conditions were bare bones, fair game maybe.
Well, possibility preludes probable.

LancelotDuLac Round 3
I feel as though both sides have shown 'possibility of Gods creating world, 'probability harder to pin down. Con has unthinking Gods, but focused way more on attacking Pros arguments.
But Con is able to cannibalize Pros arguments to an extent.
Feels 50/50 though.
Agnostics not 'knowing Gods is fine, but without some ability to gauge if they are intelligent, leaves probability of intelligence low.

GreatfulGoy Round 3
You didn't betray God I think just speak in debate as if giving a lecture on what and why others might believe something.
I don't think deism is loophole, lot of people think there 'is a god, even intelligent god, but there is lot they are unsure of.
I don't think loophole use was malicious. Debate initial settings for both is to blame.

whiteflame Global Moderator

Criterion	Pro	Tie	Con
Winner

Reason:

Not a lot to cover in the framing here. Pro does lay out a clear framing for the debate that Con doesn’t challenge. Implied in that framework is the notion that the god/gods that Pro is supporting as more likely to exist are intelligent. Apart from that, there’s the recognition that it’s a difference between plausibility and possibility, basically what’s most likely based on the available information. It doesn’t grant Pro an advantage, but it is a clear summary of what is required of both sides.

Going to start by just setting things aside that either aren’t really important to the debate. The debate itself really comes down to how much support is laid out for the existence of an intelligent being specifically, not any being at all (Con isn’t arguing for the absence of any being, only the absence of an intelligent one). Any specific arguments about the existence of certain deities are basically off topic. Pro isn’t required to fit a certain perception of what a god is to a certain religion, only to meet the definition, and given that the definition provided in the topic solely focuses on an intelligent being and not an omniscient being, there was room to argue what would suffice for intelligence. Pro basically sets the floor for what that looks like: that there must be some form of knowledge or information on display, and I think both sides recognize to some degree that that evidence must be present in that deity’s creations.

And that’s where things get tricky.

Pro talks a good deal about what different forms of intelligence could look like, including the fact that some forms of intelligence come without consciousness or design, and points to Azothoth as an example of unconscious creation. That’s all really interesting, but it’s more suggestive of possibilities than it is demonstrative of their likelihood. It lays the groundwork by establishing what isn’t required to meet the definition, i.e. what points Con cannot use in his favor.

Similarly, the points Pro articulates about the need for something to exist before the universe and that, on some level, something was triggered via singularity to cause our universe. Pro calls that a choice, though it’s unclear where the active decision was made or what about it suggests intelligence.

What is clear, and where these points come together, is on the point of this being necessarily demonstrating a capacity for advanced feats beyond human imagination. Creation of a universe on any timescale is beyond human capability, so the idea is that this demonstrates a form of intelligence, or at least power beyond our comprehension. I think there was room for Con to argue that simply having capability beyond intelligent life does not itself make one intelligent (at least not any more so than the capacity for a black hole to form singularities makes each of them an intelligent creator god capable of spawning their own universes), but I don’t see a response to that point from Con, at least not directly to this point. Con does challenge the notion that a god can be both unthinking and intelligent, though I’m mainly looking for a reason why creation of a universe as an endpoint is not a demonstration of intelligence, and that’s what I’m missing from Con.

Con does bring up a number of points that are along the lines of the problem of evil (though that particular argument doesn’t get more than a passing reference), referencing issues like disease, miscarriages, stillbirths, rapists and murderers. These points at least demonstrate that Intelligent Design as Con describes it is implausible, though this relies on things like the existence of a moral deity and perfect knowledge. They function in Con’s favor, but I agree with Pro that making mistakes is not demonstrative of a lack of intelligence, just suggestive that elements of what was created did not have active intelligence behind them.

And that’s really where the split comes down to for me. Con backs an unintelligent creator, though his definition of intelligence isn’t the one that wins out in this debate as I’ve already mentioned. However, what does come through from Pro’s side is that the intelligence at play must be at least somewhat advanced, one capable enough to create a universe. The question I’m left with is, would a god of sufficiently advanced intelligence to meet Pro’s argument also include things like disease and rapists in their design.

I end up making the decision based on how the topic is framed. It specifically focuses on the creation of the universe, not the various downstream effects on life and how it is organized. Con’s points suggest a lack of intelligence in the development of these negative elements of life, but at best, they strongly suggest that an intelligent creator has not been involved in the ongoing process of universal development. All Pro had to demonstrate was that it’s more likely that said deity was the creator. Even if I buy their complete absence from the development of life itself, Pro does enough to support that the universe was incepted by something we cannot fathom that, at least with the arguments given in this debate, must have been an advanced intelligence. Con’s suggestions that this could be an unthinking entity aren’t responsive to Pro’s point that creating existence is beyond the capacity of intelligent beings, and while I would have bought an argument that this only demonstrated that whatever existed exhibited capacity for things beyond human understanding rather than intelligence we simply can't fathom (I see the two as distinct), I think Con got too caught up on his own definition of intelligence to attack how Pro was applying his.

I vote Pro.

Savant Administrator

Criterion	Pro	Tie	Con
Winner

Reason:

I will be voting on the basis of Pro's framework, since it was the only one provided. Basically, is God/gods more likely or unlikely to exist. This is kind of reiterating the description of the debate, so it doesn't give Pro a huge advantage in framing, but it is acceptable as a framework.

Pro's argument starts out a bit speculative—I'm reading it as, other intelligent beings could have influenced our universe and thus there is a good chance they did. I think that opens up a lot of room for Con to argue that this is actually unlikely, which he does by arguing that problems in the universe itself make the creator "unlikely to be intelligent." I can agree with much of Pro's argumentation that intelligent beings can make mistakes and that even in some cases intelligence takes an abstract form like computers, but Pro presented this as a question of what is more likely early on, and so I'm left wondering what makes that "intelligence" more likely than not? At the end of the day, Con is the only one really using observations about the universe (like diseases) to argue whether the creator was intelligent or not. I also find myself agreeing that Pro is stretching the definition of intelligence a bit to include unthinking entities, and even if those entities could be intelligent, I'm not seeing a reason to believe that's the most likely conclusion.

The arguments about deities in other religions vs. Christianity got a bit off track in my opinion. The biggest contention was the definition of "intelligent," and I think more of the focus should have been on overall likelihood of intelligence based on observations (which both debaters mentioned in the first round but later was largely dropped.) This comes down to Pro's argument that an intelligent being could possibly end up making the universe, vs. Con's argument that the universe is unlikely to be something an intelligent being would create, and so Con is arguing likelihood more directly in that regard. Pro's argument got close to saying every being is intelligent but stopped short of making that claim...since presumably some beings are unintelligent and it's not contested that the universe is "poorly designed," Con wins my vote on the basis of an unintelligent creator being more likely.

Burden of proof

Definitions

Round 1

Round 2

Round 3

New comment