The Theory of Extraterrestrially Seeded Life is Equally Plausible With Creationism.

A few responses to begin. >> "However, my opponent decided to change the debate. He says in his first paragraph that "by "equally plausible" [he] simply mean[s] that they are possible, and not logically incoherent... [He] just [needs] to demonstrate that they are each viable alternatives. "" This represents no change in the debate topic. It is actually CON who is trying to change the debate to "The theory of extraterrestrially seeded life is equally PROBABLE with creationism." There is a distinct difference between probability and plausibility. When you ask how probable something is, you get a percent. When you ask if something is plausible, you get a yes or a no. Thus, if the answer to all of the situations is "yes, they are plausible" then the resolution is satisfied. >> "He has totally scrapped the implications of the word "equally"." Q: Is creationism plausible? A: Yes (well... lots of people think it is). Q. Are these three theories plausible? A: Yes. How are these two answers not equal? >> "This means that if I prove that either one, either creationism or seeded life, is inviable, then I win the round." In a bizarre twist, it seems I will be arguing FOR creationism. ****************************************** 1. On the provability of the resolution. How does one prove something that is in principle unprovable? It's like a debate about the existence of God - neither side is provable. The result of the debate is the readers' interpretation of whether or not the scenarios we present are plausible. 2. Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor does not apply to creationism. In fact, from a Creationist standpoint, evolution fails Occam's Razor because it introduces many extra variables when the only one needed is God. And since theistic evolution, deism, and intelligent design are excluded from this debate - see the end of the first round - Occam's Razor has nothing to apply TO on the "God" side of the debate. The better logical coherence of seeded life is offset by the fact that it IS susceptible to Occam's Razor, and thus, my opponent's argument on that point is balanced. 3/4. Faith vs. Logic & The Miracles of God. My opponent states that it is a "contradiction to believe God is logical", yet insists on applying logic to the miracles of this God. How convenient for him. Since my opponent has conceded that God cannot be a logically verifiable entity, he can make no further arguments trying to verify God's existence one way or the other via logic. His arguments in the fourth point are red herrings given his argument in the third point. In fact, he says that the actions of God are "greater, above, and beyond logic." However, this clearly does not indicate that they are implausible, given that God exists. 5. On Omnipotence. My opponent has a strange notion of omnipotence. Omnipotence does not mean you can break the confines of logic. The omnipotence paradox is a weak argument that is based on a misunderstanding of a contradiction of terms. Since omnipotence is a prerequisite for considering the puzzle, it is a contradiction to be able to make the impossibly heavy stone because the stone logically cannot exist. Consider another possibility. Even an omnipotent being cannot make a four-sided triangle. This is the same as saying that God could not make a four-sided three-sided figure. The creation of these objects is where the contradiction lies, not in the premise that God is omnipotent. Furthermore, I have provided no definition of God that states that he is omnipotent ********************************** Readers, one thing is clear. All these situations have different probabilities of occurring. However, they are also all PLAUSIBLE. My opponent states that God's existence cannot be logically verified, and thus the truth value remains in question. In other words, it could be true, but it could also be false. Therefore, God's existence, and by extension, creationism remains PLAUSIBLE, while not very PROBABLE. So these are the four theories on offer: 1. Creationism. Is it plausible? YES. My "proof"? My opponent has conceded that this scenario is not logically verifiable. Thus, there can be no proof against it, and conversely no proof for it. However, this does NOT mean the truth value of it defaults to false. Nor does it mean it defaults to true. However, since both truth values are possible, both are PLAUSIBLE as well. 2. Meteorite-Seeded Life. Is it plausible? YES My proof? It is not logically incoherent. Thus it is possible, and therefore PLAUSIBLE. 3. Bacteria in Xorgblag Urine. Is it plausible? YES. My proof? It is not logically incoherent, though unusual and quite amusing. Thus it is possible, and therefore PLAUSIBLE. 4. Alien Visitors Seeding Life Is it plausible? YES. My proof? It is not logically incoherent. Thus it is possible, and therefore PLAUSIBLE. ****************************** Ladies and gentlemen, the cases are above - the answer is clear. AFFIRMED.