CreateDebate


Debate Info

61
37
Evidence Trumps I just know you're wrong
Debate Score:98
Arguments:95
Total Votes:99
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Evidence Trumps (50)
 
 I just know you're wrong (30)

Debate Creator

StickinStone(649) pic



There is no room for faith in a reasonable debate.

A debate forum is a place for people of different ideas to come together, present facts, and find the truth. Faith is belief without evidence. One cannot convince another, without evidence, of the truth of their position. One who believes in the bible can only convince others who believe in the bible. To many, it does not count as evidence and there is no longer a debate. The assertion that one must believe something without any reason to believe it has no place in reasonable debate.

Evidence Trumps

Side Score: 61
VS.

I just know you're wrong

Side Score: 37

There can be no meeting of the minds, where the mind is not considered.

Side: Evidence Trumps

I agree. Facts can be rerun, checked, compared to others' facts. Faith can not. It has no logical basis, it has no surety of it even existing. I mean the faith probably doesn't even exist. How are we, the fact users, supposed to know you really believe what you, the faithful people, say you believe. I won't name names, but after prolonged debating with religious people I feel an urge to give up because I feel like I'm being trolled.

Side: Evidence Trumps
1 point

Evidence always wins .

Side: Evidence Trumps
1 point

True! I also would have accepted "There is no room for reason in faith".

Side: Evidence Trumps

Definitely acceptable considering if there is no room for faith in a debate, then no reason to have faith.

Side: Evidence Trumps
1 point

Having faith is not necessarily unreasonable. Calling upon it in debate is unreasonable.

Side: I just know you're wrong
1 point

It is reasonable to believe that your new theory won't be refuted.

Side: I just know you're wrong
1 point

True, but not for the reasons you'd think..... no one seems to take me seriously around here? I don't know why?

Side: I just know you're wrong
1 point

haha, no I meant that it is reasonable for a person to have faith that their new theory won't be disproved. But evidence trumps faith.

Side: Evidence Trumps
4 points

Faith is not necessarily belief without evidence. Faith is simply believing in something with or without evidence. However, I digress, belief in God is not unreasonable. The only problem I would see is that I believe that the ontological argument, when looked at carefully and understanding the premises, actually says that God is a belief-properly-so-called. That means that is equivalent to asking whether logic or reality exists. When looked at carefully, one realizes that God is necessary if logic and reality are real. That, then, reverts in belief for everyone.

Side: I just know you're wrong
2 points

This debate isn't saying that belief in God is unreasonable, its saying that faith based debate is. If you believe something with or without evidence, you still need evidence to convince another. The evidence must be objective or it will not be accepted. Thus, the bible works as evidence amongst Christians, but has no place in debate with infidels.

Side: Evidence Trumps
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

And I'm saying that a belief in God is a belief-properly-so-called, which means every debate that revolves around whether God exists is a belief around faith

Side: I just know you're wrong
Quocalimar(6469) Disputed
2 points

Faith: "Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof." That is the definition of faith, can you please stop using your own definitions and go with linked ones. Ones we can all look up, and have a central agreement on. So that way, when everyone argues with you, it won't be about which definition was used, it'll be about the points you addressed.

Side: Evidence Trumps
Nox0(1393) Disputed
1 point

when looked at carefully, one realizes that God is necessary if logic and reality are real. Haha :D Why? How is god, Harry Ptter or Frodo related to evidence?

Side: Evidence Trumps
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

1. Maximal greatness is defined as being maximally excellent in all capacities (Definition applied).

2. If a being with the predicate of maximal greatness is not applied to all possible worlds, then it is not maximally excellent in modality (Premise 1)

3. Maximal greatness means that the being that possesses such a predicate must be applied to all possible worlds (Premise 2)

4. Every possible world includes the actual world (Modal logic necessity)

......... 5. It is possible that a maximally great being exists (Assume for conditional proof)

......... 6. A maximally great being exists in every possible world (Premise 3 and 5)

......... 7. A maximally great being exists in the actual world (Premise 4 and 6)

8. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in the actual world (Conditional proof from Premises 5-7)

9. Impossibility is equivalent to not possible (By definition)

10. If something is not impossible, then it is not not possible (Premise 9)

11. Everything is either possible or impossible, though not necessarily necessary for possibility (Modal logic necessity)

12. Everything is possible unless impossible. (Premise 10 and 11)

13. Maximal greatness has no contradicting features (Premise 1)

14. Maximal greatness is not impossible (Premise 13)

15. Maximal greatness is possible (Premise 12 and 14)

16. A maximally great being exists in the actual world (Premise 8 and 15)

Side: I just know you're wrong
1 point

To believe in something that you have evidence for believing, is not faith. When the evidence falls apart and you still believe, that may be called faith...or insanity depending on the topic.

Side: Evidence Trumps
StickinStone(649) Clarified
1 point

In reference to our other debate. I am not an Atheist. Neither am I a Christian. I do not believe the Bible was written by God. It is impossible to LOGICALLY convince someone that God wrote the Bible. The consistency of the Bible is a matter of perspective. One can logically argue only about things that there is solid evidence for.

Side: Evidence Trumps
lolzors93(3225) Clarified
1 point

That's why I was saying that is reverts into beliefs-properly-so-called.

Side: Evidence Trumps
StickinStone(649) Clarified
1 point

lolzors, Don't you have some friends of faith that can try to back you up? It's seems like you're being ganged up on.

Side: Evidence Trumps
Quocalimar(6469) Clarified
2 points

His form of faith, is radically different than the other faithful members on here.

Side: Evidence Trumps
AveSatanas(4425) Clarified
1 point

Nope hahahaha .

Side: Evidence Trumps
lolzors93(3225) Clarified
1 point

Most of the people on this site don't even understand the argument, let alone Christians.... :/

Side: Evidence Trumps
AveSatanas(4425) Disputed
1 point

(Dictionary.com)-:

Faith-

1.

confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

2.

belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

3.

belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

4.

belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

5.

a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

Nowhere does it say faith is sometimes, or ever belief with evidence. The fact that there isnt evidence makes it faith. if there was evidence we wouldnt be using this word.

Webster-Miriam Dictionary.com-

Faith-

a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty

b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

2

a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion

b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

3

: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

This definition is even more solid.

Side: Evidence Trumps
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

The ontological argument says that IF God is possible, then it exists. Nothing more. You are insane for trying to use the ontological argument at all.

Side: Evidence Trumps
1 point

Spinoza wrote a whole book explaining the ontological argument and it says a lot more then that.

Side: I just know you're wrong

If someone claims they live without faith, then they have a gross misunderstanding of the idea of truth, validity of opinions and the scientific process by which we accumulate knowledge.

Karl Popper's Theory of Scientific Falsifiability states that something to be supported by evidence, it must also be possible for it to be falsified with evidence - all that which it is reasonable to believe, because we have evidence for it, may be potentially unreasonable if evidence arises which goes against it. From this, we can deduce that humans can never know any absolute truths about the universe, as anything which we can believe can also be disproven.

For example, we accept it as a fact that gravity is true - we experience it every single second of every single day, everywhere in the universe. But if tomorrow, we woke up and flew away from the earth, and we could no longer experience gravity, then we would begin to question whether gravity is a valid belief.

Essentially, every opinion/belief you have, which you believe is a fact, can be disproven, so requires faith. Science is dependent upon faith. But that's not to equate a religious faith & a scientific faith, rather to point out that the degree of proof is important in all instances. Only when I see as much proof in a God as I do in gravity, then I will allow someone to use the reasoning of that God in a debate.

Side: I just know you're wrong
1 point

To recognize a potential falsifiability is not the same as faith. One can know truth about the universe when it is unreasonable to believe that what is required to falsify a condition is possible. It is not unlikely that gravity will give out, it is impossible.

To be surprised that once again the sun rose and you are still stuck to the planet is similar to being born yesterday.

Incidentally, can anyone conceive of a condition where Poppers theory does not apply? Could evidence ever be presented against Poppers theory?

Side: Evidence Trumps
BenWalters(1513) Disputed
1 point

To recognize a potential falsifiability is not the same as faith.

How so? If I accept that I can be wrong, I accept that my thoughts can never be shown to be absolute truth (that is my opinion can never be absolute truth, not that there cannot be absolute truths), so I must have faith that they are truths.

One can know truth about the universe when it is unreasonable to believe that what is required to falsify a condition is possible.

I'm not saying that 'knowing' a truth is unreasonable. Having a belief backed up by faith is not necessarily unreasonable.

It is not unlikely that gravity will give out, it is impossible.

How so? As I have said, all evidence suggests that it will not. Around this evidence, we have modeled equations and laws and constants, through the relationship between various masses. But the only proof we have for gravity is evidence. Therefore new evidence is just as valid as the evidence we currently have. Therefore new evidence could 'disprove' gravity (in our current understanding).

To be surprised that once again the sun rose and you are still stuck to the planet is similar to being born yesterday.

Again, you are misunderstanding what I mean by 'faith'. To me, 'faith' means the difference between what evidence suggests, and the strength of your belief. Quite frankly, I do not see any chance of gravity giving out. But as I have said, there is a chance. Hence there is a difference between my belief, and the rational position. Hence I have faith. You can say the same for all other scientific beliefs - and all beliefs.

Incidentally, can anyone conceive of a condition where Poppers theory does not apply? Could evidence ever be presented against Poppers theory?

I don't thinks so. Philosophical/logical proofs are fundamentally different from scientific proofs, because they rely upon logic & reason & language & impossibilities, rather than evidence. Just as you could not disprove '1+1=2', you cannot disprove a philosophical proof (unless it is not a proof). However, science relies on inductive reasoning, which can show an absolute truth.

Side: I just know you're wrong