Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.

Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.

Facebook addict? Check out our page and become a fan because you love us!

Report This User
Permanent Delete

View All

View All

View All

RSS BenWalters

Reward Points:1513
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
Efficiency Monitor

10 most recent arguments.

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.

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.

are all separate parts of the overall argument for my conclusions.

You can disagree with him about it all you want.

It's exactly what the Constitution says.

I have no problem with you saying that the Constitution supports your argument - arguably it does. But that's not what you said. You completely disregarded the argument he put forward and used the Constitution as absolute truth. That's what I argued against.

I'm not even trying to argue on this debate with you - I have no wish to get involved with yet another abortion debate. But you most certainly did act as though you could not be wrong because a single piece of evidence supported you.

That's not the point. If there are any laws on morality, then they are true wherever someone lives. Simply because a bunch of people said that something should be a certain way does not make it that way.

If you want to argue a point, then you need to defend that point with logic and reasoning. Saying 'someone else said it so it must be true' does not fulfill those requirements (although it can be used as part of an argument).

Yes, I am fully aware of that. Were this a legal argument, specific to the United States, then I would not have made the point. But, this is a moral debate, in the general sense, so we are not debating with the assumption that the constitution is a binding document.

I'm pretty sure PRISM started under Bush (2007) - there's a big difference between continuing an existing program, and actively starting it.

I do agree that the government has overstepped the line here, and people do need to be held responsible. But why do you assume that Obama is the only one responsible? He didn't start the program, he didn't operate it, and he definitely wouldn't have the power to shut it down without informing the public about it. He was a bystander, to the best of my knowledge.

The ones that should be removed from power are those that headed the operations, the heads of the NSA & other governmental bodies which were part of the program, who knowingly broke the law.

Saying that, if my knowledge of Obama's involvement is incorrect, then I am open to some sort of action against him (within reason considering his quite considerable judicial freedoms). As long as those responsible are punished, and action taken to prevent similar things from occurring in the future, then I am satisfied.

0 points

Appeal to authority fallacy. Unless you can prove that the constitution is perfectly moral and must be accepted with absolute authority (you can't) you cannot use it in a debate and expect others to accept it as absolute truth.

I disagree strongly. There tends to be a great arrogance around many philosophers, that believe that their opinions, their ideas, their interests are more important than anyone elses. Their happinesses are greater, their depressions deeper, and their existence more meaningful, simply because they can look down on other people.

I have seen people who I have little respect for, that have little capacity for critical and reasonable thought (a 'small' mind) discuss philosophy, theism, and other similar ideas. I have seen very intelligent people (a 'great' mind) discuss other people, gossip and tease.

I am against any idea of ranking people in such absolute ways. People, their opinions and their minds are much more complex and varied and diverse than any simplistic comparison will be able to show. Most people are capable of so much more than they often demonstrate, if you only give them a chance and a prompt to express themselves properly.

0 points

Even he knew that you cannot proven an intelligent designer exists or not.

That is a very different statement. You originally claimed that he believed in intelligent design (creation by a God). Now you say that he is saying that you cannot disprove the existent of a God (intelligent designer). Which do you claim he believes?

And if you managed to read his entire book, and not realise that he was an atheist, I honestly worry for you.

If you dont know perfection how do you know imperfection?

Because I see pain and suffering in the world. I see people with so much pain and suffering that they would rather stop their existence. But I also see that things can be so much better. In a perfect world, everything would be better, but we do not live in a perfect world. That's quite indisputable really.

0 points

Richard Dawkins has been one of the most prominent atheist & anti-religious voices of the last twenty years. He does not believe in intelligent design - the quote I used should quite simply show that.

How do you know what perfection is?

I do not need to. I simply need to show that the current universe is imperfect (there is a single thing wrong with it) and I have shown that we do not live in a perfect universe. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Displaying 10 most recent debates.

Winning Position: Anyone have strong opinions on the rise of UKIP in recent UK elections?
Winning Position: Paul Ryan
Winning Position: If we have inherent rights, do we also have inherent responsibilities?
Winning Position: If the government didn't 'build that', then why is Obama responsible for the jobs report?
Winning Position: What are you opinions on the recent Middle East protests?
Winning Position: Economics

About Me

Biographical Information
Name: Ben 
Gender: Male
Age: 27
Marital Status: Single
Political Party: Democrat
Country: United Kingdom
Religion: Atheist
Education: High School

Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here