Instigator / Pro
4
1363
rating
13
debates
3.85%
won
Topic
#2407
Christian or non-believer. Either world view (any applicable for non-believer) require a basis in faith.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
seldiora
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
6
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Description
This includes the world view of the big bang happened in nature, laws of the universe took over, the sun and earth formed, through random chance life evolved to where it is now.
I do not define faith in this case as belief without evidence. I believe to take either world you, You must assume one is the more likely, Not the proven, Worldview.
Round 1
The comments raise very valid points and criticisms of the setup.
I apologize. I'm virtually brand new to the world of debating beyond casual in person conversation. I participated in a couple on another site, but people usually just spiraled off to their points ignoring the longer crafted premises.
This site is thankfully not that. While still good for interesting discussions, I see the higher burden on terms and specification of topic.
I'm happy to concede or cancel this if my opponent feels once terms are better set, they no longer wish to tackle the discussion. No hard feelings, that's on me.
That said let me try to get to a debatable point. Patience with my lack of experience is greatly appreciated.
I had posed, Christian or non-believer. Either world view (any applicable for non-believer) require a basis in faith.
The call out of worldview was meant to exclude athiest. I, until recently, was 100% not using that term fairly or correctly. I define a worldview as a chosen view on the nature of reality that can serve as a basis for "how to live your life" essentially. My thought being, if athiests are those with no belief, they don't have enough of a foundation to stand on a consistent, unchanging base worldview.
Please correct me if I'm significantly off in either of these two terms assumed meanings/uses. At least in this context.
So, then the following point I wanted to open for discussion/debate.
If any worldview starts with essentially a set of truth claims. That it can be shown for all worldviews to share the commonality of some basis of faith. To be clear on faith. I dont mean this idea going around of belief without evidence. More so a confidence in the choice that evidence is showing us. I don't believe any worldview to have a provable foundation, including the example given in my short description.
Not just religions, but non-theistic worldviews all make truth claims. Just for example, but i figured a non-theistic worldview holder would have taken this debate, there are many popular religions which all make very specific truth claims about Jesus. Judaism claims Jesus existed and is not God. Same with Islam. Mormons claim Jesus is not God but Lucifer's brother. Christianity says Jesus is God.
If one is right. The others can't be. By definition, not by some personal agenda or targeting.
So, short version a more specific premise is I don't believe any worldview to have a provable foundation. The con will argue theirs does in fact have a provable foundation.
Again, if now that I've been more clear, that sounds terrible. Please let me know. Or if you want to target elsewhere. Apologies if I've wasted your time.
The title is incredibly confusing and I will allow pro to call for a draw if he thinks the way I am arguing is not what he desired.
In any case, pro says he thinks that no worldview has a foundation that can be proved. However, there are certain concepts that can be proved, the most famous being mathematics. Indeed, Scientific American has an article where someone argued that the universe's structure comes from Mathematics itself, rather than "God" or lack of a God! As https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-universe-made-of-math-excerpt/ notes:
In summary, there are two key points to take away: The External Reality Hypothesis implies that a “theory of everything” (a complete description of our external physical reality) has no baggage, and something that has a complete baggage-free description is precisely a mathematical structure. Taken together, this implies the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis, i.e., that the external physical reality described by the theory of everything is a mathematical structure. So the bottom line is that if you believe in an external reality independent of humans, then you must also believe that our physical reality is a mathematical structure. Everything in our world is purely mathematical – including you.
Although we have yet to gather enough evidence about the universe's atoms and matter enough to truly gain undeniable proof that the universe is based on mathematics, here we see an innovative and riveting idea that can actually be proved on solid grounds -- even if mathematics is a human foundation, the basic ideas are consistent and shown within universe's foundation (such as speed of light's limit, gravity's formula, so on and so forth). I hope pro understands this. In a way, the Math Universe Hypothesis is a little bit similar to atheists who strongly rely on science. They use the formulas and ideas to establish a basis of proof, without leaps of logic in faith. As we repeatedly perform countless calculations, we already assume our establishments of 1,2,3,4 numbers. As such, this is not merely "faith" but rather goes beyond it. It is our knowledge that we gain.
Round 2
The title is incredibly confusing and I will allow pro to call for a draw if he thinks the way I am arguing is not what he desired.
--Again, thanks for bearing with me. I have posted and engaged in less than 10 debates like this. Ever. Also, ill defer to your decision on leaving this to a vote or draw upon completion. Hopefully the number of rounds will allow for a term setting and argument forming round. Ill gladly take a dock in points for my fault at the wasted time and space.
In any case, pro says he thinks that no worldview has a foundation that can be proved. However, there are certain concepts that can be proved, the most famous being mathematics. Indeed, Scientific American has an article where someone argued that the universe's structure comes from Mathematics itself, rather than "God" or lack of a God! As https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-universe-made-of-math-excerpt/ notes:
In summary, there are two key points to take away: The External Reality Hypothesis implies that a “theory of everything” (a complete description of our external physical reality) has no baggage, and something that has a complete baggage-free description is precisely a mathematical structure. Taken together, this implies the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis, i.e., that the external physical reality described by the theory of everything is a mathematical structure. So the bottom line is that if you believe in an external reality independent of humans, then you must also believe that our physical reality is a mathematical structure. Everything in our world is purely mathematical – including you.
--Regardless of how our discussion goes, this is super interesting and I'd not come across it so formally laid out. Even in my undergrad mathematics days (finished with an applied math degree after 4 years of physics). Although man discussions around this in our math lounge haha.
Although we have yet to gather enough evidence about the universe's atoms and matter enough to truly gain undeniable proof that the universe is based on mathematics,
-- the crux of my point. I think conversations about the origins of the universe would be way more productive if both sides admitted we're looking at the same evidence and, at the most fundamental level, there's some amount of a, call it, leap of faith which must happen. I equally think the Christian who thinks they could prove God and the proponent of a self contained universe (one with no supernatural, no outside dimensions other than those accounted for within the laws of our universe) who thinks modern sciences current knowledge is sufficient to call a non-theistic view proven are wrong. I think we will forever have to come to a point that we can define the rift where it simply must be opinion. Granted, opinion based on non-opinion based evidence.
here we see an innovative and riveting idea that can actually be proved on solid grounds --
-- I totally agree. But I think we can formulate a lot of ideas of how we could prove something like this, but will always get stuck by some unpassable barrier. I acknowledge this is conjecture and I very well may be wrong.
even if mathematics is a human foundation, the basic ideas are consistent and shown within universe's foundation (such as speed of light's limit, gravity's formula, so on and so forth). I hope pro understands this.
-- i do, but I've come to see the beauty that is in mathematics and the reason why it works so amazingly well as our insight into (please let me know if you catch my meaning here) the language God wrote the universe in so to speak. For me, the further fine-tuning of the universe and seeming fractal levels to creation (the same laws/rules running at different levels of reality) further support this. Again, conjecture but it's all consistent to me for what you'd expect to see if you started with what's laid out in the Bible and then hypothesized what you'd expect to see in nature.
In a way, the Math Universe Hypothesis is a little bit similar to atheists who strongly rely on science. They use the formulas and ideas to establish a basis of proof, without leaps of logic in faith.
-- I dont see it as leaps of logic in faith as a different conclusion to the same evidence pointing to an ultimately unprovable question. Both sides must take some leap. I mean physics is actually a great example. If the speed of light is not constant, a ton is either flat out wrong or needs heavy revisions. It's essentially one of the many, known to be theory but assumed as law, things in Physics. Otherwise, you wouldn't ever be able to justify any study into anything. We know the assumption works in all the cases we've tried and we've uncovered loads riding on that. But we're still making a leap of faith (but a highly knowledge based, logically thought out one). There's no doubt in my mind science would celebrate a discovery showing that to be wrong. There's been a few super interesting theories already. But that doesn't mean it's still not a unproved assumption. Nor does that prove it's not true either to be clear. What if the speed of light is changing so incredibly slowly that you need to look on the scales of millions or billions of years to see a tiny change? Modern science has no hope of detection outside a theoretical breakthrough from a modern genius akin to those who have made startling discoveries which led to where we are now. It's just so disenguous to me when either side stands on a platform of I'm 100% sure, proven, without a doubt, nothing could ever possibly happen to tweak, edit, or invalidate my position. And I see it all the time. Whether assumed in the subtext of arguments or outright pushed.
I think we need to get comfortable, once we find that line, to say you're up and I'm down (I was going to say left/right, but shuttered at the potential political play on terms and ran). We can't be sure, we both are confident, and currently do not have enough evidence to consider changing our minds. Perhaps that's the point where we seek to find common ground. Or talk about which tv show you're most into right now hahaha. Otherwise it just seems to always become a showdown of talking points or sub-point nit-picking. My general observations after watching hundreds of hours of discussions and debates on these topics.
As we repeatedly perform countless calculations, we already assume our establishments of 1,2,3,4 numbers. As such, this is not merely "faith" but rather goes beyond it. It is our knowledge that we gain.
--I agree and if i were speaking with a Christian where we both assumed the same worldview. I would argue (not that you would take the opposing position if Christian, I just know many, many Christians who disagree) that it's well within God's plan for us, while on Earth without Christ (and probably after, but that's a WHOLE different conversation) to do science and uncover some specifics of the majesty of His creation. Furthermore, to take the knowledge and use it to build a society where we can best take care of the ones who need it most.
okay so pro goes back to saying no matter what belief you hold, you must have this leap of faith (since even Mathematical Universe requires even more knowledge to believe in), however, the very definition of agnostic itself is you aren't sure what's true and what's false. Consider the court jurisdiction on criminals, if everyone is uncertain, that does not mean they believe the criminal is guilty or the criminal is innocent -- there is merely not enough evidence to put him as guilty, so we let him go due to the idea "ten guilty man go free, rather than convict one innocent".
Pro seems to believe that similarly, there is only "god exists" and "god doesn't exist", but unlike the courts' black and white result, we can say that we are uncertain on both sides and are somewhere in the middle, and that god may or may not exist. If we allowed a third option in court that said "Not Sure" (to wait for more evidence), and the criminal had absolutely no evidence for innocent or guilty, then in a vacuum, true to their words, they would say "Not Sure" (assuming it doesn't punish the criminal). As you can see there is a third position that seems like it's a non-believer, but requires no leap of faith -- it is the default position of everyone who is in court, fresh without evidence. Religion is not like a jurisdiction that has to be guilty or innocent, note how the idea is "NOT guilty" so it doesn't mean innocent. Just because you say "God doesn't exist" doesn't mean you completely refute Christianity's side, as you can still believe in everything else with Christianity (Jesus Chris, Noah's ark, Adam and Eve), just with a potentially different cause.
I hope this clears things up with pro.
Round 3
okay so pro goes back to saying no matter what belief you hold, you must have this leap of faith (since even Mathematical Universe requires even more knowledge to believe in), however, the very definition of agnostic itself is you aren't sure what's true and what's false.
-- Admittedly I did a poor job constructing the premise. There some relevant views I should have excluded to be fair. Not my intention and my fault. If this proves unfruitful, I'm happy to cancel or concede.
Consider the court jurisdiction on criminals, if everyone is uncertain, that does not mean they believe the criminal is guilty or the criminal is innocent -- there is merely not enough evidence to put him as guilty, so we let him go due to the idea "ten guilty man go free, rather than convict one innocent".
Pro seems to believe that similarly, there is only "god exists" and "god doesn't exist", but unlike the courts' black and white result, we can say that we are uncertain on both sides and are somewhere in the middle, and that god may or may not exist.
-- You're right. I should have explicitly excluded the below third option.
If we allowed a third option in court that said "Not Sure" (to wait for more evidence), and the criminal had absolutely no evidence for innocent or guilty, then in a vacuum, true to their words, they would say "Not Sure" (assuming it doesn't punish the criminal).
-- Perhaps opinion but I feel there is loads of evidence. I can also understand coming to a conclusion of not sure. But given one has to be true and each has profound implications for life, it seems highly relevant to stick with one of the other two options. That said, I'm not saying you're under any obligation whatsoever.
As you can see there is a third position that seems like it's a non-believer, but requires no leap of faith -- it is the default position of everyone who is in court, fresh without evidence. Religion is not like a jurisdiction that has to be guilty or innocent, note how the idea is "NOT guilty" so it doesn't mean innocent.
-- well, when it comes to choosing a religion. But one's choice in which religion they're confident in has no impact on the correctness of the truth claims made by these religions. Often, directly opposing truth claims in the case of most religions. At the very least between Christianity and all the others. Quite obvious and core-level contradictory truth claims too. Especially the most talked about like Hinduism, Buddhism, and the other Abrahamic ones (Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, etc). If one is in fact correct, the other must, by definition, be incorrect.
Just because you say "God doesn't exist" doesn't mean you completely refute Christianity's side, as you can still believe in everything else with Christianity (Jesus Chris, Noah's ark, Adam and Eve), just with a potentially different cause.
-- Agreed. It just wouldn't make you a Christian is all. Simply be definition.
I hope this clears things up with pro.
-- Thanks again for your patience with me and my horribly worded premise.
I believe pros wording is as if he conceded as he did not realize the third position of religion. Remember that even Christianity and science do not necessarily contradict each other. So leap of faith can differ based on what kind of non belief you trust in.
Round 4
You're right. I was looking for someone not in this third category. As I did not set terms properly prior to your acceptance, thats on me. I concede as I've now placed you either arguing a point of view you hold that is not what I'm critiquing. Or to take a view you don't hold. Either breaks by relevancy or fairness. No need to continue. Apologies but thank you for the lesson learned! I'm now less likely to put someone in the same unfair position and get a good discussion off the ground.
Pro has conceded. Vote for con.
Round 5
Thanks again for your time! Posting this to not only thank you but allow for wrapping of this debate.
good luck on future debates and don't forget to vote for me
I don't see an option which allows me to vote. It just says voting period where publish argument usually was. What am I missing? Sorry. One of the first debates I've done on here and also enter the voting period. I'm not trying to be difficult (just happen to be hahaha)
ah read that as like you were ready with a one off. I understand where you're beefs are coming from in that section. I'm not out here to defend Turek haha.
If any of my arguments drift towards his, ill find out which are relevant to me haha
Take your pick lol He gave me his book and I read half of it. But by the time i got the part i cared about, the evolution part, it was just so fractally wrong that every sentence was so loaded with fallacies it became unbearable.
I've only watched his presentation and some follow up Q&A. Which argument are you referring to?
Franks argument is completely useless against agnostic atheists
Frank's argument is completely useless against Agnostics.
Juts the book title is a fallacy of projection and false equivalence. The whole book starts with straw manning the word atheist.
I have a feeling we're about to see some Frank Turek arguments. Here, https://www.academia.edu/21505705/I_Don_t_Have_Enough_Faith_to_Be_an_Atheist
I would definitely not accept this debate, the opponent has an anti-definition, but not the actual definition? Not only that, but they provide no actual reason for the topicality of the definition. On top of both of these things, the Pro would necessarily adopt the BoP and be responsible for a constructive. Overall I don't like the framing of this debate. Dishonest.
I have done a debate on this topic. Feel free to check it out.
I’m very curious why pro thinks lack of belief requires faith.