In case you are wondering who won the debate since no one voted on it, I plugged the entire debate (word for word) into ChatGTP, and here is an exact quote of the results:
"Based purely on the structure and content of the arguments, you (Socrates_had_a_baby) seem to have presented a stronger case overall. Here’s why:
Strengths of Your Argument
Logical Rigor – You effectively used syllogistic reasoning and defended logic’s role in forming knowledge.
Counterargument Handling – You identified and rebutted your opponent’s main points, particularly regarding empiricism.
Unanswered Arguments – Your opponent did not directly challenge your strongest claim about humans having an irreducible non-physical component.
Comprehensive Approach – You provided multiple independent lines of reasoning (NDEs, consciousness, theology, transcendence, Aquinas).
Weaknesses of Your Opponent’s Argument
Failure to Engage with Key Points – They did not directly address your syllogism for the afterlife.
Over-Reliance on Empiricism – Their rejection of non-empirical reasoning was inconsistent (e.g., ignoring how math relies on non-empirical logic).
Misuse of Terms – Their misunderstanding of "hearsay" and "belief vs. fact" weakened their argument.
Final Verdict
Your argument was more logically structured, addressed counterpoints effectively, and introduced multiple independent justifications for an afterlife. Your opponent relied too much on dismissing non-empirical reasoning without properly engaging with your syllogism. Based on the content, you likely won this debate.
Would you like to refine this response into a closing statement or victory recap?"
Surprisingly, the reversal is also true. An argument for God's existence is often made from the apparent existence of objective morality. In C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity, he makes an argument is known as the Moral Argument or the Argument from the Moral Law, and it proceeds as follows:
1. Existence of a Universal Moral Law: Lewis begins by pointing out that humans across cultures and time periods have a sense of right and wrong, even though specific moral codes may vary. This universal sense of moral obligation, which he calls the "Moral Law" or "Law of Human Nature," leads us to believe that certain things are objectively right or wrong.
2. Moral Law Is Not a Product of Human Instinct or Social Convention: Lewis argues that this sense of morality is not simply an evolutionary instinct or something invented by human society. He reasons that while instincts (like the desire to help others or self-preservation) exist, the Moral Law often directs us to choose one instinct over another. For instance, when we feel both the instinct to help someone and the instinct for self-preservation, the Moral Law tells us which is the "right" action. Thus, it stands above and beyond our instincts and societal conventions.
3. Moral Law Suggests a Moral Lawgiver: If there is a universal Moral Law that transcends human societies and individual preferences, Lewis argues that it must come from a source outside of humanity. Since the Moral Law reflects a standard of good that humans are subject to but did not create, it points to a higher moral authority or lawgiver.
4. This Lawgiver is God: Lewis concludes that the best explanation for this Moral Law is the existence of God. He argues that the Moral Law reveals a moral order in the universe that reflects the nature of a supreme being who is good and just. Without God, Lewis contends, there would be no grounding for objective morality—our sense of right and wrong would be mere preferences or cultural practices.
That's a great question. I think for one, because I wanted to engage in a conversation on morality based on the beliefs we both already share about the universe, not what we might disagree on. If I make an argument for objective morality grounded in theism, than an atheist might just rebuttal, "Well, I don't believe in God," and then we have a non-starter conversation or one in which we start to debate whether or not God exists, which is a whole other can of worms. This is not to say that I don't believe a good argument can be made for objective morality if you already believe God exists. If there is a creator of the universe, then he would know best about the kinds of laws we should abide by that would lead to flourishing communities, optimal functioning of the body, and a fully integrated soul (to barrow the words of Aristotle).
However, I do think that objective morality can be argued for on purely secular grounds. You noticed me appealing to symmetrical design and brain wiring. Some secular moral realists, like Peter Railton, argue that moral facts are natural facts about the world, grounded in human well-being, flourishing, or societal stability. I also believe that the nature we have dealt with moral issues as a human race over time are too congruent to be merely a byproduct of the culture.
Sorry for the forfeiture. I meant to respond on time, but things have been crazy at work so I let time slip away. I still want to give a reply and finish the debate though because it's a good one :)
That's a shame. I was looking forward to the content that would result from this debate, but it looks like Auld forfeited all of the rounds and relinquished the debate
As a philosopher, I don't understand what class of arguments you are referring to. "X is evidence for Y debates" is so generic that it includes all connections between correlation and causation, which is the basis for all science, mathematics, etc, so you need to be more specific with your description of the kind of debates you mean, else it is meaningless. Religious conversations in prison are a cogent inductive argument that Christianity is true.
Auld, I was able to find the study you referenced by Lea Zanbar, but it doesn't look like the main purpose of the study was to test anything like the relationship between truth and belief, rather the study was intended to to understand what motivates people to get actively involved in their communities to improve their well-being and solve local issues.
In case you are wondering who won the debate since no one voted on it, I plugged the entire debate (word for word) into ChatGTP, and here is an exact quote of the results:
"Based purely on the structure and content of the arguments, you (Socrates_had_a_baby) seem to have presented a stronger case overall. Here’s why:
Strengths of Your Argument
Logical Rigor – You effectively used syllogistic reasoning and defended logic’s role in forming knowledge.
Counterargument Handling – You identified and rebutted your opponent’s main points, particularly regarding empiricism.
Unanswered Arguments – Your opponent did not directly challenge your strongest claim about humans having an irreducible non-physical component.
Comprehensive Approach – You provided multiple independent lines of reasoning (NDEs, consciousness, theology, transcendence, Aquinas).
Weaknesses of Your Opponent’s Argument
Failure to Engage with Key Points – They did not directly address your syllogism for the afterlife.
Over-Reliance on Empiricism – Their rejection of non-empirical reasoning was inconsistent (e.g., ignoring how math relies on non-empirical logic).
Misuse of Terms – Their misunderstanding of "hearsay" and "belief vs. fact" weakened their argument.
Final Verdict
Your argument was more logically structured, addressed counterpoints effectively, and introduced multiple independent justifications for an afterlife. Your opponent relied too much on dismissing non-empirical reasoning without properly engaging with your syllogism. Based on the content, you likely won this debate.
Would you like to refine this response into a closing statement or victory recap?"
@anonymous_Icon.
haha you are nice.
It's true, that was my childhood. I still read very slowly, but I can read well after years of training.
Good debate topic. I want to see the outcome
Surprisingly, the reversal is also true. An argument for God's existence is often made from the apparent existence of objective morality. In C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity, he makes an argument is known as the Moral Argument or the Argument from the Moral Law, and it proceeds as follows:
1. Existence of a Universal Moral Law: Lewis begins by pointing out that humans across cultures and time periods have a sense of right and wrong, even though specific moral codes may vary. This universal sense of moral obligation, which he calls the "Moral Law" or "Law of Human Nature," leads us to believe that certain things are objectively right or wrong.
2. Moral Law Is Not a Product of Human Instinct or Social Convention: Lewis argues that this sense of morality is not simply an evolutionary instinct or something invented by human society. He reasons that while instincts (like the desire to help others or self-preservation) exist, the Moral Law often directs us to choose one instinct over another. For instance, when we feel both the instinct to help someone and the instinct for self-preservation, the Moral Law tells us which is the "right" action. Thus, it stands above and beyond our instincts and societal conventions.
3. Moral Law Suggests a Moral Lawgiver: If there is a universal Moral Law that transcends human societies and individual preferences, Lewis argues that it must come from a source outside of humanity. Since the Moral Law reflects a standard of good that humans are subject to but did not create, it points to a higher moral authority or lawgiver.
4. This Lawgiver is God: Lewis concludes that the best explanation for this Moral Law is the existence of God. He argues that the Moral Law reveals a moral order in the universe that reflects the nature of a supreme being who is good and just. Without God, Lewis contends, there would be no grounding for objective morality—our sense of right and wrong would be mere preferences or cultural practices.
That's a great question. I think for one, because I wanted to engage in a conversation on morality based on the beliefs we both already share about the universe, not what we might disagree on. If I make an argument for objective morality grounded in theism, than an atheist might just rebuttal, "Well, I don't believe in God," and then we have a non-starter conversation or one in which we start to debate whether or not God exists, which is a whole other can of worms. This is not to say that I don't believe a good argument can be made for objective morality if you already believe God exists. If there is a creator of the universe, then he would know best about the kinds of laws we should abide by that would lead to flourishing communities, optimal functioning of the body, and a fully integrated soul (to barrow the words of Aristotle).
However, I do think that objective morality can be argued for on purely secular grounds. You noticed me appealing to symmetrical design and brain wiring. Some secular moral realists, like Peter Railton, argue that moral facts are natural facts about the world, grounded in human well-being, flourishing, or societal stability. I also believe that the nature we have dealt with moral issues as a human race over time are too congruent to be merely a byproduct of the culture.
Sorry for the forfeiture. I meant to respond on time, but things have been crazy at work so I let time slip away. I still want to give a reply and finish the debate though because it's a good one :)
I apologize for the redundancy in my last post. I waited till the last minute to try and post it and the time pressure kept me from polishing it.
Great, looking forward to your contribution! :)
That's a shame. I was looking forward to the content that would result from this debate, but it looks like Auld forfeited all of the rounds and relinquished the debate
This is the funniest debate title ever written
As a philosopher, I don't understand what class of arguments you are referring to. "X is evidence for Y debates" is so generic that it includes all connections between correlation and causation, which is the basis for all science, mathematics, etc, so you need to be more specific with your description of the kind of debates you mean, else it is meaningless. Religious conversations in prison are a cogent inductive argument that Christianity is true.
Auld, I was able to find the study you referenced by Lea Zanbar, but it doesn't look like the main purpose of the study was to test anything like the relationship between truth and belief, rather the study was intended to to understand what motivates people to get actively involved in their communities to improve their well-being and solve local issues.
@Wylted: I watched and greatly enjoyed your video coverage! Thanks for taking the time to think about the subject at hand.