Instigator / Pro
7
1525
rating
23
debates
58.7%
won
Topic
#4945
Is faith a valid basis for belief in God, or should belief be primarily based on empirical evidence and reason?
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 4 points ahead, the winner is...
SethBrown
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
3
1500
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Description
Explore the foundations of belief in God in this thought-provoking debate. Participants will grapple with the question: Is faith a valid basis for belief in God, or should belief be primarily based on empirical evidence and reason?
pro: Faith alone is a valid belief
con: Your belief should be backed up by evidence & reason
Round 1
I’d first off like to thank Qing for accepting my debate, and I hope we can have a wonderful and productive conversation
The question posed is, is faith alone a valid belief or should you back it up with reason & evidence.
While I do believe every theist ought to have evidence I still believe that faith alone is a valid belief.
My argument is simple and short, as pascal puts it, we have everything to gain and nothing to lose. When it comes to theism there are 4 possible outcome’s
1 - your an atheist and god doesn’t exist, therefore you gain finite and lose nothing
2 - your an atheist and god does exist, therefore you gain finite and lose infinitely
3 - your a theist and god doesn’t exist, therefore you gain nothing and lose finite
4 - your a theist and god does exist, therefore you gain infinitely and lose finite
As pascal points out the theistic side has a “better wager” it’s be like betting 5$ for the chance to win a infinite amount of money. Anyone would do it. So why would you not take this wager? I think this shows that just because you don’t have evidence doesn’t mean you shouldn’t believe. (of course if there was evidence to the contrary it’s be different but I don’t believe there is)
Another thing I’d like to point out is the great moral teachings from theism. I’ll use what the Bible says since I’m a Christian. It teaches great things morally
1) turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39)
2) We should 'speak the truth in love' (Eph 4:15)
3) You shall not murder (Ex 20:13)
4)love one another (John 13:34–35)
I mean these are all considered good principles to hold, why shouldn’t you follow them? I think this is one of the things that cause alot of people to become a theist, hearing the moral values a theistic view can bring.
Hi，I am glad to debate with you.
First, you mentioned that use 5$ to bet a billion of dollars is just like gamble. Most people will not win in this game. Moreover, human civilization already have many laws and moral criterions to judge or evaluate right or wrong things. You never mention that many things in the Bible are not proper to the educations in today. For example, the Bible says that human born with evil personality. Not to mention that different versions of Bible have contradict.
Second, wrong faith will demolish what we had built today. According to the statement in the last paragraph, some wrong values or wrong belief will be deemed by people. If someone builds a new religious system and conducts misleading on people. It is not right for people to believe things that is not explainable in scientific ways. For instance, like dark matters, no one can prove that they exist so they call it hypothesis or concept. Scientists use model of universe to speculate the existent of dark matters. They didn't find the evidence and they won't say dark matter is true, so won't the faith of gods. The apparently unrooted belief will slow down the development of technologies and societies on Earth. People in some places still keep women as an object or part of property. The form is a little bit like women is the slave of her owner(husband). Do you think they are right? They keep their belief without any evidence. Much less that a plenty of people give up learning science because part of it conflict with their faith. It is the loss of our civilization due to the loss of potential "Einstein"(genius).
Round 2
First, you mentioned that use 5$ to bet a billion of dollars is just like gamble. Most people will not win in this game.
Im glad you mentioned this. I completely agree most people wont "win" this wager, for I believe most people (presuming god existed) would actually goto hell. Although I dont think thats what you meant, I dont think we can ascribe a probability to something like this, its beyond us as humans. we can say the lottery is a 1 in 10000 chance because of math but we cant use anything like that for the existence of god.
Moreover, human civilization already have many laws and moral criterions to judge or evaluate right or wrong things.
And id say most of these things seem to matchup with what the bible says, dont go insult for insult, do onto others what you'd want others to do onto you, etc. It really goes to show how the moral teachings of the bible are good.
You never mention that many things in the Bible are not proper to the educations in today. For example, the Bible says that human born with evil personality.
I dont think the bible says people are born with a "evil personality" we believe that everyone has or will sin, which is what I think you mean by "evil personality" correct me if im wrong.
Not to mention that different versions of Bible have contradict.
Well this debate isnt about evidence for or against a biblical god whether or not faith alone is a basis for believing in him(or a god in general). Although id be glad to hear them.
Second, wrong faith will demolish what we had built today. According to the statement in the last paragraph, some wrong values or wrong belief will be deemed by people.
Well I dont think it would "demolish" what we have today. Do note im not arguing people should believe in god because of faith (although I think to a degree they should but I dont think faith is the way) instead that "blind faith" is a fair basis for belief.
If someone builds a new religious system and conducts misleading on people. It is not right for people to believe things that is not explainable in scientific ways.
Well I believe there are many things that cant be proven by science or empirical evidence but are all reaction to accept. To list a few
Logical & mathematical truths, Science pre-supposes logic & math so to use science to prove the laws of logic would be arguing in a circle.
Metaphysical truths, Like there are other minds than my own or that the external world is real, or that the past was not created 5 mins ago with a appearance of age.
Aesthetic judgements, Cant be access by the scientific method because the beautiful cant be scientifically proven.
And finally science itself, Science cant be justified by the scientific method; science is permeated with unprovable assumptions. For example the special theory of relativity, the whole theory hinges on the assumption that the speed of light is constant in a one-way direction between any 2 points A & B, but that strictly cannot be proven; we simply have to assume that in order to hold the theory
For instance, like dark matters, no one can prove that they exist so they call it hypothesis or concept. Scientists use model of universe to speculate the existent of dark matters. They didn't find the evidence and they won't say dark matter is true, so won't the faith of gods.
Well the existence of dark matter is munch different from that of a god but I see the point your making. From a scientific method of course they wouldn't say its true, thats the scientific method (although as i pointed out earlier some things are assumed) but the thing is people dont need to follow a scientific method to come to a belief. For example I could believe you if you said you were a man and looked like a man, I wouldn't need to run tests to see if you produced male levels of Testosterone. Although the scientific method would indicate we have to.
The apparently unrooted belief will slow down the development of technologies and societies on Earth.
Well I believe its rooted (although thats not what the debate is about) but its important to notice that Christians are often accredited to be responsible for science [1]
People in some places still keep women as an object or part of property. The form is a little bit like women is the slave of her owner(husband). Do you think they are right? They keep their belief without any evidence.
I obviously disagree with that, I dont think the world should base its laws around religions just because its true (although I think if there was clear evidence for god I believe we should). I think alot of religions like these also have contradictions. And I dont see how this is going against faith. Its attributing one thing to another that aren't connected
Much less that a plenty of people give up learning science because part of it conflict with their faith. It is the loss of our civilization due to the loss of potential "Einstein"(genius).
Well kinda similar to what I pointed out earlier, the earliest "fathers" of science were religious people. I think you also took the stance that science disagrees with the bible, I dont think that's correct. I would say science supports the bible. In the past say 600 years some of the strongest evidence for god has been discovered
For example:
Evolution
Evolution
The big bang
The universe is fine-tuned
The universe is fine-tuned
The earth is some 5 billion years old
All of these in my view are strong evidence for the biblical god.
Sources:
[1] - How Christianity gave rise to modern science. (2017, December 13). Crossway. https://www.crossway.org/articles/how-christianity-gave-rise-to-modern-science/
Forfeited
Round 3
Well I got nothing to respond to so I forfeit my round as well.
Forfeited
Round 4
I suppose ill forfeit again
Forfeited
Round 5
Here I am again to forfeit
Forfeited
Well this debate was about if faith is a valid basis to come to a belief. The challenge of this debate is also expanded to you if you wish, since my original opponent vanished.
If you actually have empirical evidence, what is there to have a faith about?
You have faith when you don't have evidence. You have the knowledge with evidence.
I'd agree it's often good to have 'reasons. .
Easier to convince others,
Good to try to see 'truth for oneself, rather than just assume what may be false.
A manga called Liars Game, had a character who encouraged doubting other people,
“People SHOULD be doubted. Many people misunderstand this concept. Doubting people is just a part of getting to know them. What many people call ‘trust’ is really just giving up on trying to understand others, and that very act is far worse than doubting. It is actually ‘apathy.”
― Shinobu Kaitani, Liar Game, Volume 4
And I remember the Bible mentioning false prophets.
New International Version
"and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people."
https://biblehub.com/matthew/24-11.htm
If it warns people against false prophets, presumably people are being encouraged to not accept without question, what is said by others.
Hey there lemming. Just to clarify my stance, as a Christian I believe people should have evidence or at least a reason other than pure "blind faith" [1]. Although I do hold the stance that faith alone is a valid point for a basis of belief, meaning you should develop reasons for believing in it, as I believe alot of theists, especially apologists do.
[1] - 1 peter 3:15: "but in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord. Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you,"
@NoOneInParticular
Can faith 'avoid having evidence and reason?
I'd suppose it can, 'kind of myself.
But if one views this world as one of causation, or cause and effect,
People's faith, are going to have reasons for why they are held.
Course then there's that word 'primary.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
When I say 'kind of,
People with mental illness, can have some pretty big leaps in logic,
Feelings that come upon them, driven by disorder.
Not that religion is an illness or disorder,
I'm just musing on faith, certainty held in an idea.
. .
Course 'unlike a meth addict or individual with schizophrenia,
I imagine many people of religious belief might change their beliefs,
Were proof or a threshold of convincing be done.
Same as an atheist might become a theist, with the same proof or threshold convincing be done.
But it's not 'so easy a proof, one way or the other perhaps,
Various life experiences, presuppositions, leading to conclusions.