Instigator / Pro
0
1476
rating
336
debates
40.77%
won
Topic
#4954
It is totally illogical to have faith based on empirical evidence.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
0
1309
rating
270
debates
40.74%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
It is totally illogical to have faith based on empirical evidence. I was inspired by a similar topic to bring forth this one. This is regarding faith in general however. I also want to make the distinction between probability, deductive, abductive reasoning and evidence. These are all separate.
Evidence in this topic is something that is or isn't. Not a little bit or a lot , just is there or absent. It's what's real and what you know to be and can't not be something else later.
It's not a dream that you thought was real or appeared evident , then you awakened. Over and over and over.
Water is wet. Fire will burn. Empirical. Not theoretical. Constant, fixated, immutable. Not strong evidence, not weak evidence. All these different categories are conflating smearing the word around.
There's evidence and then there's what you think by some sort of reasoning, influence, cause , etc .
Questions on the topic. Drop a comment.
Round 1
Let's get it started. Let's get it started in here, everybody everybody.
Greetings once again.
It is totally illogical to have faith based on empirical evidence.
What do I mean by illogical? Not connecting to that which is logical and to that which is logic.
For a refresher what is logic?
Has to do with validity. You can Google search it. It has to do with what is valid , factual and correct.
So this has to involve proof, evidence, something we can KNOW to be which is what we identify as fact.
Hopefully we're good thus far.
This taps back into the topic. What does faith in something have to do with evidence at all ?
When you know something to be fact, you know it. You can believe or know something.
When you believe something to be , it's not the same as knowing.
What I'm talking about is accepting something as true without absolute proof.
When we know anything, it is knowledge, information given to us from some source, what we can call the fact itself. As long as it's the actual observable empirical reality we can detect, realize and recognize. It's not what someone has written about as they're not that actual source of fact, just information. I can clarify the difference between information we get from the real world and nature from the information made up of opinion, thought, standpoint, worldview, perception and bias.
But an example of faith , not evidence. I believe I'm going to wake up the next time after sleep . I have no empirical data of the future that I will. I have no evidence that there are no factors that will impact me from not waking up.
It's the same thing with a vehicle starting, continuing to work at a job . These are some of the basic things many take for granted confusing them as things proven to be so they treat them as a given hence taking them for granted. As if they're bound to happen see .
Just not true. It's not the case.
So I'll leave it there for now . This doesn't really have to be topic heavy. Not necessarily religion focused although I can use that word synonymous with faith and belief. Like watching or doing something religiously. Ok. That's it.
Well, if there is 90% chance that something will happen...
I have faith that it will happen.
Round 2
Do you disagree or have a counterpoint to anything I've stated thus far?
When you know something to be fact, you know it. You can believe or know something.When you believe something to be , it's not the same as knowing.
Empirical evidence requires faith, it requires us to believe in the evidence.
If I dont believe in evidence, then it is impossible to convince me that evidence is true.
This proves that evidence requires faith.
Round 3
"Empirical evidence requires faith, it requires us to believe in the evidence.
If I dont believe in evidence, then it is impossible to convince me that evidence is true.
This proves that evidence requires faith."
When you know something is the case, do you know it or believe it is? Which one? Do you believe or know it?
When you know something is the case, do you know it or believe it is? Which one? Do you believe or know it?
In order to know, you have to believe, no?
If I dont believe that Japan exists, I cannot at the same time know that it exists.
Round 4
"In order to know, you have to believe, no?
If I dont believe that Japan exists, I cannot at the same time know that it exists."
This is where definitions really come into play.
Are you using the terms " believe" and " know " synonymously or interchangeably?
Let's understand here, when I say believe, it means to accept something as true without evidence.
To know is to be aware of something that is because, because, because of evidence.
So belief has no awareness. It's just what you think before knowing. Like I believe this sports team will win the game. That's different from I know they win games. One has to do with an unknown future or unknown see
You're phrasing is coming across as when you believe something you're also aware.
Difference between you think the answer is so and so and know that it is.
I think you're conflating the two.
Let's go back to the first round because we don't want confusion. At least I don't.
"This taps back into the topic. What does faith in something have to do with evidence at all ?"
Being that faith is belief and you're not aware of what you're believing in is real or not and evidence would show that it's real, how does faith and evidence connect?
It's separate from evidence.
"When you know something to be fact, you know it. You can believe or know something.
When you believe something to be , it's not the same as knowing. "
The difference between, between accepting something as true without awareness to the senses that it actually is.
"What I'm talking about is accepting something as true without absolute proof."
Bottom line. What I'm talking is specifically what makes the topic statement true. Accepting whatever it is as true perhaps based on anything than that whatever telling you that it is true.
"When we know anything, it is knowledge, information given to us from some source, what we can call the fact itself. As long as it's the actual observable empirical reality we can detect, realize and recognize. It's not what someone has written about as they're not that actual source of fact, just information. I can clarify the difference between information we get from the real world and nature from the information made up of opinion, thought, standpoint, worldview, perception and bias."
Here I'm explaining what I mean by evidence. It doesn't look like you responded to any of this. It was like glossed over. I didn't see you quote any of this. Getting lazy on me now. It's all good.
"But an example of faith , not evidence. I believe I'm going to wake up the next time after sleep . I have no empirical data of the future that I will. I have no evidence that there are no factors that will impact me from not waking up."
This is just like the sports example of what I'm talking about. Does this need any further clarity?
When you don't know you have no awareness, no experience, no witness of a particular reality in question see.
"It's the same thing with a vehicle starting, continuing to work at a job . These are some of the basic things many take for granted confusing them as things proven to be so they treat them as a given hence taking them for granted. As if they're bound to happen see ."
More examples of believing something will happen or happen to be true but won't know until it's empirically given. Such as after I turn that engine over and it started. Ok I know the engine started as opposed to believing it will. I'm awake from my slumber I know. I didn't know I would be beforehand see .
These are the illustrative differences in that evidence tells you one thing that's based on one thing that can't be established elsewhere .
If I dont believe that Japan exists, I cannot at the same time know that it exists."This is where definitions really come into play.Are you using the terms " believe" and " know " synonymously or interchangeably?
I am saying that in order to know, you have to believe.
Let's understand here, when I say believe, it means to accept something as true without evidence
Well, yes. Thats a good definition.
So I just have to accept evidence as true without evidence for that evidence, in order to have faith based on evidence.
Since all evidence on Earth is either accepted without questioning, either not completely demonstratable, it follows that I indeed must believe in evidence first in order to know something.
For example, we see that A causes B.
But whats the evidence that we are seeing it? How do we know that what we see is really there?
So yes, evidence requires lots of faith for us to believe in it, therefore I am not really seeing how you can know something without believing in it.
Round 5
"I am saying that in order to know, you have to believe."
This is the issue and also with those that don't understand at all making comments.
The issue is you're using terms synonymously. Will you acknowledge that I'm not with belief and knowledge?
"Well, yes. Thats a good definition.
So I just have to accept evidence as true without evidence for that evidence, in order to have faith based on evidence."
So you saying yes, are you now granting the difference between knowledge and belief?
"Since all evidence on Earth is either accepted without questioning, either not completely demonstratable, it follows that I indeed must believe in evidence first in order to know something."
Then the question is why are you questioning evidence if evidence really is what it is?
See that's getting into looking at evidence as just another figment of possibilities that could be true or false.
But the evidence I'm talking about is what is alwayyysssss true.
"For example, we see that A causes B.
But whats the evidence that we are seeing it? How do we know that what we see is really there?"
If you got to ask these questions, it's not really evidence. It's just what appears to be. But the truth is really what it is or really is not.
If we start or continue to just question and question and question, there's really no line drawn, foundation, standard or truth because there's always a possibility of falsehood.
The evidence I'm taking about eliminates the possibility of falsehood. In other words we get to the point where it's final. No turning back and thinking "oh we were wrong".
You can think something is evidence. But water has been established for what it is. It's oxygen and hydrogen. There's no questioning well maybe it's not. Maybe it's more like soda.
I believe you know all this but I understand you have to get something out of thin air to argue.
Fair try.
"So yes, evidence requires lots of faith for us to believe in it, therefore I am not really seeing how you can know something without believing in it."
We're going back and forth on definitions. But ultimately you have a different basis for the terms so you can only see evidence based on that. On top of that you have a shaky ground of what evidence really is.
From what I get from you, evidence is just another part of theory, belief, educated guessing, opinion or what you think.
Thank you for the debate.
"It is totally illogical to have faith based on empirical evidence."
Well, we can't deduce a god who meaningfully does anything worth of interventioning, so it is totally illogical to have faith based on a void of empirical evidence.