I will begin this round by stating that I have committed no strawman fallacies. My opponent is a case study in what happens when someone fails to understand their own arguments.
Yes, I said what I said. I don't take too kindly to the way my buffoon of an opponent talked down to me at the end of his last argument, so you can expect me to be mildly spicy here.
Time to finish this off.
> It appears Pro's argument is quite simple. It is essentially an attempt to exploit the disagreements among theists to argue that theism is invalid. Let us go through the reasoning.
Not quite. It's that there are important religious disagreements that cannot be resolved and therefore no reason to believe either side. Whether theism is valid or not is almost a separate topic, except that when one takes at all the competing claims between major religions, it's unlikely that any one religion is true.
"No reason to believe either side" of theism implies invalidity of theism as a whole. So I got your argument correct. Next.
> 2. They don't because they can get caught in the crossfire but that should be used for self-reflection rather than intellectual hesitation
> Different theists have different ways of arguing for their specific religions that do butt heads; that is true. However, just because they advocate for different brands of theism, does not mean they contradict each other on theism itself. It is possible that theism can be argued without arguing for any specific religion.
This is a Strawman representation of my argument - there are no "brands" of theism and I have not said that theists are necessarily just argue about the existence of god. I am saying theists have fundamental disagreements about religious claims and cannot resolve them. Take the role of Jesus among the Abrahamic religions - Jews say he is a false God and not the King he claims to be, Muslims agree and believe him to be a prophet, Christians are all over the place with some believing in the Trinity and others not.
You have no evidence to suggest that they cannot be resolved. I gave examples of conversion because those are resolutions. Over the course of time, arguments can resolved. Especially in the age of the internet. Again, this is the same "hot hand" fallacy repeated.
In addendum there are "brands" of theism, as in there are different types, which is what I saying. You're being pedantic and I think you do recognize my point here, considering that you acknowledge different types of theism in this argument (Islam, Judaism, Christianity).
And to reiterate: Yes, this is a false equivalency. Theism is the belief in a god or gods. The types of theism are specific beliefs about a god or gods; their powers, their nature, their lore. To argue that they are the same, you would have to argue that it is impossible to believe in the existence of a god while not knowing the nature of said god. Which is ludicrous.
Another strawman - this is not an argument about demographics. I am saying that theists have already spent hundreds, if not thousands, of years in disagreement without resolution. This proves they have no way to objectively reach an agreement on truth.
Please read the arguments in the description.
And my point about these demographics being shifted is that these "battles" are still being waged, on a different front... which indicates there is plenty hope for resolution. Which indicates an agreement is possible.
And again, even if I were to grant your reasoning, this would be a bandwagon/appeal to majority fallacy.
And let's take this further: Per your logic, theist and atheists have no way to agree on truth. We've been arguing for a while too, and if you get to ignore the possibility of future resolution (based on an incorrect assessment of the situation, but I digress), then I can too, and you have no defense against it. I guess that means there's no reason to believe in the existence of the universe, since theists and atheists cannot agree on the origin of the universe. Clearly, this is evidence we are living in a simulation.
> 4. This lack of an epistemological framework among theist is a good argument for atheism itself.
> 5. Secularism bypasses this by forcing non-religious arguments. This is the way.
> As established, theists do have an established epistemology- it is found in arguments for intelligent design, which theists can agree upon.
Not all theists agree on intelligent design. For example, Catholics fully believe in theory of evolution.
Wrong. Catholics believe in evolution as a vehicle for God's intelligent design.
> Therefore, this point from my opponent is a false equivalency fallacy[7]. While theism includes many subsets (eg. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc.), the subsets do not equate to theism as a whole, given that theism is far broader, and the subsets are more specific.
Which is my point - these "subsets" exist because no theist can prove their religion's claims. And they can't do that because no religion agrees on reality - they don't even agree on the nature of their deities! Sometimes, for examples in the case of Christianity, not even on their own deity!
And since atheists and theists cannot agree, they also cannot prove their claims to each other, meaning they cannot prove their claims. Unless of course, you want to argue that your belief system has been proven and that theists are too daft to accept. The problem? If you are theists are too daft, then a Christian can argue their claims about God have been proven and that Muslims/Jews/Hindus/etc are too daft to accept it. This can be extended to a Lutheran talking about a Catholic, a Calvinist, or a unitarian.
..and yet, it wouldn't render Christianity (I am being generous in calling the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses "Christian" but I digress) as a whole invalid. Nor would it render theism as a whole invalid.
To go further, I will another example from what I have previously argued. There are also different types of atheism. In addendum, some atheist have their own competing claims. Some believe in the multiverse, some don't. Some believe in a heat death, others believe in a big rip. Others believe in a big collapse. Using my opponent's logic against him, this would render atheism invalid.
Or we could zoom out: I hinted at this earlier, but the are different types "existantism" (which shall be coined here to mean a belief in the existence of the universe, as opposed to "simulationism"). There are those who believe the universe was created by random chance, and those who believe in intelligent design. Using my opponent's logic against him, it would mean we should all believe the universe is a simulation.
Tip for opponent: This is known as "Argumentum ad absurdum" and it is legitimate way to argue against self-contradictory viewpoints.
Yes, this viewpoint of my opponent's is self-contradictory. If we took his argument and pushed to its logical conclusions, there would be no reason to believe in anything, including any reason to believe in the argument itself, since those who do and don't believe in the argument could logically be put into their own camps, which will all argue about the specific reasons as to why the argument is either correct or incorrect.
It is this that the argument of my opponent's is invalid, and successfully refuted.
While it's true that belonging to a religion is similar to belonging to a political party in that theists can switch from one to another, the biggest difference between religions and political parties is that they all political parties are Big Tents that largely agree on the most important matters. Disagreeing about the nature of one's own deity is a foundational disagreement that is not so easily ignored, as you have been doing.
I have not been ignoring it. The point I am making here is another argumentum ad absurdum, which you fail to grasp. Yes, it is a sufficient refutation of your logic.
And "most important matters" is both subjective and relative. All theists agree that a god of some kind exists. Relative to theism, that could be considered a most important matter... the same way libertarians all agree that capitalism is good. In the same way different kinds of theists disagree on the nature of a god or gods, different types of libertarians disagree on the best version of libertarian (ie, what is the real libertarianism?). And yet, that does not disprove libertarianism.
Looking at your other arguments, can you confirm you understand the meaning of epistemology? I can't really respond to your points because they don't accurately address my points.
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy dealing with the origin of knowledge. It is also used to describe the origin of knowledge for X viewpoint. For example, the study of epistemology can lead to one discovering that a communist's epistemology, for the justification of their ideology, is incoherent because it relies on two contradictory propositions.
And I did respond to your points, you just fail to understand. This is because I understand my opponent's arguments better than he does. Like I said, he is a goo (and humorous) case study.
Looking at your "arguments," can you confirmed you understand the meaning of "midwit?"
Case closed.
Vote Con!
vote please. I do believe at the very least, that I have won "arguments" and "sources." I probably lost "S&G" due to a few typos; mechanically speaking, I am not good at typing.
Skimming over this, pro doesn't understand their basic BoP, and is instead opting to waste time complaining about such things as you used the word "brand" when they would not. This leaves the debate as barely more than a foregone conclusion.
I would need someone to break down the burdens in this debate to determine that. Pro seems to be shifting the goalposts a bit from what I’d understood them to be in R1. Based on your framing of the debate, which I feel is more accurate, I’d probably vote for you but most of the RFD would be about burdens and what the resolution requires Pro to defend.
If the debate ended right now, who would you give the win to?
I procrastinated. Oh well. I’ll get it in round 5.
Even without I think my opponent is totally lost.
See my R2
> Well saying it is unprovable is a way of saying it isn’t valid… but sure. Maybe you should provide examples of specific things you think are unprovable.
Godel’s incompleteness theorem is unprovable but we know it’s true. And string theory is also unprovable but the model works.
> Cause this far, your case has been that because different factions disagree, no claims are provable.
Again, they don’t just disagree on minor topics but on fundamentals such as who is god and their friends m
> Again, taking that argument and applying it anywhere else, it gets exposed.
Not really, you’re just proving my point.
> I also think it’s stupid that you’re saying that you’re not gonna bet on one side randomly getting it right. It’s not random as each side has different arguments, and even you could probably see that some are more reasonable than others, if God exists.
No religious argument is plausible - it’s why all other religions disbelieve each other.
> The first step is just to ask if the universe appears to be designed by a supreme being.
Ah, the old Paley’s Watchmaker argument. That was debunked as soon as it was published. No, the first step is to ask if the universe has rules that can be modeled. The next step is to understand the mechanisms that cause the universe to operate. Then we can figure out if there is a beginning or a cause that started it.
Maybe after exhausting all those natural questions, we can speculate if there were a sentient cause.
> Only after that do you start asking which god is God.
But there’s no need to expect it to be a single being when it’s far more plausible it’s a race of beings. And no need to invoke terms like “supreme” which have no scientific meaning.
Also, even before invoking “gods”, you have to prove the universe allows for supernatural.
> You skipped the first step entirely, saw the disagreements in the second step, and then decided the first step was never worth it.
Worse for your argument here is that you have to decide which god! And since we know gods are unprovable and worse, there is no epistemological framework to even determine truth, you’re stuck.
> This is because, you really do (specifically, your thought process) confuse theism in general with specific theistic beliefs. And I pointed this out when I called out the false equivalency
I don’t even know what ‘theism in general’ even means. Different religions conclude there is a god through many different methods. Christianity even invented their own gods. But that’s a different argument, you should address my specific argument and not tell me what I should believe and the approach I take. This is not getting anywhere and if you want to debate a totally different topic from what I am raising, I can join you in a debate.
Well saying it is unprovable is a way of saying it isn’t valid… but sure.
Maybe you should provide examples of specific things you think are unprovable.
Cause this far, your case has been that because different factions disagree, no claims are provable.
Again, taking that argument and applying it anywhere else, it gets exposed.
I also think it’s stupid that you’re saying that you’re not gonna bet on one side randomly getting it right. It’s not random as each side has different arguments, and even you could probably see that some are more reasonable than others, if God exists.
The first step is just to ask if the universe appears to be designed by a supreme being. Only after that do you start asking which god is God. You skipped the first step entirely, saw the disagreements in the second step, and then decided the first step was never worth it.
This is because, you really do (specifically, your thought process) confuse theism in general with specific theistic beliefs. And I pointed this out when I called out the false equivalency
I'm not contradicting myself. I am disagreeing with your approach. My point is that theism is provably unprovable. That's not saying it's valid or not since there's still the tiny possibility that one religion got it right.
You're getting into the weeds too much about points about about the atheist angle, whereas I'm trying to focus on the fact that theism is inherently unprovable.
Please address that specific point. Apologies if that wasn't made clear enough. This is my first debate here.
>“As I explained, I'm not specifically talking about whether theism is valid or not here.”
But also…
>“So it's clear that theists themselves have issues, in which case, atheism is the best solution:”
And,
>” 4. This lack of an epistemological framework among theist is a good argument for atheism itself. ”
The fact that you can’t even see how you’re contradicting yourself here is crazy.
I'm arguing about one thing and you are arguing about another thing.
As I explained, I'm not specifically talking about whether theism is valid or not here. And you're ignoring my examples about Christianity's differences of opinions on Jesus. Instead you're arguing about minor doctrinal differences that don't matter.
You're making up your own points rather than addressing my specific examples.
I’m not strawmanning LOL
You just have no idea what ur talking about…I am understanding your points better than you do