I do not accept universal and objective morality are synonymous. I do not accept there is such a thing as universal morality. Neither view would withstand debate, imo.
Also, Pro should have burden, especially since I've explicitly stated "I'm not convinced" which isn't a position.
I don't know if that is chosen by person or automated program. I lean toward the latter given the awful misquote attributed to me and the number of comments on this debate.
You stated a theological view based on the opinions presented in the Bible. There is no objective way to verify this claim.
"I believe God is necessary to make sense of such things for such a God (the biblical One) has what is necessary for us to know - omniscience, immutability, and eternity"
You claim your belief as the basis of your epistemology, but in actuality you generally borrow from an epistemological view which does not require a god. I doubt you're closing your eyes when crossing a road or driving your car - that's because your senses inform you of the world around you - not gods.
Where your belief does come into play you get the wrong answers ...evolution, for instance. Granted these could be just your personal failings and a 'divine epistimology' is a true, but it's clear you have difficulty differentiating between divine knowledge and personal ignorance. Furthermore, you damage your claims of god as the basis of knowledge when you attribute your ignorance to 'His' knowledge.
That being said, I fully admit my own ignorance and try to correct it as I find it. However, my ignorance doesn't substantiate your claim anymore than your ignorance proves whatever epistemological view I might advocate.
I would think comprehensive sex ed would be our first priority.
"The United States ranks first among developed nations in rates of teenage pregnancy, abortion, and sexually transmitted infections and diseases. Only 38 of America’s 50 states have sex education laws, and 30 of those curricula promote the ideal of abstinence until marriage. Only eight include all components of a comprehensive sex education."
You provided a logical fallacy (circular argument) in defense. That is not logical. I'm not trying to beat you up, but I don't think you've really examined your position all that closely.
Person B attempts to avoid scrutiny of said belief by questioning person A on assumed belief Y. Additionally, Person B suggests a book, which (alone) states it's own importance, substantiates his belief.
Even if Person A cannot substantiate belief Y, it does not follow belief X of person B is substantiated. Also, the book can be a claim or evidence - not both. Finally, the summary above is overly generous. PGA is not merely relying on the Bible to substantiate his views, but *his interpretation* of the Bible. PGA accuses me of dodging his questions, but his questions are a dodge in and of themselves. I simply refuse to follow the feint.
"The biblical perspective is that knowledge is derived from God (eg. I am the way, the truth, and the light). We, as human beings are created in His image and likeness; thus we are capable of knowing also provided we build upon a solid foundation."
So your explanation is simple as "my interpretation of the Bible". Why should we consider the Bible an authority in anything (besides "the Bible tells me so") or accept your interpretation of it? On the former, its circular, and on the latter, it's subjective.
And before you attempt to a Tu quoque fallacy (ie. You too!!), I'm appealing to what can be observed by all rather than what I alone can 'witness'.
I didn't see the point of copy/paste of previous posts. Was there new information there?
I've pointed out there are more options than materialism and Jesus. It stands to reason that even if you are correct about materialism, you view is not winner by default...there are other options. Thus, changing the subject to what you believe my views to be doesnt answer the question.
If you don't want to talk about what you consider the basis of knowledge that's fine. I do find it ironic you suggest god is the basis of knowledge, but apparently can't say how you know that.
"Either materialism or a personal God. Which is it?"
False dichotomy. Even if we discount materialism, there is still any number of theistic and deistic possibilities.
"An empiricist falls short in many respects. He/she cannot demonstrate empiricism is all there is because he/she has to delve into the abstract and intangible such as the laws of logic to clarify anything. If you still think you are an empiricist then I challenge you to prove the laws of logic are empirical."
I think maybe you don't understand what empiricism is. It is not that empiricism is all that exists - whatever that means. It is basically 'demonstrate it, and I will accept it.' It doesn't discount the abstract because 'it can't be physically shown' - that would be a very strict interpretation.
"A position of which you say it is a bald assertion. I wasn't trying to prove my point. I was just stating what I believed until you identified it as a "bald" assertion. Belief in the biblical God is nothing of the kind. My belief is reasonable, not unreasonable, not irrational, not blind faith, although to some it can be."
No need to get defensive, bud. You were asked about a very specific claim (not your overall belief in god). You stated something to the effect that nothing could be known without god, and I asked why I should consider this to be correct. If you can't provide evidence (regarding *your* view - not materialism), then "bald assertion" would be correct, but maybe a little harsh judging from your reaction. Apologies.
"The biblical position has what is necessary to make sense of origins, meaning, purpose, etc. It is reasonable to believe."
Another assertion.
"As for a specific deity, there can be only the One who fits the bill, since belief in gods is all contradictory in crucial ways; thus, they cannot all be true. When someone truly investigates the teachings of the Bible they can find the Christian position has amazing verifiability to it; I claim like no other, and I am open to discuss some of these ways and have done so in the past."
It's ok to say you can't show god is the basis of knowledge, but it is your belief. (that seems to be the case). You don't need to explain your entire belief system - that's not what was asked.
I didn't assign a position to you - it is your stated position. I also gave you the opportunity to correct my understanding of your position: "Or is that not what you're saying?" You made two errors in your response.
1. You assumed I am a materialist. I do not hold that material is all there could be ...before you jump to another bad conclusion, I don't hold that there is more than material either. I consider myself to be an empiricist, so I will accept what can be demonstrated.
2. If materialism is faulty, it does not follow that your position is correct - especially in regards to a specific diety. If your goal is to show your view correct, you'll need to talk about *your* view.
Dad, I *should* ask Meredith to the prom.
Bob, we *should* paint the customer's car blue.
Mom, I *should* vacuum.
Here you are - explicit statements using *should* absent moral implication. My point stands.
"I turned the tables on you and showed you that your charge can be equally applied to you"
No, you didn't. You assigned a position to me and then attacked it rather than answer a sincere question. Can you justify your belief of 'god as the basis of knowledge'?
PGA: Jesus is NOT the foundation of epistemology would also be a bald and bold assertion.
I never said this. I questioned your justifications for believing god is the basis for knowledge. You argued against materialism instead...I'm still waiting on my answer.
Dad, *should* I ask Meredith to the prom?
Bob, *should* we paint the customer's car blue?
Mom, *should* I vacuum?
By your reasoning, these questions are tied to morality merely by *should* being in the question. You're leaving out the role context plays. The proposition was about legality not morality, and what's legal and what's moral are not the same set.
Jesus/god as a foundation of epistemology? I view this as a bald assertion. Why should I consider your view to be correct? Fair warning: I will not find circular arguments compelling.
SKONE: "I want to believe as many true things (and as few false things) as possible. If that means the world is not all rainbows and butterflies, so be it."
PGA: Speaking of origins, how can you know it is true unless God is real and has revealed as much? Do you really think scientists can confirm the truth of origins with certainty? No, this world is not all rainbows and butterflies."
Were we speaking of origins? ...and how would our origin one way or another inhibit our ability to learn what is true? It seems like a non-sequitor to me.
You beliefs can be shown internally consistent. They cannot be demonstrated to be manifest in the world beyond. In fact, the world beyond argues against specific aspects of strict literalism.
"The reason I don't discuss the subject much is that I do not like being ridiculed by those who are not open to considering their worldview is wrong. They are blind and deaf to God. They presuppose they know better from a subjective, relativistic framework. So, how can I argue with that? Their minds are already made up there is no God or any reasonable evidence for His existence (Hebrews 11:6), just as mine is set about God. The question is which is more reasonable? Do you really think it is yours?"
I don't intend to mock you, Peter. I consider us to be friends. Although, I cannot control what the audience says or does. If you'd rather not debate this subject, I understand.
It seems you are irritated by close-mindedness in those who accept evolution while admitting your own close-mindedness to anything beyond your beliefs. Shouldn't you be open to changing your views if you expect your interlocutors to do the same?
This is not my burden. My burden is to show the standard I set for personhood is demonstrable at the time frame I suggest. I have done this. Those who hold that personhood start at conception must show their standard of personhood is applicable at conception (and doesn't apply to things which should not be a person). Also, I'm not aware of ever saying "the human at conception is not a person.". I've said the things you think define a person cannot be demonstrated at conception, and that I believe personhood can be attached to the capacity for consciousness. Please don't attribute things to me I haven't said.
"things that can be demonstrated are not always true"
You point to a few things which are demonstrated true and suggest they are false because they don't mess with your un-demonstrable beliefs. This is not a strong argument, Peter.
"Not observe does not necessarily mean not present. That is fallacious thinking."
This is not a fallacy I am committing. My view is that things which can be demonstrated are true and things which cannot be demonstrated are not necessarily false, but we have no reason to hold them as true. Your view that we should 'give the benefit of a doubt' holds things true which have not (to my knowledge) been demonstrated, and that is a fallacy.
*edit* Sorry, I hadn't noticed you were explaining your understanding of creationism - please continue!
We can make the proposition 'which explains the diversity of life better - evolution or Biblical creationism'. Maybe we could discuss exactly what you believe regarding Biblical creationism sometime. I wouldn't want to misrepresent your view.
It depends on which part: evolution goes in science, abiogenesis goes in science, epistemology would go in philosophy, personhood in politics/philosophy, rejection of science/Christianity in religion or science.. This debate is marked politics, so clearly the discussion has veered far from that.
I'm considering a debate on which explains the diversity of life better - evolution or creationism. Maybe you'd be interested at some point in the near future?
You know...we could discuss this in the forms where the format allows for an easier back and forth. I think that would be more appropriate especially when unrelated to the subject of this debate. It looks like the forums could use the traffic, and this conversation touches on religion, science, and politics. Three for one!!
Thanks for the debate, Savant, and thanks to everyone who voted!
Thank you!
Its been a while since I've debated. Thanks for asking me to participate!
It's my debate too! 😁
Thank you!
Bumpedy bump
Thank you
Can you give longer argument times? I work 2 jobs and may not be able to generate a 15000 character argument in 3 days.
Yep. It should be fixed now.
Sorry, Bella, I really,really wanted to vote for you, but you were beat by the burden.
Will do
I will try to vote today if time allows.
Thank you for the constructive criticism! I'll do my best to integrate it into future debates.
Bump
2nd round spacing is annoying. It was fine in Word before transfer to site (and still is). Now words are crammed together. Ugh.
Looks like fun -Good luck!
I do not accept universal and objective morality are synonymous. I do not accept there is such a thing as universal morality. Neither view would withstand debate, imo.
Also, Pro should have burden, especially since I've explicitly stated "I'm not convinced" which isn't a position.
I plan on voting before time has run out.
I would take it if I were Con though.
The resolution has too high a level of certainty. Plus, I'd be conflicted advocating for something I feel to be the cause of much harm in the world.
Bump
Good luck, Sir.
Thanks for voting!
I don't know if that is chosen by person or automated program. I lean toward the latter given the awful misquote attributed to me and the number of comments on this debate.
Awesome! We made it to social media, Peter! 😁
Although - they need to quote me correctly!
"I stated a biblical truth"
You stated a theological view based on the opinions presented in the Bible. There is no objective way to verify this claim.
"I believe God is necessary to make sense of such things for such a God (the biblical One) has what is necessary for us to know - omniscience, immutability, and eternity"
You claim your belief as the basis of your epistemology, but in actuality you generally borrow from an epistemological view which does not require a god. I doubt you're closing your eyes when crossing a road or driving your car - that's because your senses inform you of the world around you - not gods.
Where your belief does come into play you get the wrong answers ...evolution, for instance. Granted these could be just your personal failings and a 'divine epistimology' is a true, but it's clear you have difficulty differentiating between divine knowledge and personal ignorance. Furthermore, you damage your claims of god as the basis of knowledge when you attribute your ignorance to 'His' knowledge.
That being said, I fully admit my own ignorance and try to correct it as I find it. However, my ignorance doesn't substantiate your claim anymore than your ignorance proves whatever epistemological view I might advocate.
I would think comprehensive sex ed would be our first priority.
"The United States ranks first among developed nations in rates of teenage pregnancy, abortion, and sexually transmitted infections and diseases. Only 38 of America’s 50 states have sex education laws, and 30 of those curricula promote the ideal of abstinence until marriage. Only eight include all components of a comprehensive sex education."
https://scholars.org/contribution/why-sex-education-united-states-needs-update-and-how-do-it
You provided a logical fallacy (circular argument) in defense. That is not logical. I'm not trying to beat you up, but I don't think you've really examined your position all that closely.
I am not questioning Christianity specifically, but merely asking about an epistemological claim. Lashng out at me doesn't make your assertions true.
This tangent can be summarized as such:
Person A: How do you logically support belief X?
Person B attempts to avoid scrutiny of said belief by questioning person A on assumed belief Y. Additionally, Person B suggests a book, which (alone) states it's own importance, substantiates his belief.
Even if Person A cannot substantiate belief Y, it does not follow belief X of person B is substantiated. Also, the book can be a claim or evidence - not both. Finally, the summary above is overly generous. PGA is not merely relying on the Bible to substantiate his views, but *his interpretation* of the Bible. PGA accuses me of dodging his questions, but his questions are a dodge in and of themselves. I simply refuse to follow the feint.
"The biblical perspective is that knowledge is derived from God (eg. I am the way, the truth, and the light). We, as human beings are created in His image and likeness; thus we are capable of knowing also provided we build upon a solid foundation."
So your explanation is simple as "my interpretation of the Bible". Why should we consider the Bible an authority in anything (besides "the Bible tells me so") or accept your interpretation of it? On the former, its circular, and on the latter, it's subjective.
And before you attempt to a Tu quoque fallacy (ie. You too!!), I'm appealing to what can be observed by all rather than what I alone can 'witness'.
I didn't see the point of copy/paste of previous posts. Was there new information there?
We're not on the same street! 😂
I've pointed out there are more options than materialism and Jesus. It stands to reason that even if you are correct about materialism, you view is not winner by default...there are other options. Thus, changing the subject to what you believe my views to be doesnt answer the question.
If you don't want to talk about what you consider the basis of knowledge that's fine. I do find it ironic you suggest god is the basis of knowledge, but apparently can't say how you know that.
I'm not running down the rabbit holes, buddy. Either you can back the assertion I questioned, or you cant. You're dodging the question.
"Either materialism or a personal God. Which is it?"
False dichotomy. Even if we discount materialism, there is still any number of theistic and deistic possibilities.
"An empiricist falls short in many respects. He/she cannot demonstrate empiricism is all there is because he/she has to delve into the abstract and intangible such as the laws of logic to clarify anything. If you still think you are an empiricist then I challenge you to prove the laws of logic are empirical."
I think maybe you don't understand what empiricism is. It is not that empiricism is all that exists - whatever that means. It is basically 'demonstrate it, and I will accept it.' It doesn't discount the abstract because 'it can't be physically shown' - that would be a very strict interpretation.
"A position of which you say it is a bald assertion. I wasn't trying to prove my point. I was just stating what I believed until you identified it as a "bald" assertion. Belief in the biblical God is nothing of the kind. My belief is reasonable, not unreasonable, not irrational, not blind faith, although to some it can be."
No need to get defensive, bud. You were asked about a very specific claim (not your overall belief in god). You stated something to the effect that nothing could be known without god, and I asked why I should consider this to be correct. If you can't provide evidence (regarding *your* view - not materialism), then "bald assertion" would be correct, but maybe a little harsh judging from your reaction. Apologies.
"The biblical position has what is necessary to make sense of origins, meaning, purpose, etc. It is reasonable to believe."
Another assertion.
"As for a specific deity, there can be only the One who fits the bill, since belief in gods is all contradictory in crucial ways; thus, they cannot all be true. When someone truly investigates the teachings of the Bible they can find the Christian position has amazing verifiability to it; I claim like no other, and I am open to discuss some of these ways and have done so in the past."
It's ok to say you can't show god is the basis of knowledge, but it is your belief. (that seems to be the case). You don't need to explain your entire belief system - that's not what was asked.
I didn't assign a position to you - it is your stated position. I also gave you the opportunity to correct my understanding of your position: "Or is that not what you're saying?" You made two errors in your response.
1. You assumed I am a materialist. I do not hold that material is all there could be ...before you jump to another bad conclusion, I don't hold that there is more than material either. I consider myself to be an empiricist, so I will accept what can be demonstrated.
2. If materialism is faulty, it does not follow that your position is correct - especially in regards to a specific diety. If your goal is to show your view correct, you'll need to talk about *your* view.
Dad, I *should* ask Meredith to the prom.
Bob, we *should* paint the customer's car blue.
Mom, I *should* vacuum.
Here you are - explicit statements using *should* absent moral implication. My point stands.
"I turned the tables on you and showed you that your charge can be equally applied to you"
No, you didn't. You assigned a position to me and then attacked it rather than answer a sincere question. Can you justify your belief of 'god as the basis of knowledge'?
PGA: Jesus is NOT the foundation of epistemology would also be a bald and bold assertion.
I never said this. I questioned your justifications for believing god is the basis for knowledge. You argued against materialism instead...I'm still waiting on my answer.
Dad, *should* I ask Meredith to the prom?
Bob, *should* we paint the customer's car blue?
Mom, *should* I vacuum?
By your reasoning, these questions are tied to morality merely by *should* being in the question. You're leaving out the role context plays. The proposition was about legality not morality, and what's legal and what's moral are not the same set.
Let me clarify my question: why is belief in Jesus/god a valid epistemological foundation? ..Or is that not what you're saying?
Jesus/god as a foundation of epistemology? I view this as a bald assertion. Why should I consider your view to be correct? Fair warning: I will not find circular arguments compelling.
SKONE: "I want to believe as many true things (and as few false things) as possible. If that means the world is not all rainbows and butterflies, so be it."
PGA: Speaking of origins, how can you know it is true unless God is real and has revealed as much? Do you really think scientists can confirm the truth of origins with certainty? No, this world is not all rainbows and butterflies."
Were we speaking of origins? ...and how would our origin one way or another inhibit our ability to learn what is true? It seems like a non-sequitor to me.
"Not only that, but you also want to be in that sea."
I want to believe as many true things (and as few false things) as possible. If that means the world is not all rainbows and butterflies, so be it.
"My belief can be demonstrated."
You beliefs can be shown internally consistent. They cannot be demonstrated to be manifest in the world beyond. In fact, the world beyond argues against specific aspects of strict literalism.
"The reason I don't discuss the subject much is that I do not like being ridiculed by those who are not open to considering their worldview is wrong. They are blind and deaf to God. They presuppose they know better from a subjective, relativistic framework. So, how can I argue with that? Their minds are already made up there is no God or any reasonable evidence for His existence (Hebrews 11:6), just as mine is set about God. The question is which is more reasonable? Do you really think it is yours?"
I don't intend to mock you, Peter. I consider us to be friends. Although, I cannot control what the audience says or does. If you'd rather not debate this subject, I understand.
It seems you are irritated by close-mindedness in those who accept evolution while admitting your own close-mindedness to anything beyond your beliefs. Shouldn't you be open to changing your views if you expect your interlocutors to do the same?
"You can't demonstrate that it is not a person"
This is not my burden. My burden is to show the standard I set for personhood is demonstrable at the time frame I suggest. I have done this. Those who hold that personhood start at conception must show their standard of personhood is applicable at conception (and doesn't apply to things which should not be a person). Also, I'm not aware of ever saying "the human at conception is not a person.". I've said the things you think define a person cannot be demonstrated at conception, and that I believe personhood can be attached to the capacity for consciousness. Please don't attribute things to me I haven't said.
"things that can be demonstrated are not always true"
You point to a few things which are demonstrated true and suggest they are false because they don't mess with your un-demonstrable beliefs. This is not a strong argument, Peter.
Correct me if I'm wrong. You believe god made the Earth a short time ago with the appearance of old age?
"Not observe does not necessarily mean not present. That is fallacious thinking."
This is not a fallacy I am committing. My view is that things which can be demonstrated are true and things which cannot be demonstrated are not necessarily false, but we have no reason to hold them as true. Your view that we should 'give the benefit of a doubt' holds things true which have not (to my knowledge) been demonstrated, and that is a fallacy.
*edit* Sorry, I hadn't noticed you were explaining your understanding of creationism - please continue!
We can make the proposition 'which explains the diversity of life better - evolution or Biblical creationism'. Maybe we could discuss exactly what you believe regarding Biblical creationism sometime. I wouldn't want to misrepresent your view.
It depends on which part: evolution goes in science, abiogenesis goes in science, epistemology would go in philosophy, personhood in politics/philosophy, rejection of science/Christianity in religion or science.. This debate is marked politics, so clearly the discussion has veered far from that.
I'm considering a debate on which explains the diversity of life better - evolution or creationism. Maybe you'd be interested at some point in the near future?
You know...we could discuss this in the forms where the format allows for an easier back and forth. I think that would be more appropriate especially when unrelated to the subject of this debate. It looks like the forums could use the traffic, and this conversation touches on religion, science, and politics. Three for one!!