The Instigator
Furyan5
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
RandRichter
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Belief in God is subjective.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
RandRichter
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/22/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 665 times Debate No: 73948
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)

 

Furyan5

Pro

I propose the belief or disbelief in God relies on a sense of perception which not everyone possesses. Like a blind person would have to take the existance of rainbows on faith as none of his senses can confirm or deny their existance. Now I'm not saying who lacks the sense, (lol and I'm not referring to common sense here), but it does explain why people are so sure of their beliefs that no argument can convince them otherwise.

I repeat....this is not a debate on the existance of god....
Its a debate on a 6th sense.
RandRichter

Con

Hello there,

This seems like an awfully intriguing question. All beliefs being inherently subjective if you could please clarify this "6th sense" principal? My guess would be you are proposing that not every person has the same intellectual, biological, or genetic predisposition in the form of a sort of "capacity" to believe in a god? Thanks again and I look forward to our discussion.
Debate Round No. 1
Furyan5

Pro

I make no claim whatsover on what this sense is. It is undefined at present. But for arguments sake I will pick one possibility. Purpose.

Suppose we had a sense of purpose. Like sight/hearing/taste/smell and touch, people have varying degrees of this sense. Those who lack the sense completely wouln't know it. How do you explain sight to a blind person??? He can't percieve it with his working senses. You could say its obvious. Everyone else can see. But he can't so its not obvious. Well lots of people can see. They can't all be wrong or lying!!! How about scientific proof? Sunlight reflecting off objects makes them visible!!!! what's sunlight? what's visible? You can see how people can get frustrated both trying to explain and to understand. This in no way helps. all I'm saying is that without this sense a person is unable to argue with a person who has the sense. Its impossible to even define the sense to someone who lacks it.
RandRichter

Con

That makes things much more clear thank you. I think there are a few key differences in explaining a sensory function and process in which we understand a lot about, than explaining people's ability to believe in god and not to believe. I love the playing with the idea of there being a predetermined genetic reason and in such a way there could be a gradient, depending on the prominence of the trait. From radicals or evangelicals all the way to agnostics and militant atheists. I also have some ideas on how we can shine a light on it's falsehood.

Given consistent and substantiated data, a persons belief in a god and the severity of that belief is very much tied to their socioeconomic factors, birthplace, parents belief, and level of education. Unless you can prove that this same genetic trait or 6 sense also caused these or was a result of a persons socioeconomic standing, birthplace, education level, IQ, and parental beliefs I do not see a case to be made for this notion. In fact quite the opposite.

Another large wrench in the gears for your proposal is explained in this example, you have two people, both would have this sense, both are religious because of it, but one is Jewish and the other is a Muslim. Though they are both persons of faith, I imagine explaining ones faith to another would be similar to your analogy about the blind man.
Another problem area is people who all of a sudden convert to a religion or leave a religion. How would you explain the behavior of this 6 sense in this situations.

From your side any evidence to support this theory may be of use to both of us. Please if you can in your rebuttals list some substantiated facts for your position. As intriguing as it is, and again seriously kudos for having a creatively philosophical mind to think of such a question. I am assuming the idea was your originally. I conclude my first round by stating the obvious there is nothing commonly or otherwise known, that would lead to such an obscure conclu
Debate Round No. 2
Furyan5

Pro

Well I dnt recall seeing this argument anywhere but its not too foriegn to believe I'm the first to think of it. But I did come to the idea on my own, so thank you. And thank you as well for raising some interesting questions. The second had occured to me and I have 2 ideas. Firstly I believe that senses can be augmented. Like glasses or a hearing aid. A person might for instance, forgive the analogy, have their eyes opened. Now this can work both ways. Either a non-believer can have their eyes opened and become a believer or, a believer can have their eyes opened and become a non-believer. The problem is both cant be right. A prrson who sees cant stop believing in rainbows even after going blind......still working on this one. As for genetic its like intelligence. The smartest people can have quite ordinary parents or kids. And surroundings determine our reality. Someone growing up in a muslim home in a muslim society might be prone to certain beliefs. Having a muslim mother and a christian father I was exposed to both. Similarly things and people I have come into contact with have altered my perceptions. Is intelligence a factor? I dnt know. All I know for now is this bares further consideration. That is the point of this debate. Gotta go but looking forward to chatting further.
RandRichter

Con

I think perhaps this format, a debate, furthermore one that calls specifically for a winner or loser, can in a way inhibit the ability of the participants from developing the idea further truly open meaningful way. That said I appreciate your ability to propose questions about your own insights or "arguments" in a way that depends the conversation, seemingly unaffected by the possible out come of winning or losing. I hope I can bring something meaningful to the opposing view, while still matching your unaffected demeanor.
I do also believe senses can augmented, but I am not sure if this leads to an explanation for or against the existence of another sense.
The statement "a non believer could have their eyes opened and become a believer, or a believer can have their eyes opened and become a non believer." Your use of the "eyes opened" analogy, instead of opened/closed for both experiences Is really key for me. What is "right" also deserves some discussion. I do not find all religions to be similar, as we are proposing them to be with the use of the idea of a "god sense" or lack there of. Under the concept each religion may indeed need it's own sense or multiple senses existing for monotheistic, polytheistic and all the subsequent denominations. This does not disprove the idea but does further complicate it. With an issue involving more complication, I would assert a reasonable argument for it's existence requires more evidence. I love the simulation argument presented by Nick Bostrom. I suppose he would say that the "god sense" has so many variables by design because it is part of our particular simulations objective to find out which religion or lack of would take over, or even just to study the possibility of it, and in the real world such a strange idea never existed. This could account for the elusiveness of the cause and effect entire topic. It isn't meant to exist in reality. I'm running out of room but I look forward to your thoughts.
Debate Round No. 3
Furyan5

Pro

Lol running out of room. Making too many statements for anyone to follow the concept as a whole. In fact the whole point system is detrimental to the point of theology. To be honest I've looked at hundreds of debates and seen nothing new. Just copy and paste google facts and parroting of views. Not interested. I accept and start debates in the hopes of finding people like you.

That being said I still would love resolution. So please, if you have questions even of your own beliefs express them. Perhaps together we can find answers. If points do mean anything to you I concede and we can discuss the rest In comments.

As for the possibilty that our reality is all fake, be we brains in a jar or simulations within simulations, as far as we are concerned the question still stands. So lets call a orange a orange.

Its difficult to argue from both thiest and athiest perspectives so I will pick one but do not think I'm picking sides. Either could and should apply until proven otherwise. I dnt want this to decend into a pro/con god debate.

I'm gonna suggest perception of God as the feeling of sunlight on a blind mans skin. Its not improbable that God is beyond our understanding. We feel his presense to differing degrees depending on how sensitive our skin is but also external events affect it. Ie clouds, wind, seasons etc
The sun can warm us if we cold but also burn us. So good or evil would depend on our experiences. We give God caracteristics. Limited to our understanding. We borrow or follow those around us. But things alter our views. Nobody changes from athiest to thiest or hindu to christian without external cause. Something we read or hear. Thus God may exist because we can sense him. But the subjective god we create in our head may not. Make sense?
RandRichter

Con

I am not sure if taking "a side" atheist/theist will help us. But perhaps further defining some notions about this idea would. Speaking to "sides" I see them being the pro:
1. The existence of a tangible or intangible mechanism or function that determines or obfuscates, to possibly infinite different degrees, your ability to believe or not to believe. This why I felt using "eyes opened" in both instances was key to the idea. I don't think it would make sense to say some have it and some do not. But in everyone having this perceptual sense, it than dictates your level of belief or disbelief. The opposing side con:
2. This idea is not reasonable to believe.

Proposing the idea that this perception could exist not as a function of intelligent design but is misinterpreted by humans to lead them to a belief in god makes our task an even larger one. I cannot at this time refute why this perception couldn't be misconstrued, so I must consider the possibility part of the theory.
An issue is tying the idea of morality or other senses being augmented by society or experiences and our "god sense" being augmented the same way. I don't think we would have any reason to believe that this sense would operate in anyway related to how we develop our own moral compass and how or why where it points tends to change, even slightly. I propose of this sensitivity to religion were to be augmented in any way, it could only be a deterioration of the "sense" (a persons ability to "feel the sun on your skin".)
I want to know how you propose the god sense fits into conversion from one religion to another, from one religion to atheism or vice versa, and people finding religion suddenly (or slowly I suppose) from a position of apathy. The opposite movement from a position of being extremely religious or extremely non religious to general apathy towards the subject by a deterioration of the sense much like eye sight as we age. Only this does not seem to correlate directly with aging
Debate Round No. 4
Furyan5

Pro

I both like and dislike the term god-sense as its very apt but promotes thiesm. Now I believe the answer can be found in how we choose a religion. Provided we are not dragged into it by our parents. Here I can only share personal experience. We base our stance on what makes the most sense. Ie if we believe god does/probably/obviously exists we choose theists. Although choose is the wrong word. What we believe, makes us a thiest. Likewise if we believe its impossible for god to exist we are atheists.
Now religion is chosen by which closest mirrors our own moral compass and our need to belong/accepted. Pleasing ones parents for example plays a pivotal role In children.
But beliefs change. Even our moral compass can change. Like exposure to media has made backchatting your parents acceptable where in the past it was unthinkable.
On point 2. You say this idea is not reasonable.....did you mean not unreasonable.

Thus there are many tangible reasons one would change in any possible direction which do not require augmentation or deterioration of this sense. I've given some thought to what that sense is as well and I believe I'm onto something. Corny as it may seem the third eye drawn in the middle of the forehead is apt. Every mind emmits a electomagnetic field. Have you ever sensed someone watching you? Notice the word sensed.... perhaps we do have a sense organ for detecting electromagnetic fields. There are confirmed cases of people suffering from Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity. it would make sense for god to have a very strong E.F. Still researching EF and somehow I think emotions come into this as the most common description I find when people define god is love.

What do you think?
RandRichter

Con

I saw a comment that read "of course belief in god is subject.." All beliefs are yes. But that is a mis characterization of the topic at hand. In a way the notion of sense of perception that could be related to god makes a belief in it or not, much less "subjective" than you would think, or would be otherwise. A crucial part in coming to this idea seems to be the idea of describing a rainbow to a blind person. It would be much like a Christian describing the feeling of god to a non believer and maybe an atheist trying to tell a Christian that feeling isn't real. This theory only comes into play if the idea of changing someone's mind in that way (describing a rainbow to a blind person) is truly impossible. Maybe as science advances we can measure the neural response of someone having a transcendent moment and then artificially stimulate someone else to have the same. But without it being impossible to get rid of religion or the tendency of humans to FEEL attached to the supernatural than the theory may be found false because it is unnecessary or redundant. Science may reach a point where we can reduce these ideas of feelings down to a mathematical function, I don't know of any other way to prove or disprove it. Though I will be researching much further and hopefully we can discuss this after the debate I too am worried about our experimenters bias from curiosity, and real life difficulties with religion is causes us to overcomplicate the reason, when it is not reasonable to do so. I suppose I am arguing against this notion. By trying to argue for it, but the more questions we ask the more questions appear. I am not giving up, but I can't fool myself either, my quest is not based in reason. We must delve deeper into the history of those before us to use their theories to test the inner workings of this idea so that it can be planted firmly enough for us to begin to build it up and tear it down. My only hope is that I figure out a way to bring a new perspective.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Furyan5 2 years ago
Furyan5
Why would you expect only monotheistic or polytheistic religions to exist? that's like saying a blind man feeling the suns heat must believe it comes from one source. Therefore there is only 1 sun. There are in fact billions of suns. The valence of this 6th sense would allow for discrepencies in atheist, monotheist and polytheistic views. Ones beliefs are also affected by ones location. In a Christian environment a 3 in 1 god is put forward. A person trying to understand what they are percieving latches onto this 3 in 1 ideology and incorporates it into his beliefs. If he was in a Moslem environment he would incorporate a 1 god into his belief.
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
=================================================================
>Jaxsor // Moderator action: REMOVED<

3 points to Pro (arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro seemed to stay a little bit more focused and a little bit more logical. This was a close one for me, really, but I'd give it to Pro.

[*Reason for removal*] Too generic. This could be copy-pasted to any debate. Does not provide topic-specific or useful feedback.
=================================================================
Posted by Furyan5 2 years ago
Furyan5
Continued from debate... it could work both ways. The blind person could be the one who believes in God. Ie rainbows dnt exist = existance without a creator is impossible.
Posted by Furyan5 2 years ago
Furyan5
Self analysis. Things are starting to make sense and that worries me. Am i bending known facts to fit a desired outcome? Is the whole theory rediculous? I'm reminded of a story I read. The emporors new clothes. I've included people in the debate not only because I value their opinion but because of their open minded nature and their abilty to grasp new concepts and ideas. Lets see where this road leads.
Posted by Furyan5 2 years ago
Furyan5
We not interested in proof of existance or not. that's not the point of the debate. Read it pls.
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
Of course belief in God is subjective. If BOP is shared, to prove belief in God is objective, one has to prove that God is real. Immense burden of proof on Con.
Posted by Furyan5 2 years ago
Furyan5
lol a sense of life. Living intelligent field emission. Kinda ironic.
Posted by Furyan5 2 years ago
Furyan5
I think I'm onto something.... :-)))

Have you ever felt someone staring at you?
Living electromagnetic field sense. (LEF)
Makes sense. There is scientific proof that people are sensitive to E.F. They call it electonagnetic hypersensitivity. If certain people can pick up this LEF of God it would be hard to describe. But one common term I found is Love.

What do you think?
Posted by Furyan5 2 years ago
Furyan5
Now lets say this sense is like feeling the warmth of the sun. Its there. We can feel it. But what it is we dnt KNOW. So we give it existance to our ability. Obviously our immediate surroundings play a part. Therefore God may be real but undefinable and subjective. Our views can change which is why jews can turn moslem without altering our belief in God. I'd be interested to find out how many thiest turn athiest and vice versa. But we can't even know for sure if someone is a true believer or just pretending to fit in.
Posted by Furyan5 2 years ago
Furyan5
I lay no claim of ownership to this concept or any logical deductions one may draw from it. its only purpose is finding answers. And if you do find answers please let me know. Thanks.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Death23 2 years ago
Death23
Furyan5RandRichterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: The burden of proof is on Pro since he brings the claim. Pro asserts the existence of a 6th sense that can detect the existence of God, but presents no evidence to substantiate this assertion. Con suggests that a lack of homogeneity among religious beliefs suggests a lack of this 6th sense. I wouldn't expect polytheistic and monotheistic beliefs to exist simultaneously if people were able to sense the existence of Gods. Pro's S&G awful. R1: "existance" "Its a debate" "lol"; R2: "whatsover" "wouln't" "percieve" "???" "!!!" "what's sunlight?" (no capitalization) "all I'm saying" (all not capitalized) "Its impossible" (no apostrophe on "its") R3: "dnt" "foriegn" "occured" "prrson" "muslim" "christian" (not capitalized) "gotta" R4: "Lol running out of room" "possibilty" "thiest" "athiest" "dnt" "decend" "gonna" "caracteristics" "Limited to our understanding." "hindu" "christian" (not capitalized) "Something we read or hear." "Make sense?" "a orange a orange." R5: etc
Vote Placed by 8elB6U5THIqaSm5QhiNLVnRJA 2 years ago
8elB6U5THIqaSm5QhiNLVnRJA
Furyan5RandRichterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has no clue how to format an ellipsis '...' and randomizes the amount of dots as well as placing an elipsis where a comma was supposed to be placed. He also fails to follow them with a capital letter. Pro also confuses 'its' and 'it's' and has no concept of how to use question marks on their own ('???' is totally wrong) so S+G goes to Con. This was more of a discussion than a debate and only Con used sociological facts to back their case up. Pro literally ended their debate with a quesito to Con as if highlighting just how unsure they were of their own side. Factors such as upbringing and IQ are not subjective, they are objective factors to subjective conclusions of an individual. Pro failed to rebut this.