The Instigator
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
CJ
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Debate Regarding a few listed subjects.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/24/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,781 times Debate No: 5513
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (22)
Votes (1)

 

LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

1. Substance Dualism isn't as crazy as it sounds.
2. One should not believe tales of miracles that contradict of prior experience.
3. Utilitarianism is fundamentally superior to Kantianism.
4. Kantianism is fundamentally superior to Utilitarianism.
5. Pragmatism is a superior life view.
6. Humans are not truly individuals.
7. Causality is not provable.
8. Kierkegaard is wrong, ethics and morality cannot be suspended, even for a higher goal.
9. Assuming that God exists, Abraham was wrong in trying to sacrifice Isaac.
CJ

Con

I negate the resolution: "One should not believe tales of miracles that contradict of prior experience."

Definitions:
-"should not believe") I interpret this as a rational ought; to believe this proposition would act against rationality
-"miracles") "[Things] which are done by divine agency beyond the order commonly observed in nature" (Aquinas,
Summa Contra Gentiles)

Argument:
1) If a testimony or tale is reliable, one can be rationally justified in believing it.
- If a tale is reliable, it has evidence for its truth. If there is no evidence against it, one could be completely rational in
believing the tale, considering the fact that their belief would be based on evidence.
2) Therefore, if a testimony or tale of a miracle is reliable, one can be rationally justified in believing it.
-This conclusion simply applies the reasoning from 1 to a testimony or tale of a miracle.

I anticipate an interesting debate.
Vote Con
Debate Round No. 1
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

Okay, to affirm, I will pose two scenarios, both very similar, but with a key difference.

Scenario 1: Dhara Gupta, a young Indian lady in the 1200s lived with her husband, three children, her brother-in-law and his family, and her parents-in-law. One day, a horrible illness killed off her brother-in-law's family. In despair, he left on a long trip, wanting to see the wide world. After 5 long years, he returned, and said that far away lived a huge monster in a lake, called Nessie. This of course was the Loch Ness Monster, which in all liklihood does not exist (I can prove this). Mrs. Gupta of course thinks her brother-in-law is insane, and does not believe him, even though he has never lied before.

Scenario 2: Dhara Gupta, a young Indian lady in the 1200s lived with her husband, three children, her brother-in-law, Rohan, and his family, and her parents-in-law. One day, a horrible illness killed off her brother-in-law's family. In despair, he left on a long trip, wanting to see the wide world. After 5 long years, he returned, and said that far away there was water that was so cold it became a solid. The funniest thing was that there was no real in between period. The water went almost straight from water to the solid, and the solid went straight back to the water. This of course was ice. This also caused Mrs. Gupta to think he was insane. I mean, seriously, water that becomes solid, like a rock? That's insane, at least if you've never seen ice.

So the question is, would it have been rational for Dhara to believe in Rohan's tales. Both were contradictory to her experiences, and both came from a reliable source. I contend that it would be irrational. For example, a more modern example: Everyone has gotten those emails; send me $100 and I'll give you a hundred times that back. These are almost without exception frauds. However, if one day you actually get one that is not a fraud, yet it is indistinguishable from the frauds, you would not be rational to believe it. You have no way of knowing whether or not it is real or not. In all likelihood though, it is false. Clearly it would be irrational to actually do it.

The same applies to Dhara. People often say things about the natural world, I can levitate, I can cure cancer with belly button lint, this South American Poisonberry bush tastes like steak...almost all of these claims are false, even if someone who we trust as reliable says this it would be irrational to believe them. All we have is there world, which is contradictory to our knowledge of the laws of nature.

"1) If a testimony or tale is reliable, one can be rationally justified in believing it.
- If a tale is reliable, it has evidence for its truth. If there is no evidence against it, one could be completely rational in
believing the tale, considering the fact that their belief would be based on evidence."

Rohan is reliable, he has knowledge of the world, he is a trusted relative, why would he lie? However, many travelers in Dhara's village come back with insane tales, there is no reason to believe in any of them. One out of the hundreds may be true, but there is no way to know that that one is the true one. Although believing these tales may lead to one gaining new knowledge, one would have to become very gullible, and believe in significantly more lies.

"2) Therefore, if a testimony or tale of a miracle is reliable, one can be rationally justified in believing it.
-This conclusion simply applies the reasoning from 1 to a testimony or tale of a miracle."

See above rebuttal.

Your move.
CJ

Con

CJ forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

Unfortunately my opponent forfeited. I hope he returns next round.
CJ

Con

CJ forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
I won't even dignify that with a response.
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
"Perhaps you can now awe us with your guiding principles of what is good and bad in biblical doctrine."

Obligatory repost.
skip to 6:36

"Oh, God speaks to you?"
"YES!"
"He tells you what is right and wrong?"
"YES!
"And you act accordingly?"
"YES!"
"SO YOU, [LR4N6FTW4EVA], THROUGH ORATORY OR LEGISLATION OR WHATEVER, YOU PASS ON GOD'S ORDERS TO THE REST OF THE WORLD! WELL. MEET THE PROPHET FROM MARYLAND!!!"
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
"Never used those, at least not here"
"False. See my debate with Kleptin."

Don't play the fool.

"Also, I said the Bible is weak. That does not mean all of it is worthless from a theological standpoint. Fallacy of composition my dear fellow."
"The Bible is a horrible source on God"

It was not I who made the claim - only you. Perhaps you can now awe us with your guiding principles of what is good and bad in biblical doctrine.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Assumptions are necessary for debates. Hypotheticals are based off assumptions.

"All are artifacts of the bible. So unless you are advocating a new god and religion to believe in, try again. The basis of the god and mythos you argue are founded in the bible.'

Never used those, at least not here. Also, I said the Bible is weak. That does not mean all of it is worthless from a theological standpoint. Fallacy of composition my dear fellow.
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
"I never once use the Bible as justification"

You don't have to be explicit - it is in what you say.
"omnipotent"
"all powerful God"
"himself"
"hell"
"might get to go to heaven"
"belief in God"

All are artifacts of the bible. So unless you are advocating a new god and religion to believe in, try again. The basis of the god and mythos you argue are founded in the bible.
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
"All I'm saying is that logic w/assumptions can justify what I'm saying."

Unbased assumptions.
False premises + Good logic = False conclusions.
Gg.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
"How do we know god exists? The bible tells us so. How do we know the bible is true? God tells us so."

False. See my debate with Kleptin. I never once use the Bible as justification.

"You cannot disclaim your source and then use it as a basis for arguments, and hope to remain credible."
I'm not using it.

">And it could be God. And Abraham could have not been hallucinating. You have no evidence and I have no evidence, therefore neither of us are right and we really can't debate this issue. OH WAIT IF WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE THEN ABRAHAM GOD SATAN ETC DON'T EXIST!!!!"

The statement was based on the assumption that they do exist. That's why I said "Assuming that God exists, Abraham was wrong in trying to sacrifice Isaac." The debate would be pointless without that assumption.

"'False. The Bible is a horrible source on God.'
>........?
'but they are wrong. '
>AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oooohhh my god.
You just made my day."

First one: The Bible is not one document. It is a haphazard compilation of the beliefs and views of 60 plus different men. It is self-contradictory, and cannot be an accurate source for anything other than the views of its writers.

Second one: Are you saying lying can never be right? Or what?

"SO YOU, [LR4N6FTW4EVA], THROUGH ORATORY OR LEGISLATION OR WHATEVER, YOU PASS ON GOD'S ORDERS TO THE REST OF THE WORLD! WELL. MEET THE PROPHET FROM MARYLAND!!"

WTF? I never claimed that God told me this. All I'm saying is that logic w/assumptions can justify what I'm saying.
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
"The Bible is a horrible source on God."
"As God is omnipotent"

How do we know god exists? The bible tells us so. How do we know the bible is true? God tells us so.

You cannot disclaim your source and then use it as a basis for arguments, and hope to remain credible.
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
"It could be Satan."
>And it could be God. And Abraham could have not been hallucinating. You have no evidence and I have no evidence, therefore neither of us are right and we really can't debate this issue. OH WAIT IF WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE THEN ABRAHAM GOD SATAN ETC DON'T EXIST!!!!

"False. The Bible is a horrible source on God."
>........?
"but they are wrong. "
>AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oooohhh my god.
You just made my day.

Obligatory.
skip to 6:36

"Oh, God speaks to you?"
"YES!"
"He tells you what is right and wrong?"
"YES!
"And you act accordingly?"
"YES!"
"SO YOU, [LR4N6FTW4EVA], THROUGH ORATORY OR LEGISLATION OR WHATEVER, YOU PASS ON GOD'S ORDERS TO THE REST OF THE WORLD! WELL. MEET THE PROPHET FROM MARYLAND!!!"
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
"God told Abraham to kill his son. God can't lie. Therefore, God wanted Abraham to kill Isaac and therefore both God and Abraham are immoral pieces of ------------------------------"

It could be Satan. In which case only Abraham and Satan would be immoral pieces of s. Or Abraham could be hallucinating, like that lady in Texas. Either way, I'm right.

"God can't lie."

False. The Bible is a horrible source on God. The Bible was written by some slightly bored men, who gave him some attributes. Most of them are contradictory. As God is omnipotent, he can lie. Now, some may say that is not good, but they are wrong. Ever heard of a white lie?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
LR4N6FTW4EVACJTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.