Does God exist?
Debate Rounds (5)
"the Biblical worldview is the world view that provides a suffient basis for sense reliability"
How so? How does the Bible allow you to confirm that your senses are reliable?
"I would like to know if he has any idea of the biblical definition of faith"
Hebrews 11:1: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." This is the Biblical definition of faith, and it's a bunch of religious gobbledygook. I prefer Bertrand Russell's definition of faith, as it is more accurate: "We may define "faith" as a firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Where there is evidence, no one speaks of "faith". We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence."
"he said that nobody can be certain of sense reliability so he must have confidence in that"
Not absolute confidence, no. I just acknowledge that,
"the suffex for confide is fide which means with faith"
Interesting bit of etymology. Too bad it's irrelevant.
Christians love the Biblical definition of 'faith' because it sounds mystical and wise. Unfortunately, it's just word salad. It means nothing. It's not even a functional definition. It doesn't work:
"I have faith in God" --> "I have substance of things hoped for in God"
"I have faith that Jesus rose from the dead." --> "I have evidence of things not seen that Jesus rose from the dead."
Clearly, the Biblical definition is utter nonsense. The Bible does not offer us a functional definition of the word "faith."
Let's ask ourselves: when someone says "I have faith in God" what do they really mean?
It means they have a "strong belief" in God that is "based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof."  As Bertrand Russell notes, "When there is evidence, no one speaks of faith. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence."  The dictionary / Bertrand Russell definitions actually mean something, and they actually work:
"I have faith in God" --> "I have a strong belief in God that is based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof."
"I have faith that Jesus rose from the dead." --> "I strongly believe that Jesus rose from the dead, although I have no evidence."
I challenge my opponent to elucidate the Biblical definition of faith. Maybe I'm just too stupid to understand it?
for how the bible could give us a basis of sense reliability would be first of all Genesis 1:27 also all the commands where God commands a person that requires them to use their senses
Genesis 1:27 says, "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." How do you know that God Himself isn't out-of-touch with reality?
he does not have absolute confidence that his senses are reliable but he still has confidence which means by his own assertion that he is going against reason and logic to be involved in this debate
It's hard for me to make sense of this criticism. How exactly am I "going against reason and logic"? In regard to the question of whether we can trust our senses, I am provisionally saying no. I embrace "model-dependent realism."
Model-dependent realism "is based on the idea that our brains interpret the input from out sensory organs by making a model of the world. When such a model is successful at explaining events, we tend to attribute to it, and to the elements and concepts that constitute it, the quality of reality or absolute truth. But there may be different ways in which one could model the same physical situation, and each employing different fundamental elements and concepts. If two such physical theories or models accurately predict the same events, one cannot be said to be more real than the other; rather, we are free to use whichever model is most convenient." 
"We can...employ the tools of science, which are designed to test whether or not a particular model or belief about reality matches observations made not just by ourselves but by others as well. Although there is no Archimedean point outside of ourselves from which we can view the Truth about Reality, science is the best tool ever devised for fashioning provisional truths about conditional realities. Thus, belief-dependent realism is not epistemological relativisim where arll truths are equal and everyone's reality deserves respect. The universe really did begin with a big bang, the earth really is billions of years old, and evolution really happened, and someone's belief to the contrary really is wrong. Even though the Ptolemaic earth-centered system can render observations equally well as the Copernican sun-centred system (at least in th etime of Copernicus anyway), no one today holds that these models are equal because we know from additional lines of evidence that heliocentrism more closely matches reality than geocentrism, even if we cannot declare this to be an Absolute Truth about Reality." 
 Oxford English Dictionary
 Bertrand Russell
 Stephen Hawking
 Michael Shermer
he does not like the definition of faith that the bible itself gives, so he switches the definition
As I pointed out in Round #2, the definition of "faith" that the Bible gives is gobbledygook. It means nothing, and it does not tell us what people mean when they say they have "faith" in something. For this reason, I reject the Biblical definition.
[Squonk] commits the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. He is really saying that the definition that Russell and the dictionary gives is correct because they are typically authorities on what words mean
No. I reject the Biblical definition of faith because it is meaningless, and I accept the dictionary definition because (unlike the Biblical definition) the dictionary definition actually tells us what people mean when they say they have "faith" in something.
Bertrand Russell is not an authority on what words mean.
faith does not merely mean strong belief I would simplify this verse down as "confidence in something that I cannot persieve with my senses
How do you get "confidence in something that I cannot perceive with my senses" from "substance of things hoped for" or "evidence of things not seen"? I'm curious. Furthermore, this definition of "faith" doesn't work either. Things like "courage" and "kindness" cannot be perceived with your senses, yet we do not say "I have faith in courage."
how do i know that god is not out of touch with reality. According to the scriptures he created reality. If he was out of touch with it, then it is not possible for him to create it
You're missing my point. How do you know that there is not some "higher plane of reality" above God, that God himself is oblivious to?
I agree that this debate ended up going somewhat off-track.
In Round #1, my opponent stated his intention to argue that (1) our senses our reliable and (2) only Christians can account for this. I argue that no one, Christian or atheist, can be absolutely certain that their senses are reliable. Our senses are all we have. As Michael Shermer says, "There is no Archimedean point outside of ourselves from which we can view the Truth about Reality." Therefore, none of us can verify that what we perceive is objectively real.
My opponent cites Genesis 1:27 as evidence that humans can trust their senses. Yes, it's a "Bible says so" argument. This verse states that God created man and woman in his own image. From this, my opponent infers that God created our senses to be reliable; we can trust our senses because "the Bible says so." How do we know that there isn't a higher plane of reality that God Himself is oblivious to? My opponent responds to this with another "Bible says so" argument.
In this debate, I do not bear the burden of proof. It is not my job to come up with a positive argument against the existence of God. As the one making the positive claim, ("God exists") it's on YOU to back it up with an argument. Which you haven't, at all.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by distraff 2 weeks ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Sense Reliability: Pro argues that there is no non-biblical evidence the senses are real. The bible says the senses are real so we can know they are real. This only proves they are real if you assume God exists and I don't see how this is evidence for God. Con provided a prediction based-model of determining reality. Pro says that argument is based on reason which is also unproven. But even the argument that senses is unproven is based on reason. The argument that the bible justifies the senses is based on reason. This is all very muddled so I don't see how either worldview wins here. Con attacks the biblical definition of faith as nonsensical. Pro provides the verse that faith is assurance in things not seen, and is not belief without evidence so his definition wins. In the last round there is debate over whether Con has to disprove God. Since he is Con to "Does God exist?" he does have to show God doesn't exist. He did not do that and Pro did not show God existed. Nobody won.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.