The Instigator
Pro (for)
2 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

Everyone's beliefs involve faith

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/30/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,538 times Debate No: 35171
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)




This will be a very odd debate since I will not only using just common sense, but also that it is likely that I will play the devil's advocate for some idiotic beliefs.

Here are the rules.
1. No cursing or insulting
2. I would like my opponent to be someone who is calm as this may get or sensitive terms.
3. On round one, state a belief that does not need faith ( it can be anything) and why it doesn't.
4. It will go from there.

Faith- believing in something without full evidence or proof


If I have this correct the burden I have is to state an idea or belief that does not need "Faith" , which you define as "Believing in something without full evidence or proof",therefore the opposite of faith would be acknowledge, undeniable fact.

With this being said, I enter my belief as the belief in matter.

1. The substance or substances of which any physical object consists or is composed: the matter of which the earth is made.
2. Physical or corporeal substance in general, whether solid, liquid, or gaseous, especially as distinguished from incorporeal substance, as spirit or mind, or from qualities, actions, and the like.
3. Something that occupies space.
4. A particular kind of substance: coloring matter.

I believe in matter, by definition. Proved throughout ages to be real beyond doubt.

If the burden I have is to present a belief that does not need faith because it is a constant then "Matter" cannot be contested as something needing faith to believe in. To prove this, I ask the voters and my opponent to define to the simplest ingredients of anything they are using or have is made of. Most will respond "atoms". However this still qualifies as Matter as it meets with the first 3 definitions provided. One does not need to wonder if it exists, as it has been proved in numerous scientific texts. Therefore there is full proof and evidence on the subject of matter and does not need faith for people to support its existence.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting my debate, I hope you find it interesting and wish you luck.

Now, I believe that everything involves faith for two different reasons:

1. You must have faith in the facts you are told-
You state that everything is made up of atoms, which according to definition is mass. However, do you know this because you have seen all atoms, or because someone told you that. Winston Churchill once said "Believe nothing that you hear, and half of what you see". Just because someone told you that 1. Atoms fit the definition of matter and 2. Everything is made up of atoms doesn't make it true.

2. Opposing beliefs-
Whenever you have a belief that opposes your own, you must have faith to not believe their evidence. A man of the name of Silas Beane, a physicist from Germany, has came up with a theory that we are living in a computer simulation. He has given several parts of evidence for this in his original paper about the theory. This theory have recieved increased interest lately by several people. A link of this theory is down below. You must have faith that the group of scientist who support your theory of matter is right.


I would like to contest my opponents arguments based on logical explanation as opposed to theoretical concepts which have no bearing on the case.

1. You must have faith in the facts you are told.
My opponent states" do you know this because you have seen all atoms, or because someone told you that."
-It is true that I do believe or have faith in the people who have told me the facts and knowledge to prove matter exists. Even though I had the choice to believe them or not, I was still left with the statements regarding the existence of matter. Upon applying these statements to the world around me, and simple logic I can conclude that these statements are indeed fact. I do not need faith in myself regarding these facts because I can prove them on my own given the materials and time to do so. No I have never seen an atom, but that does not mean I am incapable of seeing one.
- Regarding my opponents quote from Churchill, I would like to ask the voters to not base any decisions regarding the outcome of this debate on this quote as it would imply that two things. A. (if it were to be taken literally in this debate) Is abusive to the Con as it creates no possible way to win any debate on this topic as it creates a road block for discourse on this subject and B. In this context of his quote "Believe nothing that you hear," then that means the voters have no reason to believe or take this quote seriously.
-On the most logical and factual basis we cannot give credit to the Pros argument "Everything is made up of atoms doesn't make it true." Because my opponent feels this way, and seems to require a logical conclusion that any individual can conjure themselves this is why he is wrong.
1. Matter takes up space.
2. Space is an area of emptiness or an area not currently occupied by anything.
3. Anything that takes up space is made of matter.
4. A box is taking up space in the middle of an empty room.
Therefore, the box is made of matter. E.g Matter exists.

2. I would like to proclaim to the voters that the second argument has no bearing on this case at all and therefore I ask the voters to disregard this argument as anything to vote on. Although he starts off with an argument, I feel I have answered that already in my first response.
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you for your last post.

1. My opponent first off states that you must have faith in what people tell you. However, you said that simple logic proves it. That although you haven't seen atoms, you can. That is a statement of faith, you trust in faith that atoms exist. You haven't seen them.

2. Opposing beliefs do matter. If you just shrug off their evidence and their beliefs cause you believe your right, that is faith to say their wrong.


A. Please stay on the topic. You asked the challenger to provide something that does not need faith to believe in.
your definition of "faith" is believing in something without full evidence or proof.

-Proof:Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
-Evidence:The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

I provided "Matter" as the entity which does need faith to believe in due to the full evidence provided. If the Pro was seeking to condemn the term "evidence or proof" This debate is rhetorical and therefore has no purpose to debate as it is "a trick question". However, assuming he intended to argue the validity of "Matter" and not the credibility of scientists who have studied the subject matter for years, then I put forth my second argument.

B. Both definitions need fact to create proof or evidence. If faith is not present when a person knows a fact with full proof or evidence or has access to proof or evidence proving the fact to be true. I have provided a system that any person can use to prove the existence of matter.

C. Beliefs do matter. However, a "Belief" is defined as.
-An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
-Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.

Therefore, because there is facts and information which give credibility which I can affiliate with the individuals who provide me with such information. The Pro does not stay specific to the debate and goes off on so many different aspects of one topic. The Con should win simply because I have proved that Matter does not need faith to believe in.
Debate Round No. 3


Thank you for your post.

1. You state that because you can observe it with the attributes of matter, it must be matter. This is not always true as observing is misleading. Such as quantum mechanics, which state that the act of observing something changes what it is. Subatomic particles act as a wave when not observed, but as a particle when observed. So perhaps what you are observing isn't matter, it just looks that way as a wave doesn't fill the role of matter.

2. Once again, I'm going to point out that it takes faith to believe in what you are observing.
The following is an argument put up by a man by the name of George Berkeley, who says that matter only exists because we think it exists.

1) All thoughts, feelings, perceptions, etc. can only be accessed through your minds.
2) It is impossible for us to go outside our mind, because we cannot exist without our minds
3) Matter by definition exists outside our minds.

Basic Argument:
1) You should not believe in anything for which there is absolutely no evidence.
2) There is absolutely no evidence for matter.
3) Therefore, you should not believe in matter.

Silas Beane, once again, believes that everything exists as computer coding, not matter. It only is perceived as matter.

These scientists state that matter doesn't exist because its all just vacuums in space:

These people all have opposing beliefs, and they all have evidence to prove why they are right and you are wrong. "Evidence", at its very least, means nothing any more. There are thousands, if not millions of websites to prove you wrong. Your simple observation means nothing any more.


Ladies and gentlemen, please pay close attention to everything I am about to say as it is vital to this debate that every voter who reads this understands the exact reality of the debate. To recap. I am to prove that matter needs no faith to believe in. My opponent has tried everything but to give me a reason as to why I need faith to believe in matter.
Now, he attempts to intimidate me by destroying the validity of evidence with his "millions of scientific websites which prove them right and me wrong."-Pro. Does this scare me? Not in the least. Why? Oh simply because.....

Quantum Mechanics : The theory.
The simulation argument: Impossible without Matter.

This is what I have come up with upon researching his arguments:
The definition of quantum mechanics speaks of "Subatomic particles". The word "Subatomic particles" when broken down is defined as "Any amount of various units of matter below the size of an atom, including the elementary particles and hadrons."
Subatomic is defined as: smaller than or occurring within an atom.
particles are defined as both a minute portion of matter and any numerous subatomic constituents of the physical world that interact with each other.
Please take the time to note that the word "matter" is in the definition. I will explain later why this is relevant.
Matter is defined as "That which occupies space and possesses mass.
Upon reading the link which my opponent posted in this round, I realized what he was trying to prove. That subatomic particles act as waves when not observed but as particles when observed. However this does not mean that matter does not exist. The reason that it seems this way is due to how one observes matter. When matter is observed, it is a particle. This means that the observer has located the position of the particle. Because in this theory, all particles move about to some minute degree which leads observers to classify them as waves. When the wave is observed, this means that the observer has located the particles momentum. However, no observer can locate both the position and momentum of a single particle or wave at the same time.
This simply proves that matter exists but with certain characteristics. The reason my opponent says that upon providing this information, matter does not exist is due to "Wave function collapse". (Everyone keep in mind, quantum mechanics are all mathematical equations which revolve around "Theories" which do not qualify as sounds law or fact.) Wave function collapse means that the value of all the energies inside one subatomic particle condenses into one single energy as an observer observes this. However, no observer can ever see the entire collapse which is what keeps all particles in existence.
With all technical stuff being said, I ask that all the voters hold in there and please finish reading everything I have to say. Thank you.
My opponent gives evidence that inside the quantum vacuum all matter does not exist and does exist at the same time as all particles are fluctuating due to the observation effect. However! The validity of the perturbation theory lies on the adiabatic assumption, which assumes the eigenenergies and eigenstates (energy values) of the Hamiltonian are smooth of parameters such that their values in the vicinity region can be calculated in power series. This means that His entire argument rests on theory! I have already proved that Matter exists, he is attempting to prove it doesn't with evidence that has the sound possibility of not holding true! Please remember this voters!

Now on to the argument which proves even more definitely that my opponent NEED"S MATTER in order for his arguments to hold true.
The article the Pro posts in round 4 states at the very bottom that all reality could be virtual.
Upon reading this, I decide to look back at my opponents previous link posted in round 2 suggesting the possibility of a "simulated world." I listened to the 23 minute explanation of this argument and learned the following:
The simulation argument contains three theories.
only one of these theories can be true. Once one is proved true, the other two are false.
The first theory states that Man kind will never reach a "post human" state of technological advancement. (basically incredibly intelligent people.)
The second theory states that Man kind will reach a "post human" state but have no interest in running simulations.
The third theory is that we (as the world we know) is currently living in a simulation.
If the first two are true, that means that reality is not virtual. The quantum mechanics theories will never be fact and matter without a doubt exists and be acknowledged as a constant without the need of faith. If the third one is true however, that means all of reality is virtual. But wait!
Virtual: Something not concrete or physical but is *simulated*.
Simulated: To *imitate* the appearance or character of.
Imitate: Take or follow as a *model*.
Model: Take as an example to *copy*.
Copy: A thing made to be identical to another. Another what?
At some point in this long line of simulations, there is an original from which every simulation is based off of. Therefore, Matter exists. If it does not then the Pro cannot state that:
-There are simulations.
-quantum mechanics and quantum vaccumes are the reason matter does not exist.
Evidence means nothing anymore as he seems to have based his entire argument off the evidence and proof which his other "thousands of scientists" have provided.

In conclusion, Quantum mechanics are only possible because of the existence of matter. Quantum mechanics base its research around the effects of particles which are defined as minute portions of matter. However, if this is not the case then his virtual reality argument holds true. In this case, matter still exists because in order for a simulation world to be created, there has to be an original world in which matter exists and quantum physics are strictly theory. Because in a simulated world, physics would still need to be present and identical to that of the real world, all the definitions of matter from the first round hold true and are indisputable because they hold true without question in the original world (for these definitions please refer to my first argument).
Therefore, the Con should win for proving matter does not need faith to believe in because it is a constant.

My simple observation, is the only reason your arguments have any credibility.
Debate Round No. 4


Thank you for your post.

1. By definition that you gave for matter, quantum mechanics would go against two points of it. A wave isn't a solid, liquid, or has, and it doesn't take up space. So, by definition, that would make what we perceive as matter, something else.

2. It is not necessarily true that a computer simulation has to copy something that exists. We have done many things in a computer simulated world that can't or doesn't exist in our universe.

3. As I point out again, faith is always needed in those who tell you something. Perhaps your simple observation tells you that a box takes up space, maybe it hasn't had the right circumstances. In your limited frame of the universe, what you observe may be less than fact.


Ladies and gentlemen, although I would have tried to not waste your time so you can proceed to vote Con and go on with your lives, the Pro has decided to continue arguing into a round where only concluding statements are relevant as it is effectively the end of this debate. With this being said, I will briefly contest his final arguments and then proceed to my conclusions and why you should vote for me, the Con.

1. Yes you are correct, a wave is not a solid or a liquid or a gas and cannot take up space. However, that simply means that a wave does not take up space, not that is not made of matter. If you have actually read into quantum mechanics you would know that "matter waves" exist because they reflect the wave-particle duality of matter.

-The reason that matter waves are possible is because the wavelength is inversely proportional to the momentum of a particle and because the frequency of matter waves is directly proportional to the total energy of a particle as deduced by "Louis de Broglie" the Nobel prize winner for physics whose research contributed greatly to wave mechanics formed by Erwin Schrodinger.

-Therefore, Matter exists as a wave. I understand that two of my definitions of round 1 do not apply to waves but rather much larger physical objects or entities. The first part of my first definition in round one however still applies to matter:

-"The substance or substances of which any physical object consists or is composed"

And due to the fact that subatomic particles are not possible without matter as they are defined as:

-"Any amount of various units of matter below the size of an atom, including the elementary particles and hadrons."

In conclusion, yes matter is a wave. However if you insist that it is not and that what we perceive is something else, let us examine your second argument.

2. You'r correct again sir a simulation needeth not copy something else. But then it is not up to the simulation is it? It is up to its creators. In order for you'r simulation argument to hold true, there must be a creator and there must be an original from which is was designed. In that original world Quantum physics are strictly theory which means matter exists without a doubt. And now finally onto the argument which you continue to persist with.

3. I understand that this entire debate is over "faith in matter". You say that faith is defined as:

-"Believing in something without full evidence or proof"

Then why should I have faith in matter? I have all the tools to prove matter exists if I must. I have provided all the evidence to justify and prove matters existance. You as the Pro need matter to justify all of your arguments. Matter is a constant. A constant needeth not need faith to believe in as never changes, never has changed and never will. Matter exists and I acknowledge its existence without question.

- Now to be fair, you do say one intelligent thing in your third argument. " Your limited frame of the universe..." This is true, I am not aware of every aspect of the universe. However, if you attempt to validate this by the use of your simulation argument, then you have lost again because of the "Original" which must be present to create a simulation.

Finally ladies and gentlemen, you should vote for the Con for the following reasons:

1.I have successfully proved that matter needeth not faith to believe in because it is a constant as proved by quantum physics and logic.

2. I have contested every argument that the Pro has presented extensively.

3. The Pro continues to attempt to win this debate on how one obtains their information. As I imagine that the Pro intends to stand next to this argument, all of his information must not be taken literally in which case the Con wins for proving that matter needeth not faith to believe in because the Pro provided no credible arguments. If not, then the Con still wins for the previous two reasons.

4. For explaining to the voters the true limits of this debate, educating them further on the topic and providing arguments with warrants (mostly provided by the Pro) to support them.

Thank you all for taking the time to read my arguments. Please Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
Evidence for what? You have no evidence that the planet was created by a celestial dictator that will convict a child of thought crimes such as lust.

You have no evidence that humans populated this planet from incestuos relations between 2 brothers and their sisters, who were all born from identical twins who shared the exact same DNA because a man made from dust had his rib used to make a woman.

You have nothing but extraordinary claims without the extraordianry eviodence to back it up.

IDIOTS 6:13--Allegories, parables, opinions, apologies, metaphors, interpretations and excuses, these are the ingredients of the religious mind :)

Inept 5:55--Logic, reason, evidence, critical thinking and facts are religions natural enemies :)
Posted by Solomon_Grim 3 years ago
Devient. I have shown you evidence. Many times. If you are to stubborn to accept it, it is your fault.
Posted by thg 3 years ago
Here I am again. I'll try to give an example of what I mean by "unsupportable presuppositions" which require faith:

I would say to CON: how do you KNOW that matter exists?
I take it CON would answer: because it has been proven and I can see it, etc.
I would then say: but how do you KNOW that these proofs and your own senses are reliable?
CON: because "all" science agrees and because I KNOW my senses observe stuff.
I would then say: But why do trust that science and your senses are so reliable? Science has been proven wrong time and again (in fact, that is a basic tenet of the scientific method...the principle of DISproof). For example, "science" at one time taught that the earth was flat...then taught that our sun was the center of the cosmos...then finally taught that our entire solar system and galaxy is just a tiny section of the entire universe. Who's to say what science will discover next? Science is not necessarily the final arbiter of all reality. As for your senses, how do you know you're not hallucinating, or just having a big dream, from which one day you may awake? There really is no proof against this conjecture. You simply have to BELIEVE that there is such a thing as reality, and that your senses are reliable enough to perceive it. You cannot prove the presupposition that you are real. You've had dreams and have awakened from them. But when you're dreaming, you (usually) can't tell you're dreaming. You can only tell it was a dream after the fact. Likewise, you can't prove your entire existence isn't a big dream. I don't believe my existence is a dream, but the point is I can't PROVE that to you or to myself. I BELIEVE I'm real. But that is a presupposition.

Not sure if my effort here was that effective, but I would look to PRO to present more arguments like this in order to be more persuasive.
Posted by thg 3 years ago
I was honored to be asked to respond and vote on this debate, so I'll share my opinion here.

I certainly don't want to be rude, but I believe each debater here would prefer that I be honest. I have to say that I had a very difficult time following the arguments on both sides. I readily admit that part of the fault could lie with me. Nevertheless, according to what (little?) I know about grammar, syntax, and written communication, I believe both debaters fell short and likely would be more effective if they slowed down and read each post more carefully and edited their own posts more meticulously.

As for who won this debate, I'm very reluctant to weigh in, as I don't believe either side held its ground. I will tip my hat to PRO for proposing a premise that I happen to agree with and for supporting it (minimally), but I must tip my hat to CON for putting in what appears to be more research and thought, even though I believe neither side convincingly supports itself. So, for me, it is a draw.

If I may, I would offer that PRO should have stuck to his guns and provided better supporting arguments to show how everything requires some degree of faith. Yes, PRO added in a quote here and an idea there, but he could have been much more persuasive...perhaps trying to work with CON to make sure CON understood the initial premise (which I'm not sure CON ever really grasped).

Acknowledging our own presuppositions is one of the hardest things for us to do in debate and in life (myself included!). A presupposition is something we believe in which is unsupportable logically. I believe everyone "starts" any assertion (scientific, religious, or otherwise) with some sort of presupposition, which is what I believe PRO was trying to demonstrate. PRO began to nibble at this proposition, but never quite was persuasive. I'm running out of space, so I'll try to continue this thought by posting another comment.
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
What exactly is my belief that offers nothing? I dont remember telling you what I believed, only what I dont believe :)

We actually have the same beliefs about all the gods ever brainwashed into human minds throughout history, I just went one god further and added the slave supporting sexist who is concerned with human haircuts and eating shrimp :)

You still whining like is proof youre a cry baby :)
Posted by Donjaundebater1212 3 years ago
cool story bro.
Posted by Solomon_Grim 3 years ago
The reason that you are still here shows how unsure you are in your own beliefs. What point is it to insult religion when your belief offers nothing.
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
"Everyone's beliefs involve faith" That is actually plagiarized from Captain Obvious.

The Captain went on to say something else we are very fond of, "Too much of anything is not good"

I have faith when I type 2 + 2 into my calculator it will say 4.

Some have faith that the universe was created by a supernatural being that drowned his own children.

Please refer to The Captains second point listed here for those with faith in the supernatural flood boy :)
Posted by mrsatan 3 years ago
I believe I can't fly.
I believe I can't touch the sky.
I think about it every night and day.
I don't have wings with which to fly away.
I belieeeeeve I can't soar.
Unless you throw me out an airplane door....

I've tried (all save that last part), just couldn't do it... :(
Posted by ArgentStorm 3 years ago
Even if one promises to himself "de omnibus dubitandum", one must, by necessity, acknowledge one thing: Thought occurs. In examining the proposition, you prove it's truth. No faith required.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by JustinAMoffatt 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Well well... what a neat little brain twister we have here. Well done by both sides, and bravo for your bravado in tackling this debate. RFD: Conduct- Con pointed out that Pro abused the final round to continue argumentation. Typically, I would allow a recap/argument. However, there was no summary whatsoever, just a mindless rehashing of previously rebutted points. S/G- Nothing too major to complain about. Args- Con wins due to 1) His extensive research and ability to communicate how he was correct. It was very impressive the amount of information you were able to digest and then redeliver to your audience, Con. And 2) The third argument by Pro fell through. Barely. I was weighing whether it was valid. However, by definition you were only arguing whether any specific belief involved faith, not the denial of beliefs. Sources- Pro used one, so he gets the points for it.