Everyone's beliefs involve faith
Debate Rounds (5)
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by JustinAMoffatt 3 years 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:||2||4|
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.
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.