The Instigator
n7natnat
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
WillYouMarryMe
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

Existentialism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 3 votes the winner is...
n7natnat
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/15/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 710 times Debate No: 71706
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

n7natnat

Pro

Existentialism is basically part of daily life, whether you know it or not. You choose to believe in God, you choose to not believe. You make up rules, or you follow rules made up by others. You decide what's good, or what's bad. It's awesome.
WillYouMarryMe

Con

I accept, and eagerly await Pro's opening argument.
Debate Round No. 1
n7natnat

Pro

Well, it's hard to argue against someone who hasn't made their own philosophy clear yet. But, I will explain mine. Existentiaism is a philosophical theory or approach that emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will. this really goes against many religious people as might suspect. We are told that, through most religious text that things are inherently right or wrong. In reality, that is not the case. Isn't it odd how for 4.1 billion years nothing was right or wrong until human kind came into existence? Hmmmmm. Is that just a coincidence or not? Well good and bad originates from the subject that defines what they want or desire as good or bad by their means. Say a person "wants" to help somebody. They help and like what they see. They deem it as good. Or say a terrorist killed many civilians. They like what they see and deem it as "good", while the others who are repugnant of the act seem it as "bad". And you know babies aren't born with the inherent ability to deem what is right or wrong. It has to be taught to them. See how different parents give different rules for their kids? What each parent deems as necessary or moral is subjective. Nothing has an inherent morality, value, meaning, or purpose. Life gives it to them. Even the smallest of life can give purpose whether it meant to or not. Water by itself is meaningless and purposeless. But! When a single celled organism comes into existence, it is one that requires water to survive. Thus, the water now has purpose and meaning. But, the meaning of things vitiates between everyone. I love my book and value it highly, while another person would see my book and not even pay it any mind not value it at all. We gave things value, not the other way around. We deem how much something will cost at a store, saying it will be at a value of "x" dollars. I'm pretty sure the material being sold didn't give itsef a value. And God didnt either, so don't argue that. Cause if you're gonna argue that, I got a whole list of reasons to disprove that. If you wanna see those, just post that you do. I will blow you out of the water Hahahahaha. But basically, the majority of the idea of the passage so far is moral nihilism. Nothing has inherent purpose or morality. We gave things purpose and made up morality. What do we do then? If nothing has inherent value, purpose, meaning, or etc what is the point of all this? Well reader, that is for you to decide. That's what makes existentialism so fantastic. It can be whatever you want. You can give yourself purpose, meaning, value, and decide your own morality even if it seems wrong to others. Nothing is inherently good or bad, so you can decide yourself. Like you can say murder is good. It's not inherently bad not good, though it is scary Hahahahaha. But basically, when it comes to abstract terms and morality, you decide how to live. "God is dead. We killed him". With God dead, the morality of his is dispersed. Now it's you to be God and decided right and wrong. Be the "superman" to realize this potential and harness your "will to power"; your drive to succeed in whatever field or portion of life you desire. It is within you to reach this! Do not let a will to ignorance drag you down! Do not let others decide for you with their bias! Individualism! Be you! Now I suspect that my opponent will come forth with "things do have inherent morality, purpose, and etc because "God" said so. But, know there are also different gods to tell right and wrong. Which one of those gods is the true God of a correct morality? How can we know for sure? Ask yourself this if he combats me with this argument. But, if you he wants to dwell deep into the existence of God, so be it. I will give logic and reason refuting his "god". But I will end with a short summary of what existentialism is: it's your life, you decide how to live. You decide what you value. You decide what purpose you have. You decide your own philosophy (isn't it cool? A philosophy that says to make your own philosophy! It's amazing!). You decide the meaning of life, whether it's negative or positive. It's to you to decide. Though there will always be consequences to your actions, those consequences that are given from people of a morality are the ones who also practiced existentialism! They decided what was right and wrong! It is everywhere my friends! But just know, it's all up to you. Nature does not define abstract thought. You do. Nature......let it's staggering splendor dominate the physical, and let you dominate your ego. It is to you reader. It is all for you.
WillYouMarryMe

Con

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to pass this round due to my poor time management.

Fortunately, this is a five round debate and there will still be three rounds left to debate.

I will definitely post a full argument next round. Sorry for wasting this one... thanks in advance to my opponent for his patience.
Debate Round No. 2
n7natnat

Pro

I would also like to point out that my opponent took a debate knowing he would likely have to spend time elsewhere, wasting both my time reader, and yours. To me, I will tolerate it as my opponent acknowledged my patience, but i find it disrespectful personally. I am sure some of the readers here would say, "I find nothing wrong with the con. He had no intent on this and was not disrespectful". And that, again, is evidence of exitentialsim today. We both decided what was right and wrong for ourselves today. I believe my opponent to be disrepectful and wrong with his time management, and one of my fellow readers may not. This shows that existentialism is active today. And I would like to point out you can be religious "and" an existentialist. I myself discovered existentialism when I was currently christian. For two years, I identified myself as an existential christian, which is possible. There is even a web page on Wikipedia about christian existentialism. Here is the link if you wish to see:http://en.wikipedia.org...;

Kierkegaard, known as the father of existentialism, was a christian himself!!!! Kierkegaard posited having a personal relationship with god that supersedes all prescribed moralities, social structures, and communal norms. The originator of my philosophy (as well as the discoverer of the philosophy that everyone enacts every single day. Such as when you either decide whether you want a burger or a hot dog for lunch using your "bias will" or opinion.) was a christian, and i am atheist! This is a philosophy that does not discriminate against any form of religion! Rather, it says/explains you can and you "do" choose how you want to live and decide your morality! Everyone can and is an existentialist! My opponent my argue that one of the most known philosophers and existentialist "Friedrich Nietzsch" was an athiest and despised Christianity for their "slave morality". I myself love Nietzsche and his even more grander scale of existentialism, but I disagree on how he sees christianity because (enacting my own philosophy) how we view things are subjective! Even my favorite philosopher Nietzsche can be seen wrong and right! It all depends on perspective, and in my perspective Nietzsche is wrong on that manner to an extant. But otherwise, Nietzsche just digs deeper into existentialism and realizes the full potential of the philosophy that we all enact today. You dont have to do how he does it. I dont. Nietzsche actuall encouraged man to have a mind set that was "not" influenced by others and was based on yourself (as long as it was reasonable with logic), and did not have to concur with others. We enact that today when you have a seperate friend who differs in beliefs with you. He believes one thing and wont let your ideology influence him, and the same of you to him.

With these evidential and supported claims, I have shown that existentialism is something that everyone and anyone can enact. My opponent my argue Friedrich Nietzsche argued that religion restricts the full potential of existentialism to get you discouraged from the conept becasue you yourself might be religious. I concur with Nietzsche on that matter "to an extant", but not fully because that is how "he sees it", and perspective is subjective. I have only wished to show you my fellow readers that you enact this philosophy no matter what: you "chose" to pick this debate to read as an individual using your will to do so. I am not arguing that you embrace this philosophy because you already do. I wish to show you that "already have" embraced it when you were born. When you were a baby, you gave milk meaning because you wanted it. Milk by itself cannnot give meaning to itself nor anything else for that matter. Only the living can. Just like trees give meaning to the sun when it takes in sunlight for energy, or when a bird gives meaning to straw when it builds a nest: you give meaning to something everyday whether you noticed it or not. I only wish you recognize it. And if "you desire", not me, i would recommend you embrace existentialism like Nietzsche would advise. But if you choose not to, that is for you to decide and I would be proud of you reader either way because which ever way you decide, "YOU" are an existentialist. You are the decider of your fate in a fateless world.

Actually, i just recognized my opponent my argue it might be fate that a baby might die when a subjective "bad man" could steal the baby and kill it. I would like to say that the baby, before it died gave the air meaning for it values air to give it life. Even if it is not intentional, life will give meaning, even before it dies, even at the smallest ages. I only wish that my reader recognizes that we and the universe do not have inherent meaning, value, purpose, or morals. But. We as living things are inherently existentialist. I cry out to my reader on a personal level as this means much "to me": live how you wish. Live happy. Or decide not to be. And if someone tries to force you to do something by threats and acts you would deem "evil", still know they are not you and cannot force you. If a man holds a gun to your head and says give him the money, you decide if he is good or bad in that instant. And you can also decide to die for your pride or what you value or fight back, or choose to give him the money. He's not forcing you to do anything, it just feels like he is. That my reader is an illusion. When the universe seems to force you to do a specific act, that is an illusion. The universe is not you! The universe does not control your will! Even god does not! If he was/is real, he gave/gives you free will! He doesnt force you to him! He lets you choose if/since he is real. Just know that everything that isnt biological or most things that arent physical, such as the abstract thoughts or wishes and dreams: it's a choice you make using your will. I hope again you recognize that we all are existentialist.
WillYouMarryMe

Con

Thanks to Pro for his arguments, and, again, apologies for having to pass the last round.

I interpret the resolution as being something along the lines of "Existentialism is most likely true". Since that is a positive claim, it means that Pro has the burden of proof, so all I have to do to negate the resolution is successfully refute Pro's arguments. I have two objections to make to Pro's case.

== God is not Dead ==

Pro assumes that God does not exist. I will provide two arguments to demonstrate that assumption to be false.

1. Transcendental Argument

In order for us to engage in any sort of rational discourse, it is necessary for us accept the existence of logical absolutes, as we rely on them to reach sound conclusions. My opponent has already conceded that logical absolutes exist by creating this debate, because he is assuming that we can, indeed, engage in meaningful rational discourse. With the existence of logical absolutes established, we are then posed with the question of where they come from. We can clearly observe that, just like mathematical laws, these logical absolutes transcend the physical universe; there is no need for any physical objects to exist in order for statements like "1 2 = 3" or "If A=B and B=C, then A=C" to be true. In other words, they exist independently of the universe. However, this poses quite the dilemma-- if these logical absolutes transcend the naturalistic universe, then how is it possible for them to be explained through naturalistic means? It isn't possible; such transcendental laws can only be rooted in a similarly transcendental source. And since the said laws are purely abstract and conceptual (i.e. mental) in nature, it plausibly follows that they must have originated from a conscious mind of some sort. Thus, we reach the conclusion: a transcendent mind which exists independently of the universe (aka. God), is responsible for conceptualizing the laws of logic which govern reality.

2. Fine-Tuning Argument

It is a well-known fact that the universe's physical constants had to be within extremely precise ranges for universe to have ever even existed. According to theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking, "If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed before it ever reached its present size," [1]. Similarly infinitesimally tiny ranges of precision are there for a number of other physical constants, including the ratio of the electromagnetic force to gravity, the ratio of matter to anti-matter, the universe's mass density, and the cosmological constant [3]. Even the most basic knowledge of probability allows us to calculate that the likelihood of all those constants lining up perfectly to result in the universe coming into being "just by chance" (i.e. naturalistically) is so unimaginably small that metaphors fail to describe it. Meanwhile, under theism, it is fairly obvious why physical constants happen to fall into those precise ranges-- because God set it to be that way with the specific intention of creating the universe. Theism provides a FAR more likely context for the existence of the universe than atheism does, so given that the universe does exist, theism is that much more likely to be true.

This argument has the additional benefit of showing that God most likely is invested in the future of his creation, as it makes very little sense that he would go through the trouble of fine-tuning the universe to support life only to just stand back and leave it that life to its own devices. Thus, God is probably a personal deity. And with the existence of a personal creator God established, it is highly unlikely that existentialism is true because, as the creator of everything, it would be *God's* values which mattered, rather than ours'. Pro claims that existentialism can co-exist with religion, but he fails to support that claim with anything other than an appeal to authority (Kierkegaard). He is going to have to explain *how* they can co-exist for us to accept that claim. The existence of an objective universal standard like God completely undermines the subjectivism which is so central to the philosophy of existentialism.

== Moral Realism ==

Another huge assumption that Pro's case rests upon is that morality is nothing but a subjective human construct. This is false; I will provide two independent arguments showing that an objective morality does exist, regardless of whether or not God exists.

1. Moral Sense Theory

We all have moral impulses; even those who have rejected the existence of morality still feel them just as vividly as anyone else does. Although our moral conclusions may vary quite a bit, humans all still have the same basic intuitions from which those conclusions are derived. Take the example of murder-- we almost unanimously agree that innocent human life is valuable and that taking it away is one of the most unethical things one could do. Yet people still differ in their opinions of things like abortion and the death penalty. Why? It's because pro-life people do not see the fetus as truly being a living human yet, and because pro-DP people do not see death row convicts as being innocent anymore. It's not that either side disagrees that innocent life is valuable, but rather that they have different interpretations of the same objective ethucal code. There are obviously people who have no value for innocent life, and there is a reason why such people are regarded by the rest of humanity as being evil, sociopathic, and deserving of punishment-- because they violate our universal moral sense. Thus, our values are not subjective; the apparent differences between them are the result of our varying approaches to interpreting and applying those values, rather than actual differences between the values themselves.

So a universal moral sense does exist among human beings. Where does this come from? One obvious explanation is that God instilled them in us to reflect his own objective moral code. The only other feasible explanation comes from a corollary to logical absolutes and human rationality: in the same way that we have evolved our sense of rationality to be centered around the objective logical absolutes governing the universe, we could also have evolved our sense of morality to be centered around the objective moral absolutes governing the universe. Thus, morality is not at all subjective, and existentialism's most important premise is false.

2. Free Will

Pro actually refutes his own case by advocating the existence of free will among human beings, because free will can be used to justify quite a few objective secular ethical systems, such as Libertarianism and Kantian Deontology. Free will makes human beings special in relation to the rest of the universe-- it grants them a sense of moral significance and culpability for their own actions from which various ethical systems centered around rights and human dignity can emerge. Thus, Pro is basically telling us that one of the tenets of existentialism (free will) affirms the existence of objective moral systems...

******

I have exposed two gaping holes in Pro"s case, and thus it fails. Existentialism is most likely false.
The resolution is negated

.

[1] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
Debate Round No. 3
n7natnat

Pro

The only absolutes are things of physical essence as pointed out by Aristotle in "The Metaphysics". Anything else is abstract. We can rewrite how math works and still make it work. We can make numbers have different values and rewrite everything, and it still be the same (though we would have to learn a whole new system for it). And he forgets how we make up these "transcendal ideals": through interaction with other objects with physical essence. How do we know 1+1 equals 2 for sure? We first had to observe it "physically" to make sure. And we use diagrams and etc to show how these elements based of physical essence correlate to the elements of abstractity that can change anytime. Einstein didn't just make up E=mc2 off the top of his mind. He had to observe and use things of physical essence to define it. This is called "empirical knowledge", the main thing we as organisms do to survive and learn.
My opponent foolishly (not as an insult) claims without evidence, that only our thoughts and abstractity can come from God. He states this: "Though I don't understand abstract thought, I will claim it came from an abstract source of which I can't prove". Is this reasonable or logical? No it is not. Plus my opponent has slipped away from the argument concerning existentialism to bring up the case of God to explain everything. God has no part in this argument, and God is not falsifiable. There is no way to prove that God didn't just make us 15 seconds ago with all our memories. BUT! It can be reuted by simple evidence that has brought us to conclusions about our universe. You know the theory of the "multiverse" is technically transcendal since it works outside of our existence? But how did we come to it then? By, again, using "real physical measurements and evidence", scientist came to that conclusion. There is evidence for the multiverse: there is none for God or any other transcendal concept my opponent will bring up. And if we go about this how Newton did with his "Flaming Sword Analogy", it is not worth our while to discuss something that cannot be proven or disproven other than with your personal and biased reasoning like my opponent has done for his first explanation.
And even after I have given evidence showing moral is subjective such as a killer believing it is good to kill and a citizen sees it bad, he claims to still say there is an absolute created by a God with which he holds no evidence for except his own faith. Again, I thought this was a discussion concerning existentialism, not whether God is real or not. AND HERE IS THE IRONY! HE CLAIMS TO SAY SINCE GOD IS REAL, THAT THERE IS BOUND TO BE OBJECTIVISM! BUT HE HAS NO PROOF FOR THIS EXCEPT HIS "OWN" BIAS LOGIC! IS THAT NOT SUBJECTIVE????? THE IRONY! NOT EVERYONE WOULD AGREE WITH HIM OR HIS IDEALS, PROVING MY SUBJECTIVISM! AND AGAIN HE MAKES AN ARGUMENT WITH TRANSCEDAL EVIDENCE THAT CANT BE PROVEN VALID INSTEAD OF PHYSICAL AND VALID PROOF THAT HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE SO!
And dude, your last argument literally worked off subjectivism. You used "almost unaimously" meaning not everyone. You used a subject like abortion that is "very controversial and people argue all the time about it being more or immoral". And you used your opinion of the matter saying "is one of the most unethical things one could do". That's your opinion. What about all the other people who protest that it's alright to do it? Or the government giving you the right to do it? If we all saw it as unethical, then why isn't a world wide law for it to be illegal????? Subjective thoughts my friend. Subjective laws, morality, and opinions just like you showed. And some people like sociopaths, or in fact "some normal people" don't see anything wrong with killing. How about the death penalty? Some people agree it's moral, others not. I thought if we were objective, we'd all have the same ideals? Nope. Guess not. We all have different ideals. Literally go up to someone at the store and ask them what they think about life. Youll find some differences in both of your ideologies. And going back to God: I thought God made us without the ability to see right or wrong? That's why when we supposedly ate from the tree of knowledge, we knew it then? But if that ability was passed down through the ages, then how come not everyone sees right and wrong the same? We're all supposed to see right and wrong like God. How come we don't? Does that mean God doesn't see right and wrong objectively either? Does that mean he is subjective??????? And again, you argue that morality isn't subjective because of God. You cannot prove God, so you cannot prove your claim. Make factual claims that you can have "valid evidence" for.
And in fact, if you ask many Christians why Adam and Eve messed up in the first place, it's because they claim "God gave them free will" (they have no evidence for that though, but let's go along with it like they did). Let's pretend this is true. Let's also pretend that we all saw morality the same as well. If this is the case, all the "unrighteous people" in history such as Hitler, Napoleon, and etc all did evil because why? They "choose" to. If we didn't have free will, does that mean God is controlling us right now???? Does a controlling God who forces someone like Hitler to kill thousands of people sound like the God of Christianity????? I believe many of you would respond no.
Even animals have free will. They decide where their homes will be. They decide where they will go hunting. They decide who they mate with. I don't believe God or nature forces them to do this. There's no evidence for it, and as far as I'm concerned we have minds that we use "ourselves" to make us act our will.
My opponent tries to attack me concerning my "metaphor" of God is dead. First off, it's not "literally" saying God is dead. It's just saying you don't "have to believe in God anymore". You can still choose to believe if you want. It's your right and within your will to still do so. You are an existentialist. My opponent also tries to invalidate my "subjective morality", which he did so based off his own "ethics and view points" concerning in how he thinks and how "he thinks other people think". Another bias claim. I thought we left opinion outside of debates? HMMM??? He claims people on death row are regarded as "evil" by the rest of humanity. But is not evil subjective? When a man of the Nazi party is put on in jail and on death row for killing a Jew, some people will see him as bad. But what of his own party and friends????? Do they not support his decision to kill te Jewish individual???? It's subjective. That's why we are "in fact debating a topic right now!!!" It's subjective to both of us!!!! The proof is the conversation itself. The fact that we debate about what is right and what is wrong is enough to show we all are subjective. If we weren't, we'd all think the same. A "loop hole" in my opponents argument. And actually, rationality is also subjective as my opponent might not be aware of. When a captain sees his ship sinking, he thinks of himself first (desire). He uses logic and reasoning to make his desire rational and jumps overboard instead of staying on the ship. To another person with the intent of "staying" on board, he uses his "own" logic and reasoning to make his desire rational. So he stays. EVEN IN THIS DEBATE WE ARE DOING THAT RIGHT NOW!!! WE ARE USING LOGIC AND REASON TO RATIONALIZE OUR SIDES!!!!! PROOF OF HOW LOGIC CAN BE VARIANT AS WELL! But in this matter, my logic and reason has more "evidence and support" to it then my opponent with his "transcendal and biased" logic.
And by the way, my opponent saying existentialism is false, he's saying you don't have a choice in life. He's saying that you don't make yourself get out of bed in the morning. He's saying you don't make yourself work your butt off to achieve your dreams. He's saying that you don't choose to not believe in God, so if he is real he sends you to hell because you couldn't choose to believe in him. He's saying you don't choose to help others. He's saying you don't choose "anything" in life. That you are a puppet being controlled by a God or some deity. Do you readers of faith "believe this"? And if you don't believe this, is that because you are being "forced to" like my opponent is alluding to????? By saying existentialism is false, he is saying you have no free will.
But you do have free will. You choose what you believe. You choose what is right and wrong. You choose what God to believe in. You choose what you want to do today. You choose. And you do. It's your mind. And whether you believe God gave you your mind or if it was developed biologically, it's still yor mind. No one else's. And you are the only one who has born privelage to it. No one else. By saying existentialism is false, your saying that all of our choices are false. That who we are is false because we didn't choose to make the decisions that made us: they were made for us. Free will is not an explanation for allowing you to do thinks as my opponent said: free will explains why you "are able" to do thinks you allow for yourself. Your actions and thoughts are consequnces of your will. As long as my opponent continues to argue with Transcedal evidence and without actual observable evidence, physical evidence, historical evidence, and evidence that isn't biased, it is clear that he has no valid arguments. And just in case he tries the moral thing again: in Africa there is a tribe that believes the moral thing is to hurt others, cheat, lie, and steal. When they first were told the story of how Judas betrayed Jesus, they clapped for Judas. Shows how morality is subjective. We all want what is moral for the world, but we can't agree on what is moral. The irony of it all. Either way, my points go unrefuted: morality is subjective, and people decide how they live with the options they give themselves and the options given to them.
WillYouMarryMe

Con

Re: Transcendental Argument

Pro asserts that we can rewrite the laws of mathematics and logic, but he offers absolutely no evidence for this claim. We can call numbers by different names, but that has no impact on whether or not those numbers still add up the same way. It is metaphysically impossible for things like spherical cubes to exist, for 2 + 2 to add up to 5, or for the law of non-contradiction to be false; to claim otherwise is to blatantly deny reality and the laws which all things everywhere in the universe are bound by. Such logical and mathematical absolutes are not merely human constructs-- they transcend the physical world. Regardless of whether or not anything else exists, it remains the case that violating such absolutes is metaphysically impossible, for they are non-cognitive and a priori in nature. Logical absolutes do, indeed, exist.

Pro further claims that we cannot automatically attribute the existence of these logical absolutes to a transcendental mind (i.e. God), but I do not see him offering an alternative explanation. Under an atheistic framework, there is literally no basis whatsoever for the existence of logical absolutes; materialism does not allow for such abstractions to exist. These transcendental laws are purely conceptual in nature, which leads us to the perfectly reasonable conclusion that they were created via conceptualization by a similarly transcendent mind: God. Pro has not really refuted this argument at all. Pro also goes off on some off-kilter rant about how subjective my logic is, but that's just the point-- it's not subjective. Logic is objective, and by engaging in this debate, Pro is implicitly conceding that.

Re: Fine-Tuning Argument

I'm rather confused, as it seems that my opponent has seemingly dropped this argument entirely. He briefly mentions something about the "multiverse", but seeing that he has not actually presented any evidence for it, we can easily dismiss it. Via Occam's Razor, the God hypothesis actually explains the apparent fine-tuning of the universe much better because we only have the assume the existence of a single supernatural being, whereas for the multiverse we have to assume the existence of an infinite number of universe. By failing to rebut this argument, Pro is fully conceding that God exists. God's existence is problematic for existentialism because, being the creator and sustainer of the universe, he gets to set the rules of the game-- he serves as the ultimate objective standard, which totally undermines the subjectivist/nihilistic context of existentialism.

Re: Moral Sense Theory

Pro misses the point of this argument entirely. I showed that almost *all* human beings have shared fundamental moral intuitions; the few who don't are regarded as sociopaths, and are universally hated by the rest of humanity. The entire world functions off the assumption that morality and justice do exist in some form. Pro keeps asserting that all morals are subjective, yet I clearly demonstrated that most moral disputes and ideological disparaties are simply different interpretations of the same moral code. There are very few who are willing to say that they do not value innocent human life, that they believe people should be allowed to break their promises without retribution, or that getting rich by abusing the poor is justified. A universal moral sense exists, thus even further refuting the subjectivist context of existentialism.

Re: Secular Ethics

I literally have no idea what Pro is talking about, here. I didn't say anything about God "controlling" people... Pro's ranting is tediously long, incomprehensible, and totally irrelevant. Btw, "God is not Dead" was simply a fun-sounding contention header. Nothing more. I don't think Pro even mentioned Kantian ethics or libertarianism in his argument... I'm not sure what to say.

.

== CONCLUSION ==

Pro has done *nothing* to refute my case. It remains established that God exists, that a universal moral sense is shared among human beings, and that moral realism is true. All three of these completely undermine existentialism, and Pro has completely failed to give an adequate response, instead just asserting how subjective everything is and going off on random rants which have nothing to do with the substance of my argument.

The resolution is negated. Existentialism is almost certainly false.
Debate Round No. 4
n7natnat

Pro

Again, creator of this philosophy was christian, so it doesn't conflict. And when you said "different interpretations", that means subjective. Thanks for concurring with me. And if there is a universal moral sense, I wonder why Id rather kill God then help a little boy. Huh. Weird. That doesn't sound right. Anyway, you brining up "secular methods" is just a strategy to make voters think I'm crazy and don't know what I'm talking about when I'm not even using my own logic, but the ideals of many intelligent men before me that have received critical acclaim. Wouldn't be well received without a reason. But then again, do you need a reason to believe anything now adays? Because my opponent believes in transcendal ideals without any fool proof evidence. So I don't know. It's a funny thing this subjective world. He only believes the world is objective because of the beliefs he was raised upon. I was raised wth similar ideals, but I changed because I remain unbias and change my beliefs to the evidence. To remain to ur ideals after you have been disproven or refuted is dogmatist. Being dogmatist means u are holding on to subjective ideals that have no further support. Kind of bad on my opponents part. Honestly, I don't care what you guys pick to win. Cause your going to pick whoever is along your line of beliefs. We are just biased like that; aka subjective. My opponent saying "different interpretations of morality" is like saying there's different interpretations of color. Which there are. Red. Pink. Grey. Orange. And there are also different interpretations of philosophy. Reigion, Buddhism, Platonism, etc. all subjective though. If we were all objective, we'd of all agreed on something now. We haven't though. That's just how it is. And yea there is evidence for the multiverse. Here's a website. Check it out guys.

http://www.math.columbia.edu...

And this isn't even a God debate. It's philosophy. And as far as I'm concerned, God hasn't played a major roll in developing philosophies such as Platonism, Utilitarianism, and etc. Man created philosophy. Philosophy is variant meaning it's source must be variant. This is subjectivity. The only reason my opponent argues with this is because he does not wish for his God to be refuted. If this was not a philosophical debate, I'd show him how God "is dead" in a sense with play on words.
And yea you can rewrite math. The values are the same, but what symbols the values are attributed to change. Like 4 now equals 5. Or sphere is now the word for what we identify as rectangular. It's just switching values and definitions up. The values are still there. Just different symbols. And he ten claims that math is beyond the physical world? Uh.....I don't see any evidence for that. And I'm pretty sure man was the one who created math to comprehend reality. And I don't think my opponent has finished reading the "Metaphysics" by Aristotle fully through to understand what he is trying to explain. Aristotle says man uses empirical methods to attain knowledge. That means through the senses, and the senses only are aware of "physical essence" as Aristotle points out. That's why if there is a God, we can't know for sure. And my opponent will argue because we don't know for sure, God must be the only explanation. And apparently he knows God's ideals on existentialism even though he's never talked to God with his "empirical senses". Ironic. He contradicts emoircal senses and how we attain knowledge. We aren't born with knowledge. We have to attain it through empirical means. We ask abstract questions, and we get physical (and if the topic is abstract, we get abstract answers such as with morality) answers. It's just how the metaphysics works.
But I'm going to be honest: I don't want to continue this debate, not because I'm afraid of loss, but because I have been on this website too much, that it's taking time out of my life to be free and responsible agent for myself. My opponent can continue to think transcendal ideals. I don't care. It's his life. He's an existentialist because he chose to believe that mumbo jumbo. But to me, this debate is not worth my time when I have a job and work to do. My opponent will see it as a win; I will see it as a "condemning to freedom" as Jean Paul Sartre would put it. Either way, if my opponent comin urs to argue his ideals based of his bias psychology, beliefs, and etc, so be it. Just proves subjectivity. Even if morality was set up like different interptations like my opponent says it is, those interpretations are still subjective. So I'm done. I wish u all good luck, and to stay non dogmatist. Dogmatism is "the devil at work" as Nietsche might of said.
WillYouMarryMe

Con

I concede the debate. You win.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by WillYouMarryMe 1 year ago
WillYouMarryMe
bah. I hate being rushed. no time to revise for errors.
Posted by WillYouMarryMe 1 year ago
WillYouMarryMe
I'm unfortunately going to have to post my argument quite close to the deadline, due to all the other debates I'm currently involved in... this is probably the most interesting out of all of them though haha
Posted by ianm11714 1 year ago
ianm11714
Bravo on that explanation n7natnat. Bravo.
Posted by n7natnat 1 year ago
n7natnat
Existentialism. It's a philosophy dude.
Posted by Varrack 1 year ago
Varrack
Uh...what
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
n7natnatWillYouMarryMeTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
n7natnatWillYouMarryMeTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded. I didn't have a problem with either Pro or Con's conduct. I also didn't have a problem with Pro's capitalizing for the purpose of emphasis. And since Pro didn't exclusively use Wikipedia, I consider sources a tie as well. Arguments to Pro due to Con's concession.
Vote Placed by YoshiBoy13 1 year ago
YoshiBoy13
n7natnatWillYouMarryMeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:34 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con: Ha. Hahahaha. *muaahahaha* Arrogant attitude should probably count as bad sportsmanship.// S-G to Con: Four !'s in a row, and uncapitalised Christian. THERE WERE ALSO MANY CAPS LOCKED SENTENCES WHICH ARE ANNOYING!!!!// Arguments to Pro: Debate conceded on Con's part // Sources to Con: You used wikipedia as a source, @n7natnat. Not cool. Also, .edu websites cited by Con. You see, even if you concede, you can still have made the better debate. I'm not gonna award a 7-point sweep just because of one sentence.