The Instigator
GenesisProject
Con (against)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
78iamhere
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

Is there any valid reason why faith should be used to determine truth?

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 5 votes the winner is...
78iamhere
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/16/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 939 times Debate No: 49221
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (29)
Votes (5)

 

GenesisProject

Con

I will be taking the side that using faith alone can not determine truth.
78iamhere

Pro

First of all I am new here on debate.org and this is my first debate so I would like to say I am glad I am here and I look forward to debating you.
As to your argument, faith is just trying to let go of whatever you now and just let life and the things in it go it's natural way. It's doesn't guarantee that everything will be given to you, It's just knowing that whatever happens just happens and if God does give something to you, then he just does. But their is such a thing as an epiphany where people do have sudden realizations in life .
It's just just letting things go. Faith can work because theoretically we don't know everything nor can we everything because this is an infinite universe with infinite possibilities. Not using faith is like saying you know everything. Do you? The answer is NO. nobody knows everything and when nobody knows everything, we just have to let it go to the creator and hope for the best.
Nobody knows if they will make or lose money, they just have to gamble and know that God has it in his hand.
And with that, I'll yield the floor to my opponent. Thank you for letting me speak.
Debate Round No. 1
GenesisProject

Con

Faith is just an excuse to believe something without evidence.
If you care about what you believe is the truth, you shouldn't just use faith.
The best way to find the closet thing to the truth is with the scientific method. You need evidence that can be verified to prove things correct.

You say, "Faith can work because theoretically we don't know everything nor can we everything because this is an infinite universe with infinite possibilities."

It's ok to say "I don't know". If you don't know something and claim a god did it, you're just making an argument from ignorance, which is a logical fallacy. You said "Not using faith is like saying you know everything." Saying "I don't know" is not using faith. It's being honest.

I know this is your first debate, but spelling and grammar counts here.
78iamhere

Pro

Well I hope I don't mess up on grammar or spelling this time.
You say that faith is an excuse to believe in something without evidence. But what if you don't have evidence? You see, when I said, "Faith can work because theoretically we don't know everything nor can we everything because this is an infinite universe with infinite possibilities." I meant that we as humans are not going to know everything. Why? Because in the real world the scientific method is limited to the experiments we can afford and the limited knowledge we have today. That's what I meant by saying, "Infinite Universe with infinite possibilities" because the knowledge we can discover is limited to what little we know.
What I mean is, if you can't prove something by the scientific method, you can't prove it. If you just don't have the evidence or for some reason you can't get the evidence, then what are you going to do?
What I mean by all this is that the scientific method has it's fair share of limits and will not prove everything in our lifetime. In some cases it might not prove or dis-prove anything ever.
So what do we do? We politely say,"I don't know and have faith that your theory is true" If it is true and proven, then good for you. But if it's not, you just have faith that whatever you believe in is true. Faith is just mankind's natural ability to hope for the best. After all we're not robots being governed by programs, we just do what we need to do to the best of our ability and hope for the best. It's not limited to just religion.
That concludes my argument for this round and I yield the floor to my opponent for his closing arguments. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
GenesisProject

Con

You asked "what if you don't have evidence?"
The answer is you say I DON"T KNOW.
If you want the truth, you can't just guess and have faith it's true. You have to have evidence and test to see if something is really true.
Yes, we can't know everything. So we can only accept what is true, what we can prove is true. The rest we just don't know.

I never use faith. For example, I don't have faith that the Sun will rise tomorrow. I have a REASONABLE EXPECTATION based on past experience.

The question for the debate is, "Is there any valid reason why faith should be used to determine truth?"
You keep saying we can't know everything...but using faith to find out things we don't know is just as good as a guess.
78iamhere

Pro

To answer your question, yes. "Reasonable Expectation" is a form of faith. Faith is just making an educated argumentative opinion and believing it is true. Every person debating right now on debate.org is making an argumentative and believing it is true. It may not be scientific, but it is part of the scientific process to believe in your own theory and argue it's validity. If it is not true, O' well. But if it is, then that person is happy. I will agree with you faith is not science in itself, but it is part of the scientific process. Otherwise you can't come up with theories and therefore, cannot discover things.
It may not show proof but it helps in the process of proving things. It's like an ally of science. It's needed to help science confirm the truth.
That's all I have to say and I'd like to thank my opponent for giving me my first debate. Thank you and God bless.
Debate Round No. 3
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Welll Genesis, how much faith do you have in your being a functional human being?
Posted by GenesisProject 3 years ago
GenesisProject
Wylted claims "You can't operate as a functional human being without faith"

Well, Wylted, explain how I do it! I'm living proof that you're wrong. I NEVER use faith and I'm a functioning human being!
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
BTW: 78iamhere's concept of Faith fits in with the Definition of Faith, so I don't see a problem there.

Faith can be in a religious notion, or it can be in something that has proven itself to be worthy of faith, such as a scientific concept that demonstrates itself to be reliable through experimentation or a Theory of Mind in that you can pick the right present for your wife every anniversary.

Anything that demonstrates reliability can be an object of Faith.
So it doesn't just mean belief in an omnipotent deity or superstition.

Though having Faith in that you can pick the right anniversary present, may be just your wife being kind or condescending.
Posted by GenesisProject 3 years ago
GenesisProject
@@78iamhere Believe it or not....a scientist will actually be happy that their own theory has been proved wrong, because the truth that it is wrong will be found.
Scientists CARE about TRUTH more then their own theories. They want to find the truth, not false theories.
That's why science is the BEST way to find truth.
Posted by GenesisProject 3 years ago
GenesisProject
@78iamhere It's obvious that, as a Christian, you have no idea how science works.

Science doesn't work with emotions. It works with real data, logic and critical thinking. (something a Christian doesn't use).

Even if a scientist has a passion for a theory they came up with, they will be forced to put that emotion aside and concentrate on whether the theory is true or not. Faith is not an option is science.

I see why you have a hard time understanding that when your belief in a god is based on faith. You WANT eternal life to be true so you have faith that it is and assume that's enough to make it true. That's how religion poisons the mind.
Posted by 78iamhere 3 years ago
78iamhere
Anyone who comes up with a theory sill stick with it because it's their theory.
Posted by GenesisProject 3 years ago
GenesisProject
@78iamhere Just because evidence isn't always right doesn't mean it takes faith to use evidence!

You claim, "all scientist will support that theory to the very end, because they believe it is true and want it to be true"

That a pile of BS! All scientist want their theories to be true only if they are really true. They will try their hardest to prove their theories wrong and then submit the theory to other scientists for peer review to see of they can prove it wrong.

Faith is NEVER used in science and has no room or reason for it to be used in science!

Your case doesn't hold water.
Posted by 78iamhere 3 years ago
78iamhere
To GenesisProject
Evidence doesn't just necessarily show itself to be true. Evidence can give a person an idea of what might have happened, but all evidence is subject to a debate among the people and the scientific community.
Darwin saw this evidence and came up with the theory of evolution as his argument as to what the evidence means. But all evidence is subject to scrutiny by dissent view points. Such is the nature of science. science is nothing more than an argument about how things work. Darwin may have reasonably assumed that evolution is the reason for the evidence' being, but he also had the faith to believe it was true.
All scientist will have the faith to believe their theory is true. And all scientist will support that theory to the very end, because they believe it is true and want it to be true. That is why faith is needed in determining the truth because a scientist who doesn't support his own theory can't argue in defense of it. Think of all the good people hear on debate.org. Don't you think people have the faith to support their argument and believe it against all odds? I rest my case.
Posted by GenesisProject 3 years ago
GenesisProject
To all you people who have no clue what faith is. Faith is a belief in something WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
Once you use evidence to believe something it no longer is faith.

Darwin didn't have faith in his theory. His theory was based on EVIDENCE he collected from the Galapagos Islands. Using that evidence, he had a reasonable expectation that his theory was true.

What is so hard about the concept?
Posted by GenesisProject 3 years ago
GenesisProject
To all you people who have no clue what faith is. Faith is a belief in something WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
Once you use evidence to believe something it no longer is faith.

Darwin didn't have faith in his theory. His theory was based on EVIDENCE he collected from the Galapagos Islands. Using that evidence, he had a reasonable expectation that his theory was true.

What is so hard about the concept?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
GenesisProject78iamhereTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides made poor arguments. However, I give pro the slight edge. You can't operate as a functional human being without faith. S&G go to con for pro's run on sentences etc.. I'm actually having a hard time figuring out why pro is winning so many conduct points.
Vote Placed by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
GenesisProject78iamhereTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro produced a side of the term "Faith" that could be to determine truth and that is Faith in the demonstrated consistency of a process whether it be scientific or not, this is Faith through verification, which Con had not thought of and did not cover or rebut in his arguments, he only denied it as a form of Faith and replaced it with his own term Reasonable Expectation. Though the definition of faith covers reasonable expectation as "Faith". Though this second argument was weak where he actually supported Pro's statements. Stating that it was only his choice not to use the term Faith. Though the stronger scientists and rational people have in verifiable Faith in something, the higher the probability is that it is getting closer to the Truth! Such as the Truth of Evolution through verification and 99% of Biological based scientists are already demonstrating Faith in it.
Vote Placed by jamccartney 3 years ago
jamccartney
GenesisProject78iamhereTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con is correct, for faith cannot be used to determine fact. However, Pro has better conduct, they are tied for spelling and grammar, they both did not make convincing arguments, and neither used sources.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
GenesisProject78iamhereTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Con pointed out faith is blind and has no evidence. conduct to Pro for showing more class.
Vote Placed by Dakota-Hiltzman 3 years ago
Dakota-Hiltzman
GenesisProject78iamhereTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm giving Pro Conduct because Con was kind of rude in some places. Con wins the debate by showing that we need evidence to prove something, and that it's okay to say 'I don't know'. Pro's grammar was bad enough that it hindered his ability to communicate, so I give Con S/G.