The Instigator
izbo10
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
KeytarHero
Pro (for)
Winning
51 Points

It is rational to place faith in the invisible pink unicorn.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-6
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/21/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,394 times Debate No: 17167
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (38)
Votes (11)

 

izbo10

Con

The rules are simple you are to say that i just successfully argued that it was rational to place faith in the ipu, you argue that side, I say it is not. You can start the argument, last round no arguments for you. Somthing tells me you will be too chicken sh... to accept,

My opponent declares that appealing to faith when committing to the reality of Invisible Pink unicorn, regardless of religious affiliation, is irrational and fallacious. I intend to show that, quite to the contrary, reasoning from faith is far from special pleading. First, I will present some definitions

Faith: 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.1

Reasoning: 1. Use of reason, especially to form conclusions, inferences, or judgments. 2. Evidence or arguments used in thinking or argumentation.2

Argument

How do we know something is indeed true? We back it up with another known truth. Furthermore, that other known truth must also be backed up with yet another known truth, and so on. This is what philosophers call the infinite regression problem, and here it is in syllogism form:

  1. Suppose that P is some piece of knowledge. Then P is a justified true belief.
  2. The only thing that can justify P is another statement – let's call it P1; so P1 justifies P.
  3. But if P1 is to be a satisfactory justification for P, then we must know that P1.
  4. But for P1 to be known, it must also be a justified true belief.
  5. That justification will be another statement - let's call it P2; so P2 justifies P1.
  6. But if P2 is to be a satisfactory justification for P1, then we must know that P2
  7. But for P2 to count as knowledge, it must itself be a justified true belief.
  8. That justification will in turn be another statement - let's call it P3; so P3 justifies P2.
  9. and so on, ad infinitum.

Being that humans are finite in their capacity to do anything, which includes reasoning, the only way to resolve the regression is to allow it to come to a stopping point. That is to say, at some point, we choose to believe in a truth without justifying. That is, we take it on faith. Let's look at several approaches to resolving the regress problem to see if they can avoid the problem of faith.

1. Foundationalism3

Foundationalism is perhaps the most straight forward solution. It simply asserts that all justified true beliefs will ultimately be justified by basic beliefs, or presuppositions. These basic beliefs are not justified, but assumed, without logical proof or material evidence, i.e., faith. Thus, foundationalism solves the problem by explicitly relying on faith.

2. Coherentism3

Coherentism attempts to solve the problem by allowing justified true beliefs to ultimately be justified by themselves. At first glance, this appears to be begging the question, and indeed, circular reasoning is the whole point. Coherentists would say that so long as a system of belief is internally consistent, then the beliefs therein constitute knowledge.

However, the problem of faith remains. Coherentism replaces a foundation of unproven beliefs with an unproven system of belief. It is quite possible to have a set of beliefs that all cohere quite well together but are all untrue. Therefore, acceptance of any coherent system implies faith in that system as a whole, so Coherentism relies on faith as well.

3. Reliabilism4

Reliabilism attempts to solve the problem by changing the mode of justification altogether. Instead of a belief being justified by another justified true belief, the reliabilist argues that a belief is justified if it is formed using a reliable belief-formation mechanism.

The obvious problem is: how do we know what is reliable and what is not reliable. In short, the reliability of belief-formation mechanisms themselves are beliefs and must be themselves justified. In short, reliabilism does not solve the problem as much as dress it different clothes. The same regress problem presents itself albeit with different wording. Each reliability mechanism must be justified by another reliability mechanism ad infinitum. The only solution is to accept one's reliability measurements on faith.

4. Infinitism3

Infinitism simply acknowledges the regress problem and makes no effort to resolve it, arguing instead that there will never be adequate justification for knowledge. The problem with infinitism is that it has no practical application. If employed in debate, it will either lead to skepticism or be subconsciously abandoned. Either way, the infinitist will turn to faith.

In the case of skepticism, the infinitist will insist that nothing can be known. But how can the skeptic know that nothing can be known. Skeptcism is ultimately self-refuting, since it can only be true if it is false. Therefore, commitment to skepticism requires faith.

The infinist who rejects skepticism is in a philosophical bind also, since simultaneously rejecting skepticism and acknowledging the regress problem is logically incompatible. Therefore, the infinist will have to rely, consciously or subconsciously, on one of the other solutions to the regress problem. Since I have already shown the other solutions to rely on faith, skepticism-free infinitism relies on faith also.

Conclusion

All this is to say, humans rely on faith in all their reasoning. So, whether one is committed to Ipuism or atheism, they are reasoning from faith. To put it succinctly, to use faith as one's reasoning for one specific Invisible pink unicorn is not irrational. It's inevitable.

Thank you.

KeytarHero

Pro

My opponent has no wish to have a respectful debate, he just wishes to troll. In fact, this entire debate is a temper-tantrum because he has pretty badly lost another debate. KRFournier was arguing that using faith as your reason to believe in a god (or God) is rational.

To make matters worse, he has actually copied and pasted KRFournier's first round debate verbatim: http://www.debate.org...;

This should very swiftly lose him conduct points, and should actually lose him the entire debate. In fact, his first round actually plays in my favor since it's an argument that placing faith in anything, be it God or an invisible pink unicorn, is not only rational but inevitable. As such, I extend my opponent's arguments as my own. He must refute them if he wishes to win this debate (although he should lose by default).

See the first sentence of the first paragraph: "My opponent declares that appealing to faith when committing to the reality of Invisible Pink unicorn, regardless of religious affiliation, is irrational and fallacious."

Since I was pretty much suckered into taking the Pro side, this statement is obviously false. I would be declaring that appealing to faith when committing to the reality of Invisible Pink Unicorn, regardless of religious affiliation, is rational. My opponent can't even get his argument straight.
Debate Round No. 1
izbo10

Con

My opponent has not addressed the topic, he voted in another debate this argument took a valid form, He should be able to defend the conclusion of the debate if the form is correct. I did copy and paste the argument verbatim, to get you to defend the argument you voted for verbatim.

Being my opponent has conceded that it is not rational, he should lose this debate as well as concede that his vote was biased and not a good one since the argument obviously fails.
KeytarHero

Pro

Unfortunately the link didn't post correctly in the last round. It was a debate on whether or not using faith was rational to believe in God. However,

"I did copy and paste the argument verbatim..."

He freely admits his offense and should not win this debate, although he clearly could not win since he doesn't realize that he has not offered any evidence to the contrary. The arguments stand, the ones that he posted, which he must refute.

"Being my opponent has conceded that it is not rational..."

I have done no such thing. I said that your argument, which you copied and pasted from another user, argues in my favor and not yours. Therefore, I extend those arguments which you must refute if you think they are a bad argument.
Debate Round No. 2
izbo10

Con

I copied and pasted to show a point. If I changed anything other then the being it is no longer special pleading. When you have the exact same argument and you accept it for one being and decline it for another that is special pleading. He is definitely doing that here.

Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption.

The lack of criticism may be a simple oversight (e.g., a reference to common sense) or an application of a double standard.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

He is using one standard for god and one standard for an invisible pink unicorn and that is the point here.

ra·tion·al (rsh-nl)
adj.
1. Having or exercising the ability to reason.
2. Of sound mind; sane.
3. Consistent with or based on reason; logical

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...... Source

So now with this said I am going to do a syllogism, I know, I know you guys have no clue what one is but you will see,

Premise 1. To be rational is to be logical by definition.
Premise 2. A logical fallacy is by definition not logical.
Premise 3. KRFourniers argument used the logical fallacy of special pleading.
Conclusion: KRFourniers argument is not rational.

So he can argue that their is evidence for god but that discounts it being by faith alone and says he disagrees with the original argument as:

faith audio (fth) KEY

NOUN:

Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.

http://education.yahoo.com......

It is simple faith can not be back by evidence by definition.

Lets go back to special pleading for a moment, even if you use this logic to a god it still becomes special pleading to use faith as many gods such as the christian god or allah are mutually exclusive as would be pinky, since they are mutually exclusive, to use faith for one god including the pink unicorn would mean that your logic went like this:

All gods are unworthy of my faith.

except this god,

This god I have faith in.

In this case its pinky in krfourier case it was jesus. In the end that is a clear case of special pleading. Since special pleading is a logical fallacy and not logical it becomes irrational. Night Night thanks for playing opponent you might want to defend your logic you so clearly thought was amazing a day or so ago.

KeytarHero

Pro

Finally my opponent comes up with a semblance of an argument, and it took him three rounds (the final round) to do it! However, he has not successfully refuted his own opening argument, so I will extend those arguments since they work in my favor, not his.

I will briefly touch on a few of his points now.

Special Pleading

The argument that KRFournier used is a good one to show that placing faith in a god or in God is not irrational, but rational and inevitable. This goes for any gods or any god you would choose to believe in. However, there is good evidence to believe in the Christian God, so much so that putting your faith in that God would not be special pleading. There is good reason to do so, but that is not within the scope of this debate. A good, intellectual case can be made for putting your faith in God (and possibly in other gods), so that is not special pleading.

I have not used one standard for God and another standard for an invisible pink unicorn, and nowhere in this debate have I indicated that I am. If there is good reason to believe in an invisible pink unicorn, then placing faith in it would be rational. I only ask the same of the invisible pink unicorn as I do of God. To have good reason to put faith in it. But as stated, just like with God, using faith to believe in an invisible pink unicorn would ultimately be inevitable. No different.

"So now with this said I am going to do a syllogism, I know, I know you guys have no clue what one is but you will see..."

Here my opponent makes a blatant ad hominem attack.

However, his syllogism fails because KRFournier's argument was not a case of special pleading, as I have shown.

Also, I never said belief in God was by faith alone. There have many good intellectual cases made for the existence of God. However, it is inevitable that believing in God still requires a measure of faith.

My opponent has been utterly ridiculous in this debate. I have already shown that his copying and pasting of another user's argument should disqualify him the debate, and cost him conduct points. Also, he has relied on faulty arguments and ad hominem attacks to try and get his point across. Additionally, he waited until the very last round to actually make some sort of argument, though it doesn't support his position on the proposition at all. Please vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
38 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
"Since I was pretty much suckered into taking the Pro side, this statement is obviously false. I would be declaring that appealing to faith when committing to the reality of Invisible Pink Unicorn, regardless of religious affiliation, is rational. My opponent can't even get his argument straight. "

This clearly shows he kind of got it but couldn't understand why he would be arguing for that argument.
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
yes and ninja you as an idiot when voting did realize the debate was about whether pro could defend that as a rational argument for ipu he didn't even try so how did he have better arguments. Here was the context of the debate:

Pro must defend the argument laid out in round 1 as a good argument,

I must deny that.

Since he didn't even attempt that he shows a lack of effort how the f do you think he raised any interesting points.
Posted by Ninja_Tru 5 years ago
Ninja_Tru
This comments thread got pretty abusive. I'm glad I didn't read this before voting, or it would have sharply changed the two debaters' appeal.
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
that is an actual valid syllogism sorry your too much of an idiot to see that try taking a basic intro to logic class.
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
Lets go back to special pleading for a moment, even if you use this logic to a god it still becomes special pleading to use faith as many gods such as the christian god or allah are mutually exclusive as would be pinky, since they are mutually exclusive, to use faith for one god including the pink unicorn would mean that your logic went like this:

All gods are unworthy of my faith.

except this god,

This god I have faith in.

In this case its pinky in krfourier case it was jesus. In the end that is a clear case of special pleading. Since special pleading is a logical fallacy and not logical it becomes irrational.

ra·tion·al (rsh-nl)
adj.
1. Having or exercising the ability to reason.
2. Of sound mind; sane.
3. Consistent with or based on reason; logical

based on this definition i showed that it is not consistent with logic so not rational.
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
You didn't present any argument whatsoever that it was rational, it is not rational to believe something unless it is shown to be rational. So by default you lose, learn about burden of proof. I also did make arguments a well that is not rational, I demonstrated through a syllogism that it was special pleading and since that is a logical fallacy and hence illogical its also irrational.
Posted by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
Izbo, your resolution was that it is rational to place faith in the invisible pink unicorn. You did not argue the con position to it.
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
then maybe you should have figured out this debate was you defending the argument that was posted in round 1 and you weren't to argue in round 3 since round 1 i only posted the rules and the argument you were to defend. You should have also tried to comprehend in the other debate the concept of one specific god.
Posted by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
There is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension, Izbo.
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
still proving my point i think keytars reading comprehension has to be questioned here.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
izbo10KeytarHeroTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: WAAAmbulance
Vote Placed by Mr.Infidel 5 years ago
Mr.Infidel
izbo10KeytarHeroTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: LOL! self explanatory. Conduct for the outright plagiarism, grammar for the terrific spelling by con, arguments as pro obliterated con and defended his position. Sources are tied. Someone call izbo a WAAAmbulance.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
izbo10KeytarHeroTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:25 
Reasons for voting decision: Con not only copied and pasted another member's arguments, but even asked voters to vote for him. He also loses conduct (which he has already lost due to this) for his ad hominem attacks on the voters, and members....Pro at least wins by default due to this...
Vote Placed by BennyW 5 years ago
BennyW
izbo10KeytarHeroTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: If there were more points possible to lose in conduct then izbo would those as well. This is not a real debate but one of izbo's trolling rants.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
izbo10KeytarHeroTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: If you are going to lose then at least make it epic, GG.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
izbo10KeytarHeroTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: 7pts against for trolling.
Vote Placed by baggins 5 years ago
baggins
izbo10KeytarHeroTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: No original arguments from Con - except in final round (which can be ignored) Con loses conduct because of (1) Copy Paste - which he did not warn about first. (2) Personal attacks on Pro. Con loses S/G as he pays no attention to that.
Vote Placed by KRFournier 5 years ago
KRFournier
izbo10KeytarHeroTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro for Con's trolling. Spelling/Grammar to Pro, for although Con's first round was grammatically excellent (in my humble opinion), he did fail to correctly capitalize and punctuate a sentence in round 3. Argument to Pro for his formidable and, frankly, unanswered defense of the resolution. Sources are a tie.
Vote Placed by TheNerd 5 years ago
TheNerd
izbo10KeytarHeroTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Someone call izbo10 a WAAAAAmbulance.
Vote Placed by Ninja_Tru 5 years ago
Ninja_Tru
izbo10KeytarHeroTied
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: The division of debate was odd, but I got enough to vote. I gave Pro conduct because I didn't like the comment about us not getting syllogism. Idc about the copy-paste, by the way. I gave Con sources because he brings up intriguing ideas properly. However, I give Pro arguments. Although I firmly believe that Con proved that faith in ipu could be *logical*, I didn't see why it's *rational*. It makes sense that one would believe in ipu, but rationality means proving one would *choose* to believe.