The Instigator
janetsanders733
Pro (for)
Winning
64 Points
The Contender
invisibledeity
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Metaphysical Naturalism is False

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 10 votes the winner is...
janetsanders733
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/12/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,010 times Debate No: 45531
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (36)
Votes (10)

 

janetsanders733

Pro

I will be arguing that metaphysical naturalism is false. My opponennt will argue it's true. I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

Round 1: Acceptamce
Round 2: Opening arguements
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Conclusion
invisibledeity

Con

Ok. Lets see some HARD evidence. Not your silly speculation and word games!

More importantly, LETS SEE WHAT EVIDENCE YOU HAVE THAT THIS GOD HAS CERTAIN CHARACTERISTICS!
Debate Round No. 1
janetsanders733

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. However, I would like him to know that we are not so much debating the Existence of God per se, but over Metaphysical Naturalism.


Defintion of Metaphysical Naturalism: Metaphysical naturalism is a philosophy which maintains that nature encompasses all that exists throughout space and time.[1]

Evolution and Metaphysical Naturalism:
If Metaphysical naturalism is true, then our cognitive and functional abilities are the result of the evolutionary process, and there would be no way for that to be the standar of our knowledge since evolution is survival of the fittest. In other words, if we are the result of purely un-guided processes without an omnipotent being, then our senses can't be reliable to produce a standard of epistemology or how we come to know things as right or wrong.[2]

Eugenie Scott, a Biologist and part of the NCSE(National Center for Science and Education) said "If Science is limited through natural processes, we are then constrained from making announcements about the supernatural wrold. We can neither say that there is, nor say that there is not a God or any other omnipotent power....Statements about whether God exists, or interferes in the world, are just plain outside of our job."

So evolution alone can't be the source or standard for philosophy, or epistemology.

Consequences of Naturalism:

skeptics like Lawrence Krauss and
J.B.S. Haldane took it that MN in the lab was evidence for atheism everywhere. The Schafersman quote above continues as follows:

"Naturalism is a methodological necessity in the practice of science by scientists, and an ontological necessity for the understanding and credibility of science by scientists. The alternative to naturalism is supernaturalism; unless naturalism is true and supernaturalism false, empiricism–comprehending reality solely by sensory experience–is not sufficient to comprehend reality; rationalism–the use of logic in reasoning–is not sufficient to understand reality; and skepticism–the questioning and evaluation of one’s knowledge system and beliefs–is not sufficient to arrive at reliable knowledge of reality. Naturalism implies a unity and lawfulness in nature, a condition in which nature’s reality can be objectively understood, without which the pursuit of scientific knowledge would be useless. But naturalism is not an assumption or presupposition on the part of scientists, a common claim of critics; it is, instead, a hypothesis that has been tested and repeatedly corroborated, and so has become reliable knowledge itself."[4]

Schafersman adds,

"naturalism is a methodological necessity in the practice of science by scientists, and an ontological necessity for the understanding and credibility of science by scientists."

So they want us to believe that psychologically the term “naturalism” prejudices the mind toward naturalistic conclusions, not just naturalistic methodologies.[4]

First Conclusion:
I take it that, naturalims is not a proper methodlogical system philosophically or scientifically, but it's just a psychological notion. Acting as if something does not exist prejudices one toward believing that it does not exist.

I now leave my opponent to respond:D



Sources:
[1] http://www.reasonsforgod.org...;
[2]
Warrant and Proper Function By Alvin Plantinga John A. O'Brien Professor of Philosophy University of Notre Dame
[3] Darwinism Defeated?: The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins
[4] http://www.thinkingchristian.net...;
invisibledeity

Con

WORD GAMES!!!

This website is a STUPID JOKE!! JUST LIKE THE ABRAHAMIC GOD!!

I want nothing more to do with idiots and fake atheists!!!

GOODBYE
Debate Round No. 2
janetsanders733

Pro

"WORD GAMES!!!

This website is a STUPID JOKE!! JUST LIKE THE ABRAHAMIC GOD!!

I want nothing more to do with idiots and fake atheists!!!

GOODBYE"

My opponent unfortunately broke the rules of the debate. He was supposed to give an arguement for Metaphysical Naturalism, but instead went off on a tandrum and ad-hominem attack on me.

To be fair, I will give my opponenet another opportunity in round 3 to go ahead and make an arguement.
invisibledeity

Con

I came here for a VERY SIMPLE REASON!!

To show that the abrahamic god IS A SICK JOKE!!!!

YOu cannot refute this and play WORDGAMES about smetapysics!!! Yadayadayaaa!
Debate Round No. 3
janetsanders733

Pro

"I came here for a VERY SIMPLE REASON!!

To show that the abrahamic god IS A SICK JOKE!!!!

YOu cannot refute this and play WORDGAMES about smetapysics!!! Yadayadayaaa!"

My opponent failed a twice. He has not made any arguements for Metaphysical Naturalism, nor has he shown any of my arguements to be false. I maintain and contend my position as true since I showed evidence for it. My opponenet has failed to show how X, Y, and Z to be false.
invisibledeity

Con

Blah blah blah!!!

You cannot refute any of my points, and have admitted that the abrahamic god is a sick joke!!! My points still stand!!! LOL!
Debate Round No. 4
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by codemeister13 2 years ago
codemeister13
@invisibledeity

You know, if you're so keen to leave the site, there is an option to shut down your account. It would prevent you from receiving any more emails.

Honestly, I wish. I could have voted here. Con made no arguments and instead resorted purely to ad-hominem attacks while making assertions that were unrelated to the resolution. This had all of the potential to be an interesting debate but unfortunately, it was soiled by one that did not wish to actually debate it.
Posted by janetsanders733 2 years ago
janetsanders733
Yeah because I'm so dumb I don't know anything?
Posted by invisibledeity 2 years ago
invisibledeity
Dont be a whiney baby
I refuse even if you pay me
to teach you smarts
ur so dumb u eat poptarts
and are probably a homseschooled LADY!!!
Posted by invisibledeity 2 years ago
invisibledeity
YOU are offering ME advice/!? youre a theist who believe in GOD and I am an atheist!!! studies have shown atheists are MUCH MORE intelligent than fairy believers!!! LOL!! I should give YOU adbbice!
Posted by janetsanders733 2 years ago
janetsanders733
@invisible your the one who commented first, so how can you complain if you started it? loll

Dude, I'm offering you advice. Actually argue for your position and stop bullying people who are theists.
Posted by janetsanders733 2 years ago
janetsanders733
@Invisibledeity An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

Example:

Me: God exists and there are good arguements for his existence including the fine-tuning arguement, moral values and duties, and the resurrection of Jesus.

Invisible Deity: OKAY Porky Boy, your too stupid to realize that God does not exist. Go back to KINDERGARTEN!

You attack me as a person instead of my arguement.

Hmmm. YOu've won every single debate... yeah that's why your Win percentage ratio says 0%
Posted by janetsanders733 2 years ago
janetsanders733
@Invisibledeity An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

Example:

Me: God exists and there are good arguements for his existence including the fine-tuning arguement, moral values and duties, and the resurrection of Jesus.

Invisible Deity: OKAY Porky Boy, your too stupid to realize that God does not exist. Go back to KINDERGARTEN!

You attack me as a person instead of my arguement.

Hmmm. YOu've won every single debate... yeah that's why your Win percentage ratio says 0%
Posted by invisibledeity 2 years ago
invisibledeity
do not care about this website!!! I tried to leave it but I keep getting emails about your comments!!! LEAVE ME ALONE PLEASE
Posted by invisibledeity 2 years ago
invisibledeity
Janetsanders733
Lost his debate against me
He was so embarrassed
He cut off his carrot
and it bleeded when he went pee.

LOLOL!!!
Posted by invisibledeity 2 years ago
invisibledeity
Had dominems?!? LOL!!! Not even speaking ENGLISH???

Sonny boy, any person with HALF A BRAIN could see your just talking nonsense!!! I have won EVERY SINGLE ONE of my debates!
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Pitbull15 2 years ago
Pitbull15
janetsanders733invisibledeityTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: ...
Vote Placed by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
janetsanders733invisibledeityTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Yeah........This debate had much potential. Sadly it was never actualized.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
janetsanders733invisibledeityTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Damn a full seven points to Pro which are legitimate points.
Vote Placed by Jonbonbon 3 years ago
Jonbonbon
janetsanders733invisibledeityTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Due to the fact that con didn't do anything intelligent or relevant pro gets all seven points.
Vote Placed by zmikecuber 3 years ago
zmikecuber
janetsanders733invisibledeityTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: I dont NEED to give an RFDDDDDD!!! hehehe
Vote Placed by jdtroughton 3 years ago
jdtroughton
janetsanders733invisibledeityTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: There was no effort on behalf con to seriously take this debate up, and he even argued the same essential side as Pro did. Not only that, this cotinues a pattern of brash, impudent behavior on this site by the user InvisibleDeity. It's ruining a lot of potentially good debas, as he just rushes in and says "LOL GOD IS GAY HURR DURR WORD GAMES THIS IS DUMB YER DUMB" or something to that effect. And Con was obviously a very good debater, so this was a huge wasted opportunity.
Vote Placed by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
janetsanders733invisibledeityTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't agree with any of Pro's pathetic assumptions and misconstrued concepts, but, I cannot say Con provided any evidence nor argument that was actually on topic.
Vote Placed by NightofTheLivingCats 3 years ago
NightofTheLivingCats
janetsanders733invisibledeityTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con is a douche.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
janetsanders733invisibledeityTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gave some arguments while con went full-idiot and basically forfeited every round.
Vote Placed by thett3 3 years ago
thett3
janetsanders733invisibledeityTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Tough luck Pro. Hopefully a real challenger will come to debate your case, instead of a troll.