The Instigator
MagicofReality
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
wierdman
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Reality is the only true answer to everything not divine belief

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 2 votes the winner is...
wierdman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/7/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 862 times Debate No: 19732
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

MagicofReality

Pro

I have found it very interesting that the human mind has accepted silly myths and old stories to answer the most basic questions that we ask as kids. This argument will focus primarily on the Christian belief simply because I was brought up a Christian and am mostly familiar with Christianity. There are thousands of other belief systems full of myth that would suffice but I'm going with Christianity.

We asked things like

Why do bad things happen?
Who was the first person?
What is a miracle?
What are things made of?
What is a rainbow?

When I ask someone that believes in divine intervention they answer these questions using blind faith as the only foundation for their assertions. Is it not silly to say that bad things happen because an angel consumed with pride fell from Heaven and tempted sin rendering gods perfect creation imperfect? Or, a slow lizard was carrying the good news to humans but a faster lizard was carrying the bad news and that is what caused bad things to begin happening.

The first person on Earth was Adam.

Miracles are sent from god and prove he is real.

I don't believe divine intervention exists or any god(s) whatsoever. I believe that reality is the only true answer to anything really. In order to assert something as truth one must prove or backup the claim with substance otherwise it should be accepted is either a lie or misunderstanding on the person assertings part.

Contention # 1 - Nothing happens due to divine intervention because it refutes natural laws. Nothing that has or will happen cannot be explained via natural laws.

Contention # 2 - In order to answer a question truthfully one must first accept and understand reality and debunk myths.

Contention # 3 - Reality is using your five senses, an instrument to expand your senses (I.e telescope), and scientific modeling. Divine intervention cannot explain anything whatsoever.

Contention # 4 - If you answer anything without accepting reality as the basis you are committing a logical fallacy and essentially are telling a "misguided truth".

Contention # 5 - If in order to believe something you must have faith, that itself is good reason to doubt it.

In order for con to receive any votes they should first define how questions, any question can be answered using divine or faith without committing logical fallacies. It is not acceptable to redefine the argument into a "spiritual realm" as that itself requires dismissing reality.

Vote Pro!
wierdman

Con

Thank you for this intriguing debate.

When looking at my opponents first argument, it is quite clear that the burden of proof thus falls to Pro as his job within the round is to prove that reality answer all questions without fallacies and my job as con to prove that not all questions can be answered using logic.

Since my opponent failed to offer any definitions, I take it up to my self to provide the definitions that will be used through out the round.
Reality: resemblance to what is real. (http://dictionary.reference.com...)
Everything: all that exists (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
true: fully realized or fulfilled (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)

I will base my arguments on my definitions as well as some my opponents questions.

Why do bad things happen?

This question was answered by http://ati.iblp.org... in stating that the "Scripture teaches us that "all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose" (Romans 8:28; see also Jeremiah 29:11). Searching for God's answers and learning to view "bad things" as "good things in disguise" are disciplines that God wants His children to develop as they mature spiritually. "

Who was the first person?

My opponent answer this question but does not tell us why this is a logical fallacy nor does he provide us with an answer that doesn't contradict what reality is defined by.

What is a miracle?
A surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is considered to be divine.
(http://www.google.com...)

if this definition is true, then my opponents entire argument is thus dismissed as i have proved that reality does not answer all questions and thus cannot be the only true answer to everything.

On to my opponent's argument

"Contention # 1 - Nothing happens due to divine intervention because it refutes natural laws. Nothing that has or will happen cannot be explained via natural laws."

My question is... how was the world created? If my opponent is unable to answer this question without logical fallacies, then my opponent has contradicted himself and thus must loss the round.

"Contention # 2 - In order to answer a question truthfully one must first accept and understand reality and debunk myths."

If we follow my definition of truth --the only definition in this round-- then we must see that an answer cannot be true unless it is faced with not contradiction. In this world, there is always a contradiction to all question, meaning that all question cannot never be truly true thus, different answers can only be answered using different ways or techniques. Reality cannot be the only answer because reality is defined in multiple way. Divine belief is only one of this ways.

"Contention # 3 - Reality is using your five senses, an instrument to expand your senses (I.e telescope), and scientific modeling. Divine intervention cannot explain anything whatsoever."

Reality is using different techniques to answer a question. One way being divine believes. What is real or fake is only defined by ones personal view on reality.

"Contention # 4 - If you answer anything without accepting reality as the basis you are committing a logical fallacy and essentially are telling a "misguided truth"."

All question has a logical fallacy and depending on ones personal view, divine belief is the most logical way to answer a question.

In conclusion, Reality cannot be the only way to answer a question because reality, just like divine believe, is one of multiple ways to truly answer a question.

and can only
Debate Round No. 1
MagicofReality

Pro

Hi Weirdman,

First, thank you for accepting and responding so quickly. Understanding reality will be the key otherwise the point will be lost. What we are debating is reality vs myth. Everything stated thus far and everything that will be stated should all derive from reality vs myth. Nothing more, nothing less.

My opponent has provided simple definitions for the terms discussed. Consider these two as the definition of reality and myth -

Reality - the state or quality of being real. http://dictionary.reference.com...

Myth - a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero´┐Żor event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature. http://dictionary.reference.com...

The above definitions derive from the same source as posted in the counter argument. In this debate I am asserting that responses to questions using myth as the base is indeed a logical fallacy and should be avoided. Responding to what are miracles using myth as the foundation is a logical fallacy.

Example - I believe miracles are divine and sent to Earth from god. There is no way for science to prove what has happened, therefore, it's a miracle and miracles only come from god.

Miracles are sent from god, therefore, god is real. This is myth and we are debating myth vs reality.

In reality, miracles go against natural law. Miracles are stories passed down and stretched far from reality. Many stories have been reported and told as miracles. A 1 million dollar challenge has existed for anyone that can prove or display a miracle. Thus far, since 1964 no one has earned the money after many attempts.

To answer the questions presented with the reality response we must never include myth as the foundation.

Who was the first person? If we use myth we could say Adam for example. If we use reality we would discuss everything that our five senses can detect along with instruments to enhance the senses, and scientific modeling. Was the first person a homo sapien? If you stack 185 million years of photos on one another that displays your ancestors all the way back would it be the same species as today? In reality, no you would find a species of fish. Now we are getting into natural selection and evolution which isn't necessarily the debates goal. We can argue for and against evolution but the reality is the evolution response only focuses on fact not myth. We have fossils and scientific models that convert an idea or theory into reality.

If my opponent focuses too much energy on evolution vs creationism he is not understanding the debate. We are debating that reality is always the answer over mythical answers. Mythical answers make no attempt to use senses and logic to find the answer, but rather assert old stories passed down from generations. In the question of the first person evolution is the reality answer. This does not mean evolution will not progressively continue defining new and additional supporting evidence. In context - evolution vs Adam and Eve is equivalent to reality vs myth.

My opponent would need to assert and prove that Adam and Eve is not a myth but reality in order to progress this idea any further.

Why do bad things happen? My opponent, again goes to myth to answer this question. In reality, it makes no sense to even consider bad things over good things. We are really examining why things happen at all. If there were a natural law concerning good and bad we would expect that bad things happen to bad people and good things to good people. We all know, however, that this natural simply doesn't exist. Staying in proper context then we must consider reality vs myth. In reality, things happen because of chance and reason. In myth, things happen because of lack of understanding and divine intervention. We know that Earthquakes are caused by shifts in the Earths plates. This is reality. A myth assertion that Earthquakes occur because of the imperfect world created by a fallen angel is the opposite of reality and should be disregarded as truth.

How was the world created? What is the origin of life? One important understanding is that we cannot yet explain everything in reality. It is important, however, not to say "because you can't define the origin of life that means there's a 50/50 chance a god did it". It is not okay to fill gaps in reality with myth in divinity. Reality continues to grow progress based on new evidence and understanding. A myth stays a myth asserting a god said "let there be..." and then there was. Reality explains truth based on what we know to be so and doesn't rely on blind faith or historical myth.

There are indeed things in this world that are subject to interpretation and there is reality. Things we detect using our senses and understanding them always trumps myth and divinity.

In conclusion my opponent must address how answering questions with myth trumps reality. We have defined these terms and understand we are debating myth vs reality.
wierdman

Con

Thanks for the quick reply.

For the voters, my opponents definition should not be weighed as he was supposed to provide definition during his first argument. the fact that he posted his definition during the second and last round, is a violation of debate rules.

Miracles are sent from god, therefore, god is real. This is myth and we are debating myth vs reality.

My opponent makes the statement above without providing any evidence or even reason as to why miracles are myths. His only attempt to furthering this argument was..."Miracles are stories passed down and stretched far from reality. Many stories have been reported and told as miracles." Still This isn't a reliable arguments, my opponent is till saying that miracles exists, but are exaggerated. in this sense, Miracles then become an exaggerated story, but still exist in th form that they are still Miracles. Miracles can also be in the form of a lucky break, check out...http://www.cbsnews.com...

" we use reality we would discuss everything that our five senses can detect along with instruments to enhance the senses, and scientific modeling. Was the first person a homo sapien? If you stack 185 million years of photos on one another that displays your ancestors all the way back would it be the same species as today? In reality, no you would find a species of fish. Now we are getting into natural selection and evolution which isn't necessarily the debates goal. We can argue for and against evolution but the reality is the evolution response only focuses on fact not myth. We have fossils and scientific models that convert an idea or theory into reality."

Ultimately, the original question "who was the first man?" Is now dismissed and never answered. in the same sense, if reality answers question in such a manner, then reality isn't the true answer to everything as defined by my definition. of true. The real truth has to be fully realized or fulfill or rather answer the question. Therefore, Reality is not the only true answer to everything.

"Mythical answers make no attempt to use senses and logic to find the answer"

Does senses and logic really define what is true or not? the answer a mind blowing NO! the fact is that our senses can be misleading and logic can be fallacies, so, if senses and logic defines reality and if reality is the only true answer as proposed by my opponent, then most if not all answers are lies.

"My opponent would need to assert and prove that Adam and Eve is not a myth but reality in order to progress this idea any further."

This was not the original burden of proof , thus I do not need to oblige. the burden of proof falls on pro to prove that all questions or everything is answered by reality.

In conclusion, Reality is not the only true answer as reality itself as defined by my opponents senses and logic argument, can be misleading. I Advice the Voters to please look at my definitions before voting and use these definitions as a key to unlocking this debate.

VOTERS:
1. I attacked all my opponents argument.
2. I proved that not all true answers are Reality
3.My opponent did not meet the burden of proof.
4. I offered the only reliable definition
5. My opponent did not meet his burden of proof.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by MagicofReality 5 years ago
MagicofReality
Thanks for voting guys. To further my understanding, can you please advise what arguments I dropped?
Posted by MagicofReality 5 years ago
MagicofReality
Got it back after several refresh and backs. Very lucky. It told me I was logged out but it came back after refreshing. I have posted.
Posted by wierdman 5 years ago
wierdman
sorry.
Posted by MagicofReality 5 years ago
MagicofReality
I am now retyping my entire argument that was complete because my IPad safari crashed and I can't retrieve.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 5 years ago
lannan13
MagicofRealitywierdmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro droped key agruements. in my opion besides my morals the con should win.
Vote Placed by shift4101 5 years ago
shift4101
MagicofRealitywierdmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pros arguments were extremely weak, and all of them were refuted by Con.