The Instigator
DrySponge
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
djsundown
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Science is based on faith

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...
djsundown
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/20/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 964 times Debate No: 46338
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

DrySponge

Pro

BOP is shared.
My opponent can use all of his rounds.
djsundown

Con

Science is based on emperical evidence.
Debate Round No. 1
DrySponge

Pro

Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.

You have to have faith on your observations .
Thus science is based on faith you if you are going to say:

This is a fact because we have observed it and experimented with it you have the BOP that the world from where you draw your information is real.

Something you can't prove.
You cannot prove that the world is real you have to have faith.
No one ccan ever prove the world to be true.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
https://www.youtube.com...
djsundown

Con

The world is true because Occams razor. Meaning, its the simplest answer.

If we assume what your saying is correct and this world is a lie, then we must assume a creator, however the creator would need a motive to create a false world. The motive is what?

Assuming the world is a lie is to complex a theory and to misleading for a rational person to belief in. It simply makes more sense that this world is real considering a creator has no reason to fool us otherwise.

Science is more than just observation, its repeatable. A law is a law because it can never be broken. If a law of science was broken then it would no longer be a law. Therefor science is also based on repetition along with empirical observation whereas faith is the lack of empirical evidence and repetition.
Debate Round No. 2
DrySponge

Pro

QUOTE
If we assume what your saying is correct and this world is a lie, then we must assume a creator, however the creator would need a motive to create a false world. The motive is what?

No,if we assume that to be true, no creator is needed for reality since reality isn't real.
Duhh
If you hallucinate there is no creator for your hallucination.

2. BOP is shared you have to proof that science is not based on faith so you have to prove the world to be true.

3. Even assuming Occams razor my explanation is much simpler.
We are all sharing an collectif conscience that sems to follow a few rules.
It would even explain the world better then science every guy saying he saw a ghost all part of a big shared dream.

My theory :
1.Our minds are real.(they are if they weren't how are you even thinking about this right now.)
2.Our minds are connected.( how can we interract with each other if we aren't connected unless you take my theory to solopsism)

Your theory:
Our minds are real.
reality is real
our minds are reacting to reallity.(not all of it )

Mine is still the easier explanation and explains allot more than yours.
djsundown

Con

If we assume reality isn"t real then what"s the point of having physical bodies? If you belief that reality is not real, walk in front of a fast moving car, or jump from a 100 story building (matrix jump it).
You will not do either of these things because the world is real.

In the hallucination example, you are the creator of the hallucinations by changes in your brain chemistry. The ways in which you achieve hallucinations may change ( shrooms, lsd, other) but the fundamental component is you. Therefor you are the creator of your hallucination.

2. There is no reason for the world to not be real. On the other hand, we live our lives based on the fact that this world is real. There is no benefit in assuming the world is anything but real.
3. Where does this collective conscience come from, why do we need it, how to we interact with it, do we need to interact with it, does it share one language, how does it influence us? These are just a few questions about the issues of a collective conscience; it is not a simple theory, however belief in a real world is.

Theory issues:
Before debating your theory, I would like your own personal definition of what a mind is, considering this is your theory.

My theory:
what evidence do you have to suggest that our minds are not always reacting to reality? Looking at neurology we can easy say our behaviors (mind) are linked with our brain. Phineas Gage is one such example, his behaviors/mind changed due to the damage received to his brain. His physical brain changed him. If our minds where somewhere else than in our brains we should not see such changes.
Debate Round No. 3
DrySponge

Pro

My opponents argument goes like this :

Quote:
If we assume reality isn"t real then what"s the point of having physical bodies? If you belief that reality is not real, walk in front of a fast moving car, or jump from a 100 story building (matrix jump it).
You will not do either of these things because the world is real.

Counter: For your argument to make sense you have to prove that we have physical bodies .

Requote : If we assume reality isn"t real then what"s the point of having physical bodies?

If we assume reality isn't real then we don't have physical bodies here is where your argument falls.
Second objection you can die in a dream.

QUOTE:
2. There is no reason for the world to not be real. On the other hand, we live our lives based on the fact that this world is real. There is no benefit in assuming the world is anything but real.

My opponents points

-There is no reason for the world to not be real

Counter: Yes you can't proove the world to be real but you can prove your mind to be real if your mind would not be real how would even think about my arguments.Your mind is all you can experience and interract with but you don't even know if there is physical world.

-There is no benefit in assuming the world is anything but real.
beliefs aren't based on benefits why do you think that that some people belief in the after life and kill themselfs to get back with their lost love ones.
There is no proof of an after life but their dead is real that belief has no benefit what so ever to society who just lost a member. But people still kill themselfs to get back with their family members.

3: Only fair point .I give this to you.

But still you have still to proof reality to be true making my theory wrong does not make yours right .

Good luck on your next round.
djsundown

Con

1.Quote: "For your argument to make sense you have to prove that we have physical bodies"
1.Counter: We have physical bodies because we can (for the most part, since they sometimes take short cuts to help reduce stress on the brain) trust our senses. If you would like to say we cannot trust our senses because our senses are false, I say that means something created our senses to be false ones. This would bring back the point of why would something make false senses and a false world.

2.Quote: "If we assume reality isn't real then we don't have physical bodies here is where your argument falls. Second objection you can die in a dream."
2.Counter: As for dying in dreams, some argue it"s impossible to die in dreams. I will argue however, you don"t feel pain in dreams. Glycine is released from the brain that causes paralysis and numbs pain receptors. In dreams you have fear which people associate (rightfully so) with pain and therefor can have an implanted memory of feeling pain; however you cannot feel pain in a dream. Why else would people pinch themselves to see if their awake or not?

3.Quote: "Yes you can't proove the world to be real but you can prove your mind to be real if your mind would not be real how would even think about my arguments.Your mind is all you can experience and interract with but you don't even know if there is physical world."
3.Counter: The cognitive function of a person (also known as their mind) resides in that person"s brain. I go back to the example of Phineas, he"s "mind" changed with damage to the brain. This brings into conclusion that our "mind" is our physical brain. Otherwise why would we see someones personality/mind change so drastically with server brain damage?

4.Quote: "beliefs aren't based on benefits why do you think that that some people belief in the after life and kill themselfs to get back with their lost love ones.
There is no proof of an after life but their dead is real that belief has no benefit what so ever to society who just lost a member. But people still kill themselfs to get back with their family members."
4.Counter: Usually their faith says that suicide does not send you to the same place as their loved ones. The benefit is closure.

Extra: Since my theory says that our brains and minds are the same, it would be in your best interest to be able to disprove it.
Debate Round No. 4
DrySponge

Pro

The debate boils down to this .
I say you canot prove reality to exist outside of our minds so all the experiments are based on faith that the world exists outside of our minds.

I say science is based on the faith that our observations are true.
My opponent says the world is real and our observations are real.

Now my opponent says: Since my theory says our brains and minds are the same and I should disprove it.
No he made the statment he has to proof to us that brains exist outside of our minds.
He has the burdeen of proof.

My opponent has to proof that the world is real and that the observations are real.

We share Bop but I only have to proof that you cannot proof the world to be real and because of that If you are unable to proof the world to be true I then have proven that you cannot prove the world to be real and that science is based on faith.
So you have the not official burdeen of proof.

Conclusion unless my opponent proves to us that the world is reall I have fufilled my burden.

Finnaly I would like to say that I personally belief the world to be real but I know that that belief is based on faith.
djsundown

Con

My opponent"s augment is that since he does not know if the world is real or not, our experiments (science) are based on faith. The problem with this assumption is that premise A (science is based on faith) and premise B (world might be fake) does not equal premise C (science is reliant on the world being real). This is a philosophical fallacy.
For example people buy ice-cream more in summer (premise A).
People get heat stokes in the summer (premise B).
Ice-cream is reliant on heat strokes (premise C).
Just because A leads to B and B leads to C does not mean A equals C. Ice-cream does not cause heatstroke"s, or defined by heat strokes.

While the debate shows I strong support the world being real. The world being real (or not real) is irrelevant. The reason is there should still remain constants (physics for example). These constants are considered to be laws or in some cases facts. Therefor science even in a "false" world would not rely on faith but constants within the fake world.

I have provided examples of the brain mind issue with Phineas, which my opponent failed to disputed.

I do not need to prove anything about the world; just that science is based on anything but faith. I argue that science is based on empirical evidence which is reliant on constants within this world (for example the speed of light).

In conclusion the debate was on whether or not science is based on faith. Science is not based on faith, but the empirical evidence we get from the constants in the world. The constants in the world still remain whether or not the world is real, which defeats the point of discussing whether the world is real or not.

If my opponent wishes to argue the reality of the world, I argue him to create a debate on the issue, instead of trying to trick his opponent.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by DrySponge 3 years ago
DrySponge
Questions?
Tip: inform yourself on the egocentric predicament.
Wish you the best to you adversary (victory not included)
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by jdtroughton 3 years ago
jdtroughton
DrySpongedjsundownTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's main argument was flawed, and inconsequential.
Vote Placed by Josh_b 3 years ago
Josh_b
DrySpongedjsundownTied
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: Pro misrepresents BOP. pro uses poor recources, but con uses none. (remains tied). Pro misrepresents Faith to include imperial evidence round two.