Secular philosophies lead to nowhere
Debate Rounds (5)
Will pro please clarify what "Every atheistic philosophy has no basis to know anything" means?
Pro has given three examples Existentialism, Nihilism, and humanism. I concede that both Existentialism and Nihilism do deny absolute truth and that there view is subjective so I will focus on humanism.
Definition: Humanism is a movement of philosophy and ethics that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers individual thought and evidence over established doctrine or faith.
According to this definition the view is not subjective as it has basis in empirical evidence as it's way of knowing. While they don't have absolute "truths", with continual experiments it adjusts its view on the way the world works accordingly. Some of these "truths" such as the four fundamental forces can be considered absolute "truths." Other things may not be absolute truths as science; there main way of knowing; continually changes. However somethings aren't quite absolute truths such as all quantum mechanical systems not being observed since until something is observed it doesn't have a definite quantum state. However the general rules governing quantum mechanical systems are; as this is proved; wave function collapse; it can still be considered an absolute "truth" because we know that until it is observed there isn't a definite quantum state.
I'd also like to point out that religious philosophies absolute truths can't be proved since the are doctrine so they may not even be the "truth."
"I'm saying that if God were to exist he would be able to reveal things to us so that we can know them absolutely for sure since He would be the absolute standard"
Here it appears con is saying that we don't know if God exists. If God doesn't exist then those religious philosophies absolute truths can't be absolute truths; invalidating religious philosophies claims of absolute truth.
"To even attempt to study the world rationally you would have to presuppose uniformity."
Everywhere we look we find the same physical laws in place so it's not just an unwarranted supposition; in fact it's much more probable to be true than most of what religious philosophies presuppose.
"I would also like to point out that empirical evidence alone does not lead to truth."
If observing an actual event does not lead to the "truth" than what does? I contend this claim is unwarranted as empirical evidence is the ultimate standard in science.
"Empiricism says that all knowledge is based on observation but it is self defeating since this has not been observed."
I'll give pro this point on the grounds that some things humans have an innate knowledge of even without observation.
"You would have no reason to believe in empirical evidence"
I'd contend that since with observation you can predict other observations ad reproduce it you do have reason to believe empirical evidence.
"And going back to humanism I want to say that it puts man at the center of all things and states that through man come true norms and values but they have no basis for saying these are true values since there are many different values. Values become preferences rather than principles. There would be no way of knowing which values are true and which ones are not. I know that humanism focuses on compassion and service to mankind but these values would only be true by consensus. Consensus doesn't lead to truth."
There have been many different religious philosophies with many different values, so values even religious ones are based on consensus within a culture.
When you look around and see these physical laws taking place it presupposes uniformity. Without uniformity in nature science would be impossible since we would have no basis to make predictions. Uniformity doesn't make sense in a secular/evolution worldview. The most you can say is that since nature was like this is the past it will be this way in the future. This is merely an assumption for the secularist. You would have no reason to rely on uniformity if not for God. It makes sense to the Christian that there is uniformity since the Bible teaches that God upholds all things by His power (Heb. 1:3). Secularists accept biblical principles such as uniformity while simultaneously denying the Bible from where those principles come from.
Yes empirical evidence does lead to some truth but only by presupposing God's existence. God alone leads to full blown truth and we are created with ways to reason and observe the world and come to conclusions. Without God empiricism would just be assuming uniformity. Secularists can know things because of God's common grace since He has given them reason but if you were to ask them how they know what they know for sure they would not be able to answer.
Yes there have been many religions with different value systems but this claim sounds like a lack of study in this field. A careful study of religion would show that none of them make sense and Christianity is the only one that can account for truth. Christianity is not based on consensus. The moral values in Christianity are God's character and are not dependant on culture or consensus. It wouldn't matter who disagreed with God since His word is law. To try and judge His values you would either be using your own values or some from another religion/philosophy but on what grounds would you call those values true? God's values are not true because i say they are. They don't require my approval. They require complete submission to.
Where exactly did Pro get the idea that trying to disprove him suggests I cannot account for logic or meaning without him?
Can pro please explain why uniformity doesn't make sense in a secular worldview. Also I wouldn't quite call it an assumption because If you look anywhere in the Universe you can see the same physical laws in effect.
"You would have no reason to rely on uniformity if not for God."
Actually there is a reason. Things in nature are going to try and reach a stable state. Uniformity would be the most stable state for the universe so there is a reason.
"Yes empirical evidence does lead to some truth but only by presupposing God's existence"
Why exactly would empirical evidence require presupposing Gods existence. Empirical evidence is based on observation,which doesn't require presupposing God exists. This statement is
"if you were to ask them how they know what they know for sure they would not be able to answer."
They would say they know for sure "because we have observed it and reproduced the effects under the same conditions multiple times."
Pro needs to explain why Christianity is the only religion makes sense. Also what about all those people who'd say that their religion is the only one that makes sense.
"Christianity is not based on consensus. The moral values in Christianity are God's character and are not dependant on culture or consensus. It wouldn't matter who disagreed with God since His word is law. To try and judge His values you would either be using your own values or some from another religion/philosophy but on what grounds would you call those values true? God's values are not true because I say they are. They don't require my approval. They require complete submission to."
Wow; exactly what any Viking, Roman, Greek, or any other religion would say about there god's values.
All of pros arguments are based on the assumption that a god exists. For pros arguments to be valid pro must provide undeniable evidence of a god's existence.
Pro is trying to dismiss all my arguments on the account of presuppositions for it to work. However in pros last sentence he says he is presupposing gods existence; so if pro is going to use that logic against my arguments he must also be dismissing his own at the same time! Pro says my last claim just proves a lack of study on religion when that is completely non-sector.
Pros arguments revolve around dodging questions, logical fallacies, contradictions, and the use of logic that invalidates his own arguments; because of this pro has no valid support for his arguments nor valid proof against my arguments. By dismissing my case because it requires assumptions, pro dismisses his own case which rests on much shakier assumptions.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by janetsanders733 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: This is a really tough one for me to vote on because both had good arguments, and I agree with Pro, but I want to be fair when I vote. So I think I am going to vote Con, only because Pro needed to sort of provide justification for Christ as the only way. Other than that, the issues were laid out on the table of thought. I think Pro should have not argued Creationsim vs. Evolution, soley because that is not really the topic at hand. Debates like these are always fun, and again good job to both debaters.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.