The Instigator
kkingsepp
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Raeryan134
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Should you believe in miracles pt. 2

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...
Raeryan134
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/15/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 638 times Debate No: 28245
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

kkingsepp

Con

reference to http://www.debate.org...

The question at hand is should one believe in miracles.[q] The answer is no.[ri] You say that miracles provide the believer with hope but miracles only provide someone with a false sense of hope and confidence.[s] When someone believes in a miracle they are simply lying to themselves.[s] This lie serves as their false sense of confidence.[ri] Without valid reason, this lie has no substance and will in return hurt them.[s] You cannot put reason to a miracle.[ri] When one believes in a miracle or anything without reason they only perceive.[ri] One who wants to believe in a miracle creates reasons to believe in it.[s] Those reasons are nonsense and make miracles just a perception of what the person wants to believe.[s] When you say that acting based on sufficient evidence will never entertain new experiences you are not correct.[ri] The opposite is true.[ri] Miracles go against the laws of nature.[s] For that reason, nothing can be learned from them.[ri] In the case of a disease or illness, if we include miracles as a solution to them then we are admitting we know the course of the disease.[s] If we know the course of the disease then we cannot gain knowledge through research.[s] Also your point of one"s belief in being successful in something that they do has nothing to do with miracles, therefore it is irrelevant.[q]

P.S. thank you!
Subordination for 2nd round : 1. Re 2. S 3. Ec 4. Re 5. S 6. Q 7. S 8. S
Raeryan134

Pro

[i] "Believing in miracles only gives one hope," this was your opening statement in your previous argument. [q] Prior to that, here was no discussion of the idea. [ri] As far as the belief providing "false" confidence, and consequently hurting them, that is not the case. [q] You have provided no evidence to prove that. [q] However, imagine the man stuck on the cliff, he is in a situation which he has never encountered and his only way out is to jump. [s] In this case, he must believe the miracle of him making the jump is a possibility or he would just sit immobilized by the decision of whether or not to take the risk. [s] By the time he realizes the jump is his only option, he will be too fatigued to make the jump, if he has not already fallen. [ri] You claim that believing in miracles inhibits progress, but "not every belief on insufficient evidence is equally likely to corrupt the social process of inquiry and communication. [s] Scientists falsifying their data out of laziness or professional ambition, or policemen letting their prejudices rather than evidence dictate whom they charge with a crime, are doing more vital harm to social processes of inquiry than an old person clinging to a superstition they were taught as a child" (Woods). [ri] Therefore, even if there is no evidence to support all beliefs, miracles included, there is not always harm in holding said beliefs.
Debate Round No. 1
kkingsepp

Con

[q]Miracles are not reliable, ones who have "encountered" miracles do not provide others with sufficient evidence unlike science. [ri]When miracles happen it is likely for one to just say "I don't know", when that occurs in science, scientists simply take that phrase acknowledge it and make it possible to answer why they don't know and they will find the answer. [s] Hypotheses are created to lead to an experiment and the experiment leads to data and sufficient support to what the scientist did not know. [s] Miracles cannot be hypothesis, they cant be tested because they cannot be recreated and do not provide adequate confirmation.[s] "As a scientist you are trying to determine through study and investigation what the course of nature is. Suppose the miraculous interventions occur so that some of the phenomena are natural and others the result of supernatural intervention. As scientists, we exclude the supernatural cases from our database because they go against the course of nature." (Gomberg) [s]Since miracles are supernatural, we are not able to use them in scientific research. [q] If we do include them, then we are admitting we know the course of nature, and if we know the course of nature than there is nothing to be learned.
Raeryan134

Pro

[q] As previously stated, when it comes to studying science, miracles should be excluded due to the potential dangers. [q]However, outside of the scientific world this is not the case. [ri] The Straw Man that you have created argues against miracles being included in scientific research. [s] This would be a fine argument, but unfortunately no one is making that claim. [i] With that being said not much of your argument is left for debate. [i] You have failed to address the rest of our points and only chose to discuss one we were not even making.
Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by fulltimestudent 4 years ago
fulltimestudent
No i shouldnt *believe* in miracles..i dont like putting my time and energy into what might not ve...seems illogical
Posted by t-man 4 years ago
t-man
What is this?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by t-man 4 years ago
t-man
kkingseppRaeryan134Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Oops. I didn't mean to vote
Vote Placed by Nidhogg 4 years ago
Nidhogg
kkingseppRaeryan134Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments where not backed by facts and did not fulfill his BOP.