The Instigator
Burls
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Alpha3141
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Show Me The Money

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 2 votes the winner is...
Alpha3141
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/3/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 512 times Debate No: 77250
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

Burls

Pro

60 minutes to respond. 2,000 characters max per argument.

Objectively, a secure base of faith depends on demonstrable advantages.
Alpha3141

Con

I will attempt to "show you the money" so to speak.

In your next response, please also reiterate what you want me to argue for, so I don't misrepresent my position.

--"Objectively, a secure base of faith depends on demonstrable advantages."
This is the only information I have from my opponent to debate against, besides "Show me the money".

Being/determining objectivity is difficult. That is because people are inherently bias.
A secure base of faith does not depend on demonstrable advantages. The advantages do not demonstrate if the base of faith is correctly placed or not. Lots of false faiths have many advantages. Being a part of ISIS contains many demonstrable advantages, but many would argue that it is not objectively correct. Also, just because a base of faith is secure does not make it true. Having a secure faith could mean that the faith has not been questioned correctly, or is misunderstood.

For a base of faith to be secure, it must be based on absolute truth. An important question to ask is, what is truth? Truth is not subjective. Truth is absolute, so therefor objective. The very definition of truth requires it to be objective. Because if it was subjective, it would no longer qualify as absolute truth.
Therefore, objectively, for you to have a secure base of faith, it depends on if it is fully based on absolute truth. If not, then it is subjective, not objective, and would no longer be the objectively correct base of faith. It would no longer be true, it would no longer be a faith based on reality. Truth pertains to reality.

Before I go any further, I need to know if the path of reasoning I am taking is relevant/accurate to the topic. I need to make sure that when I "show you the money", its is in the "correct currency" so to speak.
Debate Round No. 1
Burls

Pro

My opponent postulates his anti-thesis grandly.

Counter-argument as to whether an aspirant is concerned with absolute truth or even if their faith is misplaced due to contrary opinions:

You may agree that fear of reprisal is as motivational as is reward; Both are selfish considerations unassociated with absolute truth.
Alpha3141

Con

I agree with that, that is why I said that it is incorrect that demonstrable advantages are the requirement to objectively discern a secure base of faith. Security is better found in truth anyway.

If you want an objectively secure base of faith, it will have to be based on truth, not on demonstrable advantages
Debate Round No. 2
Burls

Pro

To postulate that faith is best based on truth infers a demonstrable truth, does it not?
Alpha3141

Con

If the truth was unknowable, then all faith would be blind faith. If that was true, we could never reason, because that deals with logic. For logic to be knowable, it would have to be demonstrable. But the only way to demonstrate it is to logically prove it. You cannot prove logic with logic unless you assume logic exists in the first place. Therefor, having faith in logic is demonstrable, because you must have faith/assume it to be true in order to prove it is true. To have faith is to believe in something without physical experience. I have no physical experience of the concept of the law of non-contradiction, but I assume it to exist. Then I use logic as so

If there are laws of logic, then we can reason in a logical fashion
There are laws of logic
Therefore we can reason in a logical fashion

In this example, I used the properties of logic in order to prove that we can reason. But before I could do this, I had to assume that logic exists, and apply it in a deductive fashion. My faith in logic is demonstrable, even though it is circular reasoning.

That is because without logic, you couldn't prove that they don't exist. If you tried to, then you would use logic, and prove its existence.

This is one example of a demonstrable faith. Faith based on absolute truth. Because the only way to say that it isn't absolutely true is to use logic, thus proving it to be absolutely true. Their are faiths that are demonstrable, and provable. Whether or not people are convinced is a different story. For example, if someone didn't believe in the immaterial, they couldn't believe in the laws of logic, because the laws of logic are immaterial concepts that govern reality in a law like fashion, preventing contradictions from happening. Without the immaterial, logic couldn't exist. So the only way to argue that the immaterial doesn't exist, is to use the immaterial concepts of logic, thus proving it true. The belief that there are things beyond the material world is a faith.
Debate Round No. 3
Burls

Pro

Having demonstrated the advantage of logic in securing a secure faith we could assume that the members of religiouly based organizations are not illogical and have considered the advantages of their positions and can itemize the advantages when questioned, ergo the advantages are demonstrable, as is the advantage of logic as is admirably demonstrated in Con's previous argument.
Alpha3141

Con

Just one problem, when you say
"...we could assume that the members of religiouly based organizations are not illogical and have considered the advantages of their positions and can itemize the advantages when questioned..."

Almost all religious based organizations are illogical and inconsistent in their thinking. If they where not illogical, then all religions and religiously based organizations would agree in their doctrines and theology's. But that is not they way the world is. If all religions were true, that that would violate the law of non-contradiction. That is because all the major religions disagree with each other on multiple key issues. Therefor, only one religion can be correct. This may seem dogmatic, but there is no other option.
Debate Round No. 4
Burls

Pro

Thanks for the workout but I have to cut it short and skeedaddle. I may comment later.
Alpha3141

Con

No problem! Thanks for the debate!
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Alpha3141 2 years ago
Alpha3141
What are you confused about?
Posted by ChickenBakuba 2 years ago
ChickenBakuba
I don't understand half of this Debate...
Posted by Burls 2 years ago
Burls
LOL and I have to be somewhere today.
Posted by ChickenBakuba 2 years ago
ChickenBakuba
a = b = c

a = Stupid Title

b = Stupid Debate

c = Stupid BurIs

Stupid Title = Stupid Debate = Stupid BurIs

Tata!

^ True Algebra
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
BurlsAlpha3141Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: pro ran out of arguments near the end (as we can see from tell from the three sentences of round 2 shortened to just a single question in round 4). He didn't really try to refute anything con said, mostly just asked questions.
Vote Placed by Jake33ss 2 years ago
Jake33ss
BurlsAlpha3141Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made poor responses to cons sound logical arguements