The Instigator
Cold-Mind
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Truth_seeker
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Supernatural doesn't exist

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...
Truth_seeker
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/14/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 511 times Debate No: 58942
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Cold-Mind

Pro

Definitions in this debate:
supernatural - Event that is defying laws of nature (but not laws of logic)
laws of nature - set of rules, by which events always happen
exist - could be, can be or will be possible to register with human's senses (either directly or indirectly)

Debate rules:
- Topic is resolution.
- BoP is on Pro
- Con's first Round is acceptance

Voting rules:
- "Who used the most reliable sources?" will remain tied.
- Forfeit in round 2 or 3 by Pro means all points go to Con. Forfeit in round 1 or 2 by Con means all points go to Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
Cold-Mind

Pro

1. If person1 observed something that appears to be supernatural to person1, it would mean that what person1 regarded as law of nature is not law of nature, but rather pattern that happened accidentally. Then person1 would update his beliefs - would regard new idea of pattern which includes this event as law of nature. Then event that person1 observed would not appear to be supernatural anymore.

2. Only events regarded as natural are those which are observed. And all events that are not observed are regarded as supernatural. For example:
It is natural for rabbit to jump less than meter, and it is supernatural for rabbit to jump more than kilometer only because we observed rabbits jumping less than meter, and we did not observe rabbit jumping more than kilometer. If we observed rabbits jumping more than kilometer, then it would be natural.
If something doesn't exist, it is impossible to observe it. If something is possible to observe, it does exist.
Therefore, if something exists, then it is natural.
Truth_seeker

Con

While unlikely things may not necessarily be "supernatural", there are such things as miraculous events as long as some deity is associated with them and can be explained as a cause. For example, there are claims of people claiming Jesus to have healed them. I've had supernatural encounters with God.
Debate Round No. 2
Cold-Mind

Pro

No one person knows all laws of nature. Just because some person doesn't know a particular law of nature by which event occurred, doesn't mean it was supernatural.

If my opponent is talking about people 2k years ago, only form of evidence that Jesus healed them is one single book.
Since bible was more translated and copied by handwriting, claims in harry potter books are much more of the evidence for supernatural events.

If my opponent is talking about people now, they might believe it is Jesus that healed them, but they can always get more reasonable explanation of how they got healed.
Truth_seeker

Con

Supernatural typically still involves natural factors, for example, Jesus rising from the dead. It's supernatural not because of the act itself (which is natural as the body comes back to life), but because of the cause (God). Same with the healings of Jesus and the miracles of the Bible all which involve natural matter.

"If my opponent is talking about people now, they might believe it is Jesus that healed them, but they can always get more reasonable explanation of how they got healed."

You say they can always get more reasonable explanations, where are they? How do you explain Jesus rising from the dead? How do you explain the paralyzed being able to move freely again or the blind's sight being restored?

Unless you are able to come with scientific explanations for this phenomenon, we should take the position that it has a supernatural cause based on the very act itself being attributed to the conviction of God himself.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Cold-Mind 2 years ago
Cold-Mind
No terms defined? Seriously?
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
No terms defined, I feel a semantics argument coming on.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
Cold-MindTruth_seekerTied
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: Evidence is lovely. In the lack thereof, Pro fails BOP.
Vote Placed by rings48 2 years ago
rings48
Cold-MindTruth_seekerTied
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: This was I pretty bad debate, and the only reason I gave Con the points is because BOP was on Pro. Con somewhat refuted Pro's only argument. Pro pointed out that what we perceive must be a part of nature and exist. So, if an individual sees something that is not part of the "laws of nature" than a part of the rational of nature is flawed. Con is able to poke the small hole of certain instances where there was no better explanation than a God. Both could have argued much better arguments but Pro took BOP and failed to convince me in any way the Supernatural didn't exist.