The Instigator
kasmic
Pro (for)
Losing
28 Points
The Contender
Varrack
Con (against)
Winning
35 Points

The LDS Concept of Faith is Unreasonable

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 9 votes the winner is...
Varrack
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 8/16/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,341 times Debate No: 78427
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (45)
Votes (9)

 

kasmic

Pro

Resolved: The LDS Concept of Faith is "Unreasonble"

Defning Terms:

LDS: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, aka Mormons

Unreasonable: "without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason."(1)

Clarification:

Faith is not defined in round one as surely the definition will be a point of contention. It is likely that any judging this debate will be unaware of what the LDS conception of faith is. Thus I want to leave this open for debate through-out.

I was born and raised in the LDS Church and have recently step away from the church. One of my primary concerns is the understanding that Faith is inheriently irrational. Varrack is a great member here on DDO and is an active member of the LDS church. I can think of no one better on this site to debate this with. I hope he accepts

I accept the full burden of proof to demonstrate that the LDS concept of faith is irrational. Thus Con's role in this debate is to negate my arguements.

For reference throughout the debate, here is the official LDS website. (2)

Format:


4 rounds/72 Hours/6,000 Characters ELO Restrictions 2,000 to vote

Select Winner Voting

Round 1: Defining terms and acceptance
Round 2: Opening arguement/first rebuttal
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Overview of debate and closing statements (No new arguements)

Varrack: If you would like to tweak any of the format etc... let me know before acceptance and we can negotiate terms.

Sources:

(1)http://dictionary.reference.com...
(2) www.lds.org



Varrack

Con

I accept and acknowledge that I am objecting to the charge of the irrationality of faith in the LDS church. If I can show that there is any reason at all behind having faith, the resolution is negated. There appears to be a 6k character limit, so arguments will be shorter than normal. Thanks and good luck to Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
kasmic

Pro

Thank you Varrack for accepting and good luck.

Argumentation:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints places Faith as the first Principle of the gospel. How is faith defined and taught?

In Hebrews 11: 1 we read “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (1) Notice the lack of evidence is inherent in the definition provided of faith. Alma 32: 21 from the Book of Mormon says “faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.” (2) Finally from LDS.org we read that to have faith is to “show.. hope for something that we cannot yet see.”(3)

From this we see that the LDS concept of faith is to hope for things that are unseen. Things that the evidence for is absent. As stated in the Book of Mormon “faith is not a perfect knowledge.” This is ironic as if by chance you were to visit an LDS congregation during a testimony meeting you will likely hear people state that they “know” the Book of Mormon is true, or that they “know” the Church is true. Usually such proclamations are given along with phrases like “with every fiber of my being…” and “without a shadow of a doubt.” I have often wondered how many members realize or notice this incoherency. Do they “know” or do they have “faith?”

As much as it may seem pedantic or overkill to quote a dictionary, it is worth doing in this case. Evidence is “that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.”(4) Thus we see that the notion of “walking by faith, and not by sight” (5) is to believe in something without grounds for belief. This is clearly nonsensical. Can I tell you to walk without the means to walk, or to see without the ability to see? Surely not, but here the concept of faith is just that. To believe when one should not.

Either 12: 6 in the Book of Mormon states “I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not… “ (6) Essentially in LDS culture to lack faith, or to dispute things without evidence is to be discouraged. The only way to know that faith based claims are true is to believe them without evidence and reject doubt as a weakness.

We see than that faith is unreasonable.

The great danger in faith is the blind obedience that accompanies it. In James 2:17-18 we read that “Faith without works is dead.”(7) Thus it is not enough to profess belief in something without grounds to believe, you must act on it. Let say, for example, I have faith that the world is to end tomorrow. This means that despite lack of evidence of any kind I believe that the world is to end. I must now act in a way that demonstrates this belief. No matter what evidence is provided, rational reasoning, persuasion or whatever, doesn’t matter. “Because the foolishness of God is wiser than man” I am to have my faith override all. (8) This makes those acting on faith unable to be reasoned with… unreasonable.

Overview:

I have shown using entirely LDS sources that the concept of faith taught in the way that they teach it is unreasonable. Additionally it causes those who adopt it to act unreasonably.

There is no rational way to contend with a religious concept that requires "faith." This is because Faith as taught by the LDS church is unreasonable. To close out my space in this round I would like to present Hans Christian Andersen’s “The Emperor’s new clothes.”

“A vain Emperor who cares about nothing except wearing and displaying clothes hires two swindlers who promise him the finest, best suit of clothes from a fabric invisible to anyone who is unfit for his position or "hopelessly stupid". The Emperor's ministers cannot see the clothing themselves, but pretend that they can for fear of appearing unfit for their positions and the Emperor does the same. Finally the swindlers report that the suit is finished, they mime dressing him and the Emperor marches in procession before his subjects. The townsfolk play along with the pretense, not wanting to appear unfit for their positions or stupid. Then a child in the crowd, too young to understand the desirability of keeping up the pretense, blurts out that the Emperor is wearing nothing at all and the cry is taken up by others. The Emperor cringes, suspects the assertion is true, but continues the procession.” (9)

The issue of Faith is much like the “clothes” in the story. I have repeatedly pointed out the issue of faith to which, the “faithful”, like the emperor must see this issue, but choose to ignore it or don’t mind believing a bare assertion or acting unreasonably.

With that I send it back to con.

Sources:

My first round here is identical to this one, all the sources are listed the same.

http://www.debate.org...
Varrack

Con

== Rebuttal ==

Pro's case is a strawman of the LDS concept of faith. His argument is solely founded upon the premise that faith lacks evidence, so to negate it I need show that there is a purpose to faith to allow it to contain reason.


Faith is Part of a Process

As taught by the LDS religion, gaining spiritual knowledge requires a step-by-step process. Faith is likened unto a seed in Alma 32[1] which grows with nourishment. The process has these steps:

1. Hope - having hope it a desire for something to be true is essential for faith to occur. Faith cannot start if one does not hope for or desire it to be true in the first place. Hebrews 11:1 states indeed that faith is the substance of things hoped for. The 21st verse of Alma 32 confirms this as well.

2. Belief - having the faith that spiritual knowledge will come or that a question will be answered. Before Jesus administered to anyone in the New Testament (such as a blind man) he asked them if they had the faith that they would be healed. Without such this belief, no miracle could be performed.

3. Knowledge - by having the previous two, hope and belief, which together complete faith, spiritual knowledge will be given. This may come in the form of an answer to a question/prayer, the presence of the Spirit, or something like it. Knowledge may come more different to some than to others, but it completes the process of faith. It comes by asking and being willing to receive, as James 1:5 states: “if any of ye lack wisdom, let him ask of God”. Faith is the means of obtaining this last step.

Example

To illustrate this point, I’m going to provide an example of the faith process, which will be of one seeking the answer to whether the Book of Mormon is true. In the 4th verse of the last chapter of the BoM, Moroni 10:4, it reads: “I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.” This promises spiritual knowledge from having faith. If one follows this process, then they will come to know the truth, according to this verse.

So here’s the process:

1) A person reads the BoM. He or she hopes that it is true, as it promises many things to those who are virtuous and guarantees salvation to those who live worthily.
2) They exercise belief that when they ask God if it is true, they will receive an answer. This does not mean they should believe that the BoM is true, although they can. It means that they must believe an answer will be given to them. Faith is simply the belief that answers will come.
3) The seeker asks and receives their answer. Not once did were they required to believe blindly or have faith that is irrational. It is perfectly reasonable to follow this method, because faith is being used in a way that is rational. D&C 9:8-9 [3] explains what happens when a humble seeker asks a question and what answers they receive indicate what.

I have shown here that faith is reasonable because it is part of a process of finding truth in the LDS religion. Faith is like a ring on a ladder - its concept becomes reasonable when the whole ladder is put into view. If Pro’s assertions are correct, then faith is all that one needs to know that the BoM is true. This is completely false - faith, aka belief, is only one step in the process. It needs the rest of it for truth to be known. There is nothing irrational about believing something has the capacity to be truthful, especially when a process to gain such knowledge is outlined very clearly in the scriptures. Pro may be able to show how faith is irrational for some religions, but not this one.

Faith & Works

James 2:17-18 does state that “faith without works is dead.” Acting is asking a question in order to receive knowledge
through the process of faith. It is applying Step 2 to Step 3 and receiving answers as directed in the scriptures.

Negative Faith

Pro says, “Let say, for example, I have faith that the world is to end tomorrow. This means that despite lack of evidence of any kind I believe that the world is to end. I must now act in a way that demonstrates this belief.” This is completely ridiculous - just because someone hopes for something and believes it is true doesn’t mean it is true. This is not what I have advocated at all, nor what the LDS scriptures say. It is a misrepresentation of LDS faith, which is a 3-step process, not a 2-step one.

Using this method of learning can be used to either affirm or negate the truth of something. D&C 9:8-9 states:

But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget
the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.”[3]

There is an answer for questions to things that could be wrong as well as right. If I had faith that the world is to end tomorrow (I don’t know why I would hope for it in the first place) and asked, then a negative answer can be given as well.

Conclusion


Faith is completely reasonable, as it is a step in the process of finding truth. Pro seems to think that faith is all members base their religious beliefs around, but seeking knowledge by asking is very encouraged in the LDS church. I would define faith as the belief that the process of knowledge works, as outlined in the BoM and in D&C. The idea that faith is all that's needed for knowing something is wrong. Hope + faith = knowledge.

[1] https://www.lds.org...
[2] https://www.lds.org...
[3] https://www.lds.org...
Debate Round No. 2
kasmic

Pro

Rebuttals:

Con claims that my case is “a strawman of the LDS concept of faith.” And that my “argument is solely founded upon the premise that faith lacks evidence.” Note that Con does not demonstrate how my defining of faith is a strawman, he just claims it is. My definitions are intact and sourced from the LDS website. Hebrews 11: 1, Alma 32: 21, and the LDS website definition confirm that faith is absent of evidence.


Con defines faith as “hope and belief.” He concludes that hope and belief “together complete faith.” This supposedly leads to “spiritual knowledge.” This is ironic as latter when con address my example he says

“This is completely ridiculous - just because someone hopes for something and believes it is true doesn’t mean it is true.” This is exactly my argument, that such is ridiculous. Thus acting on hope and belief that something is true is irrational as hope and belief don’t make something true. This gets even worse as Con has argeed that Faith without works is dead. You have to act on hope and belief that something is true to have faith even though as he conceded, hoping and believing don’t make something true.


Con’s Example:

Con then presents the process of faith. His example will clearly show how unreasonable faith is.

His first step says you must hope something is true to know it is. This is obviously untrue. Whether I hope that 1+1=2 does not affect the truth that it is. Or in converse, if I hope 1+1=3 that does not make it any less true. Thus we see that hope in something has zero impact to truth.


Second before you have received any justification for your belief, or had anything other than “hope,” you must exercise belief. This is incoherent. This thus shows that to have faith as Con has defined it you must hope and act as if something is true before having any justification or evidence that it is.

Third, after this hope and acting without rational reasoning con claims “The seeker asks and receives their answer.” This is obviously irrational.

Again, my opponent has claimed that “just because someone hopes for something and believes it is true doesn’t mean it is true.” And that such a concept would be “completely ridiculous“ He goes on to say that “This is not what I have advocated at all, nor what the LDS scriptures say.” Unfourtanetly for Con it is exactly what he concluded, that hope and belief “together complete faith.”

Conclusion


Con concludes that “Hope + faith = knowledge.”

This is incoherent as he has defined faith earlier in the same round as “believe and hope.” This makes his final statement read as Hope + Hope + Believe = Knowledge. Worse yet, he himself said “just because someone hopes for something and believes it is true doesn’t mean it is true.”

So my opponent has said both that hope + believe = knowledge and that hope + believe =/= truth. These conflict with each other.

My opponents arguments are shown to be utterly incoherent. This inconstancy in his argument shows the irrationality of the LDS concept of Faith. Hope + Believe =/= knowledge and =/= truth.

Varrack

Con

== Rebuttal ==

Pro's response is based entirely on a single sentence I said in the last round, when I mentioned hope and belief completing faith. I made a small error in leaving out "works" (or step 3) of the process in my definition of faith, but I have already stated multiple times that acting is such a vital part of faith, and that it doesn't work without it. Even if you buy my opponent's argument that I said that hope and belief make faith, he had already acknowledged that I believe the verse "Faith without works is dead", yet attacked a completely different premise. As I have structured my own case and have made very clear, faith is a 3-step process: hope belief acts which leads to knowledge.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that faith relies simply on hops and belief, as James 2:17 pointd out: "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." Faith without works is simply useless, and is clearly not what the LDS church believes it to be. I also pointed out how "works" doesn't mean one must believe and tell everyone that believing = knowledge, he or she must act upon their hope and belief in order to complete the process and receive an answer. This is made clear by Moroni 10 and D&C 9. Pro conceded this point and has literally said nothing about it in his last round, besides quoting me on it and simply concluding that it is "obviously irrational" without providing evidence that it is.

Pro focuses all of his argument on a single thing I said while ignoring the rest of my advocacy for seeking truth being essential to faith. I have already admitted that I left out "works" erroneously, and have pointed out that my entire case focuses on the whole process anyways. If someone said 10 things that were consistent, and then happened to mentioned something else that wasn't in line when it was really accidental, it is lazy to focus all of your attention on that one misnomer and not actually examine what that person is really advocating. That is exactly what Pro has done.

Pro's rationale on LDS faith is a complete misrepresentation of it, which is by definition a straw man. It would be different if it were true and the LDS church actually believed that belief = knowledge, but I have shown several verses that say the exact opposite. Faith is hope + belief + works, with works being the equivalent of asking or seeking truth.

Math example

There is a problem when my opponent tries to equate the process of faith to math: "Whether I hope that 1+1=2 does not affect the truth that it is. Or in converse, if I hope 1+1=3 that does not make it any less true." There are several issues with this, 1) we already know that 1+1=2, so it is nonsensical to seek knowledge when knowledge is already present. I don't know why anyone would ask God whether 2+2=4, when the answer is clearly obvious. A seeker of truth doesn't seek out whether truisms are true, and to do so would be an abuse of the faith process. 2) This theory of knowledge applies to spiritual/religious things, not materialistic or secular ones. 3) Hope =/= knowledge. Even if the faith process did work, one would have to go through all 3 steps in order to discover truth, not just hope that something is true for it to be true. I think I've made this very clear already.

Faith as it is

We see from the scriptures that the faith process is consistent with every verse mentioning faith and is the correct representation of it. Hebrews 11:1 states that "faith is the evidence of things unseen", which wouldn't make sense of one equated it with belief. In the process, however, one is able to seek truth and gain knowledge via the steps, and receive evidence of things unseen. Pro mentions Alma 32:21 of faith not being a perfect knowledge of things. Of course it is not, in that we do not know everything about the universe. Every person, whether religious or not, will admit this. What the process helps is for people to uncover more knowledge about things - not necessarily a perfect one.

[1] https://www.lds.org...
Debate Round No. 3
kasmic

Pro

A few thoughts:

I want to again thank Varrack for taking this debate. I know it can sometimes be frustrating to debate topics about which are tied to personal beliefs. I hope this debate has been worth your time as it was mine.

Overview of Debate:

Last round con claims that I focused my arguments on one sentence of his. This is clearly not true,though he does admit that he left out a key part of his argument.

To clear things up he claims that hope+belief+works = Faith

This fits with how I have defined faith. In round 2 Con said “Pro's case is a strawman of the LDS concept of faith. His argument is solely founded upon the premise that faith lacks evidence, so to negate it I need show that there is a purpose to faith to allow it to contain reason.”

In the definition Con has given of faith, it is clear that evidence is not part of faith. You hope, believe, and act all without evidence. That is faith. This is clearly unreasonable. Just ask yourself, is it reasonable to believe in, hope for, and act as if something is true for which you have had no evidence?

Like the world ending example. Is it reasonable for someone to hope for, believe in, and work towards the concept that the world is ending tomorrow despite any presence of evidence?

Or more on point to the LDS faith, is it reasonable to hope that the Book of Mormon is true, believe that it is true and act as though it is true without having any evidence?

I have argued that such a concept of hope+belief+works is an unreasonable concept in light of the absence of evidence.

In Con’s round two of arguments he said “just because someone hopes for something and believes it is true doesn’t mean it is true.” I wholly agree, and adding works doesn’t change the concept in a meaningful way. Thus the LDS concept of Faith =/= knowledge. Nor does it lead to knowledge. Hoping, believing and acting as if something is true does not lead to knowledge.

I have shown using entirely LDS sources that the concept of faith taught in the way that they teach it is unreasonable. Additionally it causes those who adopt it to act unreasonably.

There is no rational way to contend with a religious concept that requires "faith." This is because Faith as taught by the LDS church is unreasonable.

Thanks for reading, vote Pro!
Varrack

Con

Thanks for the debate Kasmic. I am glad I was able to participate.

Faith and Evidence

The biggest issue with Pro's case of faith being unreasonable the question of evidence. As I have argued, the process of faith leads up to the revealing of knowledge. Many verses promise that gaining of new knowledge when one exercises faith through the process I have outlined. I have shown a reason that is inherently connected to faith, and that this reason is experimenting whether this process works or not.

To attempt to show the irrationality of faith, Pro argues that the entire process of it is based on no evidence, but the whole purpose is to go from no evidence to evidence, and this how I have explained it is the LDS concept of it. There seems to be a bit of circular reasoning on the side of Pro - if seeking proof isn't allowed, how is proof for anything ever found? The scientific method also begins with no evidence and uses steps to seek it and learn from the experience the scientist has had with this particular experiment. That is also true for the LDS religion - if one wants to seek for and receive spiritual enlightenment, they must use faith to get there. It is like a stepping stone across a stream and is necessary for one to land on the other side.

In Round 2 I related the process to discovering whether the BoM is true. On the second step I stated that there must at least be belief that the process will work, not that the BoM is necessarily true or false. No one is ever required to believe in the object of truth, but that the stepping stone, if anything, exists. Hope and belief do not apply to the object of question, but to the process. For example, if I wanted to know whether the world would end, I would hope for an answer, and believe that an answer could be received, but not necessarily the hope or belief that the world will end.

The same goes for the Book of Mormon. Is it reasonable to hope and believe that the BoM is true? Maybe, or maybe not, but that is not a requirement for knowledge. What is essential is the hope and belief that the answer itself will come, whether it be an affirmative or negative one.

Conclusion

Since my opponent dropped a few things I said last round (such as the math argument), there's nothing else to say but to conclude.

It is practically impossiblen to argue that LDS faith is unreasonable, and Pro never showed us how it is. Since faith is taught as leading to knowledge, and Pro never argued how such a process fails in achieving knowledge, then there's no reason to buy his argument at all. Thus, the resolution was never affirmed. I think the outcome is pretty clear, and thanks for reading.
Debate Round No. 4
45 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Varrack 1 year ago
Varrack
I don't think it did. I've always maintained that faith must have some connection to evidence, otherwise it's just blind belief in something.
Posted by kasmic 1 year ago
kasmic
Just out of curiosity, did my arguments here have any impact on your perception of faith?
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: tajshar2k// Mod action: NOT Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: RFD in the comments.

[*Reason for non-removal*] While the vote is not particularly detailed in its assessment of the arguments, it does sufficiently analyze the burdens in the debate and comes to a decision based on what was presented.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: dan40000000// Mod action: NOT Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Apparently my response was too long so I will post it in the comments section.

[*Reason for non-removal*] While this voter outs himself as someone likely to be biased, his vote comes off as carefully considered and with enough detail to explain the decision. Simply because he said it may affect him doesn't show that he was employing his bias as part of his decision.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: RoyLatham// Mod action: NOT Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Both sides agreed to the definition "reasonable." Reasonable means logically derived from evidence. Con says, "so to negate it I need show that there is a purpose to faith to allow it to contain reason." However, if true, that establishes that faith provides a purpose which contains a part which is reasonable. The resolution is not that "purpose" contains "reason." It is that the faith itself is reasonable. Roughly speaking, Con argues that faith is part of a process by which reason might be achieved. By comparison, opium may be part of a process that leads to writing good poetry, but that does not argue that opium is part of good poetry. Faith is cited as an agent, not as being itself reasonable. Con is thus not disputing the resolution. Con references the goal as "spiritual knowledge," wherein spiritual knowledge is not the kind of knowledge that can be derived from evidence. Con grants the resolution. More in comments.

[*Reason for non-removal*] While this vote does not specifically analyze any of Pro's arguments, it does examine the debate from Con's perspective, thoroughly explaining where his arguments fell short and how they should be viewed within the scope of the debate. Though it could be improved, that is sufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by tajshar2k 2 years ago
tajshar2k
BOP was on Pro. He has the job of proving LDS "concept of faith" is unreasonable.

To be honest, the debate was quite confusing at times, and neither side really countered each other"s arguments effectively.The root cause of this issue was how both Pro and Con interpreted the definition of faith. Pro shows how LDS believe in some things that would be considered unreasonable, but the definition of unreasonable is rather vague. I felt the premise of the debate was more about the "concept of faith" , and I don"t believe Pro meet his BOP for establishing that claim. Con had a different approach to faith, which he explained that faith can be the process of attaining spiritual knowledge. I didn"t feel like either side convinced me about the LDS concept of faith. If I were to personally decide my interpretation of the LDS faith. I could have said Pro"s arguments were more substantial, but the LDS"s faith wasn"t really put forth. I would tie this debate, but the issue I have, is that Pro himself said the BOP was on him. Since he had the BOP, he should have proven the LDS"s concept of faith is unreasonable. I have to vote Con because of this.
Posted by dan40000000 2 years ago
dan40000000
Round 4:
The last round was just an overview of the argument. Pro again states that faith + belief does not mean something is true. He is right but that doesn"t defeat what Con says when he says that faith + belief are more tools to gain such knowledge and that the LDS faith doesn"t believe faith + belief makes the BoM itself true but rather you need to have faith and belief to know the truth. Pro never refutes this in a satisfactory way. Since the burden of proof was on him I would vote that Con won.
Interesting debate and again I know I am LDS but I really tried very hard to be as objective as possible in my voting but I thought it was clear that Con showed that faith does in the LDS church is not unreasonable since it is not required to stand alone. If Pro had gone into receiving a false positive to prayers that would have potentially swung the argument in the way of Pro and I was waiting for him to do it but he never did. Thus my vote goes to CON
Posted by dan40000000 2 years ago
dan40000000
I acknowledge that being LDS I am obviously biased towards my point of view since it is who I am. But I will do my very best to be completely objective as a voter. I will evaluate each round and break up the argument.
Round 1: Opening round there was no debate
Round 2: Pro uses a strong tactic saying that faith is to believe in things that are unseen or unproven. Summing it up by saying "the concept of faith taught in the way that they teach it is unreasonable". It is a strong argument to say that without sufficient evidence it is unreasonable to believe in something. Con responds to this with in my opinion a stronger argument. He shows that faith is not all that is needed to believe in the LDS faith but is rather a step in the process. That to actually believe in the LDS faith requires some form of evidence beyond blind faith. Now whether or not this answer to a prayer should be questioned was not discussed in the 2nd round and thus leaves CON with a clear victory in round 2.
On to round 3: Pro came in swinging with what I felt were very strong arguments. He pointed out that the belief and hope in something does not make it true showing that 1+1=2 regardless of whether you have hope or not. I felt like this was a very strong argument and I am curious to see how Con opposes. In my opinion Con responded very well. I think his argument that knowledge over things that are known applies differently to things that are unknown. Even saying that "I don't know why anyone would ask God whether 2+2=4, when the answer is clearly obvious". Con showed that Pro used a strong argument that doesn"t apply to knowledge that is unknown. As evidenced by the fact that Pro never refuted what Con said thus he even agreed or didn"t have a strong argument to go against it. Even saying that it is not faith that something is true but faith that an answer can be found. I must say that was a profound sentence and really combated anything that Pro came at him with. Well done Con round 3 goes
Posted by dan40000000 2 years ago
dan40000000
I acknowledge that being LDS I am obviously biased towards my point of view since it is who I am. But I will do my very best to be completely objective as a voter. I will evaluate each round and break up the argument.
Round 1: Opening round there was no debate
Round 2: Pro uses a strong tactic saying that faith is to believe in things that are unseen or unproven. Summing it up by saying "the concept of faith taught in the way that they teach it is unreasonable". It is a strong argument to say that without sufficient evidence it is unreasonable to believe in something. Con responds to this with in my opinion a stronger argument. He shows that faith is not all that is needed to believe in the LDS faith but is rather a step in the process. That to actually believe in the LDS faith requires some form of evidence beyond blind faith. Now whether or not this answer to a prayer should be questioned was not discussed in the 2nd round and thus leaves CON with a clear victory in round 2.
On to round 3: Pro came in swinging with what I felt were very strong arguments. He pointed out that the belief and hope in something does not make it true showing that 1+1=2 regardless of whether you have hope or not. I felt like this was a very strong argument and I am curious to see how Con opposes. In my opinion Con responded very well. I think his argument that knowledge over things that are known applies differently to things that are unknown. Even saying that "I don't know why anyone would ask God whether 2+2=4, when the answer is clearly obvious". Con showed that Pro used a strong argument that doesn"t apply to knowledge that is unknown. As evidenced by the fact that Pro never refuted what Con said thus he even agreed or didn"t have a strong argument to go against it. Even saying that it is not faith that something is true but faith that an answer can be found. I must say that was a profound sentence and really combated anything that Pro came at him with. Well done Con round 3 goes
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Wow these votes were wildly going back and forth.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 2 years ago
tajshar2k
kasmicVarrack
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in the comments.
Vote Placed by dan40000000 2 years ago
dan40000000
kasmicVarrack
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Apparently my response was too long so I will post it in the comments section.
Vote Placed by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
kasmicVarrack
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in Comments. Good job. Vote goes Pro.
Vote Placed by Kozu 2 years ago
Kozu
kasmicVarrack
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: The key problem with Con's argument is that he keeps using "belief+hope+works=faith" to justify faith. Since faith and belief are synonymous, he's using circular reasoning. This can be read as "(reasonable) faith+hope+works=(reasonable) faith, but if we already had "reasonable faith" to be used in the equation, why are we trying to solve for it? As pro continually points out, hoping something is true and working as if it was, does not provide us with any deductive/inductive/empirical evidence to conclude that the LDS concept of faith is reasonable. I simply can't accept Con's argument that I can do 1.) Read the BoM, then 2.) Exercise belief that when [I] ask God if it is true, [I] will receive an answer, and lastly 3.) receive an answer. I'm then told " Not once did were they required to believe blindly or have faith that is irrational.", but that's *exactly* what I had to do in step 2. Faith/belief/truth can only be justified through evidence, not by looking at their results.
Vote Placed by tlockr 2 years ago
tlockr
kasmicVarrack
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: It seemed that Pro was directing a lot of his arguments in attacking the definition of "faith" as described in some LDS texts including Hebrews, Alma, and that church's website. Con suficiently challenged Pro's interpretation of these texts especially the Alma one which Con used to springboard his argument for the process faith plays in acquiring knowledge. If Con's interpretation of these texts is true then Pro took those verses out of context, and visa versa. Pro took on BOP from the onset, which was probably a mistake because both contenders have logical interpretations of the sources but differing definitions of faith. Con spent probably too much time explaining the process faith is a part of, time which could have been better used to direct a more detailed rebuttal of Pro's definition of faith. Having said that I see that Pro also devoted substantial time as well in efforts that did not contribute to his premise, i.e. the members... See comments section for remainder of summary...
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
kasmicVarrack
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: This is going to seem awfully familiar, though I'll try to couch it differently than I did in the previous debate. The problem is that the debaters are having two different arguments side-by-side. Pro's arguing that tangible evidence and faith can never coexist, which makes faith unreasonable since it precludes that sole source of reason. Con's arguing that the knowledge that can come from faith can produce evidence in the form of knowledge, and therefore that faith is reasonable. But it really doesn't make faith reasonable. What it does is tell me that faith, as a matter of course, may produce some evidence. But as soon as it does, the faith disappears, replaced by knowledge. The faith is unreasonable in that circumstance because you now know based on the evidence. Pro's case is essentially a definition game: faith and evidence exclude one another. What Con needed to do was present a different framework, one that employed rationalism instead of empiricism. Sans that, I must vote Pro.
Vote Placed by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
kasmicVarrack
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments. TL;DR - By the end of the debate, I have no idea what the "LDS concept of faith" even is. I'm not getting much good offense from either side. Con is very unclear, e.g. fails to explain what "works" is, fails to refute lack of evidence, etc. Kasmic *does* provide a reason to show that "lack of evidence-->unreasonable," but the definition of "faith" must be taken into account. There isn't a very clear definition of "unreasonable" here either, and Pro fails to show that the LDS concept of *faith* is unreasonable. Both have scriptural references on what the LDS concept of faith is, and I can buy neither, which means I merely presume Con and dismiss Pro's argument as no-link, since it doesn't link to *Con's* definition of "faith," which in turn could be compatible with Pro's definition. So there's no definition for me to prefer. I'd have tied the debate, had it not been for BoP. Since Pro has full BoP, and neither side has upheld it, I presume Con. That's why I voted Con.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 2 years ago
RoyLatham
kasmicVarrack
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides agreed to the definition "reasonable." Reasonable means logically derived from evidence. Con says, "so to negate it I need show that there is a purpose to faith to allow it to contain reason." However, if true, that establishes that faith provides a purpose which contains a part which is reasonable. The resolution is not that "purpose" contains "reason." It is that the faith itself is reasonable. Roughly speaking, Con argues that faith is part of a process by which reason might be achieved. By comparison, opium may be part of a process that leads to writing good poetry, but that does not argue that opium is part of good poetry. Faith is cited as an agent, not as being itself reasonable. Con is thus not disputing the resolution. Con references the goal as "spiritual knowledge," wherein spiritual knowledge is not the kind of knowledge that can be derived from evidence. Con grants the resolution. More in comments.
Vote Placed by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
kasmicVarrack
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.