The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

The Root of Faith Cannot be Faith.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
XDM has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/14/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 712 times Debate No: 96995
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (21)
Votes (0)




The Root of faith cannot be faith itself and the purpose of this debate is to have someone either give me an incontrovertible reason to have faith in one faith over another faith or accept that their argument is circular and they have no real reason to choose one religion over another other than worldly influences which are without any real consequence i.e. "my parents taught me this" or "my society is largely Christian/Muslim ect".

-Ad hominems will be taken as a forfeit. Let's be civil
-First round is acceptance only.
-Second round will be only opening arguments.
-Third round rebuttals and fourth round closing arguments.
-As the main point of this debate is to support a faith without the faith itself, you may not quote the Bible or similar religious texts or church dogma and the like. This is because the texts can only be considered valid if you already have faith in them, therefor the faith cannot stem from the texts.
-Apologetic quotes or philosophical arguments or your own original ideas are all welcome.
-I am not anti-religion or hostile to any faith, do not treat me as such. Assume I am at least decently informed in the Christian teachings/apologetics


I accept the debate, so long as it is understood that my object, as provided in the comments, is not to prove a particular faith is correct beyond all doubt, but simply to provide a reason to have faith in a God in the first place.
I look forward to your opening statement.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you Con for accepting this debate. It was my original intention to clarify the parameters and objectives of the debate in my opening argument but since that was already done in the comments I am simply going to reiterate what was said there and continue with my opening statement.

"The goal of my opponent would be to provide an irrefutable reason for that first bit of faith that leads to faith in the bible and the church ext... my goal will be to refute any reason and attempt to force the conclusion that there is no good reason to have faith in Yahweh or any other deity"

This is the simple way of stating the objectives each respective party should strive to achieve. If you look at the words used, namely "reason " faith " leads " faith " bible/church ext"" it is clear that the objective of my opponent is to provide a reason which necessarily leads to faith in the teachings of a religion and its respective god. The very first statement in my first round of debate read "reason to have faith in one faith over another faith" making it is a clear part of the general objective of my opponent to provide a reason not for the general necessity of a god, but for any one specific god or pantheon which would demand "faith over another faith".

That being clarified, we can move on to my opening argument.

The definition of faith by Merriam Webster is "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" specifically "belief and trust in and loyalty to God : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion"

My contention based on this definition and historical record is that there is no empirical evidence proving any faith and only scattered evidence supporting a handful of mutually exclusive faiths which is ultimately inconclusive. The only "reason" therefor that logically supports one religion over another must be an abstracted, logical argument which ends in the logical necessity for one particular god over the rest, whichever god(s) may be. It is my opponents job to provide one or many of these arguments in this second round and for me to attempt to refute them in the third. After that he will continue to defend them or concede some of them and the fourth round will consist of closing statements directed at the voters.

I look forward to your arguments.


I elect not to debate on the clarifications presented in your opening statement, but upon the original objective as I understood it, which is contained in my acceptance. If this results in my forfeiting of the debate, so be it.

In order to answer the question about the reasonableness of faith in general, I must first explain my beliefs. If you"ll bear with me, the end of this speech contains my answer to the debate challenge.

God existed for eternity. He has always been here, and always will be, and he created everything that is here. He is the beginning. He created mankind to serve him, but they rebelled against him, preferring to live life their own way. This is sin, and for that, as God had decreed, they deserved death. But God allowed for the death of an innocent animal to pay for their sins, putting in place the practice of redemption. As mankind continued to rebel, however, a more permanent solution was needed.
Romans 3:23: "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"

That solution came in the person of Jesus Christ. God and man, both at once, he lived a sinless, perfect life, and was crucified by men because they rejected his teachings and what he would bring. He did not stay dead, however; he was resurrected just days later, and after appearing to many, returned to heaven. But the story does not end there. That was just the beginning.
John 3:17: "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."

The death paid the penalty for our sin, and released us from its power, atoning for it and allowing us to again be in communion with God Almighty. And when we die, we enter heaven and reside with him forever.
Colossians 1:13-14: "Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:"

The Resurrection gave men new life through Christ. And at the end of time, the Resurrection is what allows us to have eternal life. Jesus came to give hope; to give us a chance to have life.
Galatians 2:20: "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."
John 10:10: "I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly."

How does one enter into this abundant life?
Romans 10:9: "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

It requires faith. Not an intellectual decision based upon the evidence, but faith; and here is why I cannot debate on the grounds you have placed.

The root of faith must be faith. Otherwise it would not be faith. What perhaps is not clearly communicated is that faith is all we have. If we had proof that any of the current beliefs were right, there would not be faith any more. There would be truth and there would be denial of that truth, but there would be no faith. Evolution has been proven no more than has Intelligent design. Atheism is no less faith-based than Christianity. At the end of the day, despite what some might wish, it all comes down to choice. And whatever you choose, you start with faith.

This is why faith is reasonable; it is necessary! There is nothing that is studied that does not begin with faith in that which cannot be studied. In Science, there is no proof; every theory is based upon faith. Evidence can be used to support, but the theory itself is taken on faith. Even in mathematics, certain premises, called Axioms, must be believed by faith, or the work is fruitless! What we cannot prove, we must take on faith; and there is much that cannot be proven. Faith is, as the writer of Hebrews put it, "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Joshua1 1 year ago
For me it says the system has not yet updated the debate. We should contact the administration.
Posted by XDM 1 year ago
It says its my turn to debate but I don't have the option of writing a response.
Posted by XDM 1 year ago
Seems like... oh well ill just close in round 4 I guess
Posted by Joshua1 1 year ago
I posted with not much time left. It may have been a glitch in the system. I'm sorry that it went this way.
Posted by XDM 1 year ago
tf?? when i last checked this debate it said that my opponent had forfeited the round but i couldn't add an arguemnt.... now i check and my time is up??? I never had time!
Posted by Bopjazz 1 year ago
If you take all the different definitions of faith from all the different dictionaries plus the bibles definition "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1, KJV). And the word "belief" which means the same thing simply means that you don't know. When some one has faith in something that means they don't know for sure. It's a conviction that something is true.It's an opinion or trusting in something. A hope or a maybe. Instead of saying "I have faith" you should just come out and say "I don't know" Religion is BASED on faith. A clergyman standing on a pulpit preaching to you about religion has no idea wether what he's saying is true or not because what he's saying is based on faith and belief which is the unknown. Now if that preacher actually wants to come out and say that he KNOWS what he's saying is true then it would no longer be a faith or a belief it would be a knowingness. I haven't found any clergyman yet that wants to give up the word faith as it applies to his religion and say that he actually knows for sure but if I do I will set him up an appointment with a lie detector test Why would anyone make any important decisions in their lives based on something they don't know like faith ? It's illogical and leaning towards insanity.
Posted by XDM 1 year ago
AlphaTexan My only shackle was to not use a circular argument which is an underlying shackle on all debate. And I already have a debate partner who is equally interested in defining the terms used in what look like a reasonable debate. Semantics is hugely important as ambiguity yields nothing of value.

I do not believe the answer is simply "because". I also disagree with your "basic question" but that is largely besides the point and off topic. We are here to discuss the logical origins of faith or conclude that there are none.
Posted by AlphaTexan 1 year ago
Okay. It is clear to me you are not interested in having a debate at all. You wish to "figure out why someone would have faith [in a god] in the first place". The answer is "because".

Because the basic question underlying the majority of the wonder in this world is "Why am I here?" The non-believer will say "Because". The faithless will say "Because". The atheist scientist will say "Because there is this process called evolution and this is how it works." And all that is still a non-answer. To the faithless, this question "Why am I here?" is largely rhetorical. To those who are still searching for the answer in something other than jargon, equations, and theory the answer to "Why am I here?" comes from within. Fundamentally, therefore, the truth cannot be empirically determined. It cannot be weighed, dissected, accelerated, formulated, or titrated. It can only be sought and considered at a depth of understanding unique to each seeker.

This is why I say your debate will fail. You are not interested in discussion. You are only interested in definition. A true debate would not place shackles on the con.

Good luck on finding a debate partner.
Posted by XDM 1 year ago
To modify your two-part argument:

1.Faith in any specific supernatural deity is warranted. In this case I assume you will be arguing for your god as the "specific deity"
2.You pretty much nailed it

The main tools to achieve this will be as you said, logical arguments/historical evidence.

I will then attempt to find fallacy in your logical argumentation or attempt to show that the historical evidence you provide is false or otherwise inconclusive in respect to the 2 main goals listed above.
Posted by Joshua1 1 year ago
In other words, I have a two-part argument:

1. Faith in something supernatural (God) is warranted.
2. Faith in my belief system is more warranted than any other religion it can be compared to.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.