The Instigator
Ajab
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
DSky25
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

This House Believes That A Philosophical Proof of God is Adequate For Rational Belief!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
Ajab
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/2/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,014 times Debate No: 55908
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (3)

 

Ajab

Pro

Greetings!

Let me start by explaining what this motion means, for I feel a great many will be plagued by misunderstanding. The above topic's spirit lies not in my proving that a philosophical proof for God exists, but that it can. Lets bring this into context, in today's society Atheists, often men like Dawkins insinuate that the question whether there is a God is a scientific one, insofar as philosophy is not a science. I will challenge this and prove (I am accepting the Burden of Proof) that philosophical answers are as valid and sound as scientific ones and a non-empirical proof of God can work. I may present some arguments for God's existence as additional examples, but I need not prove them, but show that they can be valid.

The opponent's job is to show that philosophy is not adequate enough to determine whether there is a God, an example may be that it cannot take considerations such as evolution into perspective. Or the opponent may argue that philosophy is not more than speculation and is inherently flawed (a person favorite statement of Hawkings).

The Order of Debate:
1. The first round is either for acceptance only or if the opponent wishes to write an argument they must forfeit their last round and write nothing more than: "forfeiture as agreed". They will not be forfeiting the debate, but that round, so that we may have an equal amount of space.
2. No semantic arguments.
3. Sources from books are allowed however they should be as a back-up or a proof not the argument. All arguments and sub-arguments should be mentioned adequately within the argumentation.
3. Con must provide a counter-argument.
4. Both parties must in the last speech write a conclusion of mnimum 1000 words which should establish their case, lay out the issues and show why they should win. (no rhetoric please).
DSky25

Con

I accept your debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Ajab

Pro

Thank you for accepting, I hope this turns out to be a competitive and fun debate!

Introduction:
"Philosophy misses an advantage enjoyed by the other sciences. It cannot like them rest the existence of its objects on the natural admissions of consioussness, nor can it assume that its method of cognition, either for starting or for contiuing, is one already accepted".[1] I believe this summarizes adequately what Philosophy is, it is a subject which does not rest its success on empirical bases, rather uses theoretical tools, such as logic to reach its conclusion. As we speak about God in this motion let us understand that this motion suggests that a proof of God which is not empirical can, and should work if it is shown to be logically sound. To reiterate I need not show that this or that proof is sound, but rather that a philosophical proof can be sound. I need not show that the subject of Philosophy can reach such a conclusion but that if it did, this conclusion would be rational.
My opponent must show that a proof of God must be empirical insofar as this proof of God should have the ability to be empirically testifiable. He must show that a theoretical proof, unless it can be testified from a purely materialistic view, is incorrect.
[1]The Lesser Logic by Hegel, §1; http://www.marxists.org...

Definitions:
1. Philosophy is the study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience.[2]
2. God is often conceived as the Supreme Being and principal object of faith.[3]
2. Rational here, as agreed in the comments, is that which would be agreed to by a perfectly rational community.
[2]https://www.google.com...
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org... (this definition is taken from the Oxford Dicitionary of Philosophy)

1. Argument from Epistemology:
(1.1) Let us start by understanding that not all knowledge is empirical. For certainly some knowledge is a priori and innate. We understand this by understanding our mind the subject and studying its relation with the object. Most certainly causality through time was not learn by us a posteriori however we do understand Time, as we do Space and Number. Space we understand is not a conception which has been derived from outward experiences. For, in order that certain sensations may relate to something without me (that is to something which occupies a different part of space from that in which I am); in like manner, in order that I may represent not merely as without, of, and near to each other, but also in seperate places, the representation of space must already exist as a foundation. Consequently, the representation of space cannot be aquired from from the relations of external phenomena through experience; rather this said experience is only possible due to this antecedent representation. The understanding of space, that is the very experience of space is only aquired by the foundation of space as a priori. Similarly we come now to Time. Time must be a priori for neither precession nor succession may be understood without the foundation of Time. We could not then represent to ourselves this thing or that thing as we would not understand the relation of causality betwen them. The very concept of existence is bound by Is-ness in Time. And so since one does not learn to acknowlege his own being, but does so, Time must be a priori. Number is surely a prirori for no method can systematically prove this number. If I were to take a number such a 2 then no physical or empirical proof could be provided, therefore it must be that Number is a priori.
(1.2) Now that we have successfully ascertained that there is indeed knowledge that is a priori and is not empirical we will go on to show that there is innate knowledge. We will do so only to follow up to show that God is a viable category in this above category and so the phenomenon of God may be realized solely a priori. It is my aim to show that God can be an object of Philosophy. Firstly we understand that some ideas are indeed innate. While these include the idea of God I will not use that as an example for that will turn this debate into arguing that argument. Rather let us talk about Being (the best word is Dasein) which is explanined by Is-ness. If I am, then I be. This Idea must surely be innate for we know not how to learn to Be. Rather when we percieve our own exitence it is innate, this is informed to us by the fact that when we percieve someone else to be then we do not learn how they are, but that they are. There is no empirical ramification.
(1.3) I must now show that God fits into this category and the proof of God has the ability to be philosophical and not empirical. This is shown by the fact that our cognition is bound by Time, Space and Number and God by definition transcends existence insofar as existence is viewed by Is-ness, for neither life not death apply to God for these phenomenon only origiante due to mans binds to a priori. It is so that a Being similar to God (one that transcends Time and Space) may empirically understand God but not humans. Therefore as there is knowledge free from the senses the proof of God could be philosophical, that is transcend the senses.
[4]The Critique of Pure Reason, Introduction and Transcendental Aesthetic;
http://www2.hn.psu.edu...
[5]http://plato.stanford.edu...
[6]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[7]http://www.britannica.com...
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[9]http://plato.stanford.edu...

2. The Absudity of Logical Positivism:
(2.1) The theory of Logical Positivism (the only alternative) is that only that knowledge that is empirically testable may be established as sound. It states that: "If there's no way to empirically test a statement, then it has no meaning (it makes no assertion that is true nor false".[10] Firstly the absurdity is determined by the fact that this theory is self-refuting. Surely you cannot empirically test the philosophy that only that which is empirically testable is true. Logical Positivism may not be empirically tested and therefore is invalid and unsound. Secondly Logical Positivism hides an ambiguity. When it says testable, testable by whom? For God would be empirically testable by a being such as God.
(2.2) Instead a much more valid theory is that of Pragmatism, which states that: "if the truth or falsity of a statement could make no practical difference to anyone or anybeing, then it has no meaning. If practical differences are given, they specify the meaning". This theory which is perfectly valid, and not self-refuting allows for the idea of God. There we have now shown that there may be a correct belief of God.
[10]Introduction to Logic by Harry J. Gensler, pagination 44-47;
http://f3.tiera.ru...(2ed.,%20Routledge,%202010)(ISBN%200415996511)(O)(431s)_MAml_.pdf
[11]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[12]http://plato.stanford.edu... (especially section 4: Issues)
[13]http://www.britannica.com...
[14]http://www.phy.duke.edu... (A writer at Duke University uses formal logic to disprove LP)
[15]http://real-philosophy.livejournal.com...
[16]http://www.basicincome.com...

3. Philosophy Has Falsifiability:
(3.1) A Major critique of Philosophy is that it does not have falsifiability. This is wrong and Philosophy does indeed have falsifiability. Firstly Philosophy follows the rules of Logic to ensure that it does not go astray. This means that using complex quanitificational and modal logic the arguments can actually be seen to work. They follow a reasonable order where if the premise is true then the conclusion follows.[17][18][19][20]
(3.2) Other than following the rules of logic it follows many conditions. Largely before Kant philosophy was speculative but after Kant analytic philosophy (while narrowing philosophy) made it reach a point where it has many falsifiabilities. This is very simply proven by the fact that philosophical theories are often credited and discredited. If one can argue against the Ontological Proof or there being a priori knowlege then there is falsifiability.
[17] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[18]http://plato.stanford.edu...
[19]https://mally.stanford.edu...
[20] http://rkirsling.github.io...
[21]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[22] http://plato.stanford.edu...
[23]http://www.iep.utm.edu...
[24] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[25]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[26] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[27]http://en.wikipedia.org...
While I agree Philosophy is fairly more theoretical than your average naturawissenschaft it is not more than Cosmology or Stephen Hawkings theories. Philosophy follows a set of rules and therefore can and should be accepted as a science so that if God is proved philosophically, the belief in God is made rational.

4. Mathematics:
(4.1) Mathematics is a purely synthetic a priori subject where a theorem is built on purely theoretically. While the results may be seen the fact is that the simply rule: 1/2 X base X height cannot be empirically proven.

I wish my opponent the best of luck!

Ajab
DSky25

Con

Let me first say that I am not going to counter with theories of philosophy, I am simply going to show that the philosophical constructs of the Pro's argument are a form of intellectual ambiguity. I will then show that the Pro's argument is heavily reliant upon the deductions he/she has made from individual philosophical reasoning that may or may not be reflective of society as a whole. Lastly, I would like to say that philosophy is a difficult study of logic and reasoning and for someone to fully comprehend the implications of philosophical reasoning, one must present it in a way that outside observers can clearly understand. I believe that much of the Pro's philosophical argument would be difficult for the average individual to understand without a solid foundation in Philosophy. It would be equivalent to a physicist attempting to explain the validity of string theory, using mathematical reasoning, to someone who has no formal education in string theory or physics.

**I did not provide references because I have only exercised my personal interpretation of Pro's philosophical approach.

Counter-Arguments

Introduction: Pro has stated that he need not show that a proof is sound but that a proof CAN be sound. The issue with this statement is that yes, of course, a proof CAN be sound on a case by case basis, as it applies to the individual. The validity of philosophical proofs (as they apply to our sought for understanding of the divine) are only as valid as the way in which individuals use them for validation. I will show this further as I address each one of the Pro's points.

Epistemology: The argument Pro presents is made as such: certain elements of our understanding do not require empirical evidence to understand their existence. Yes, this is a truth that I believe to be valid under certain circumstances but does not apply when it comes to using proofs for the existence of God. This is due, in part, to a universal truth in which society is constantly striving for a more complete understanding of the divine, solidifying their belief through due processes that subjectively validate God's existence. Pro has stated that God is as a Priori due to a bridging of very loose correlations to the Priori of Time, Space, and Numbers. This is somewhat ridiculous and I will explain why. God could or could not exist : A Priori exists in the sense that human beings understand its existence whether or not it is logic of the senses. A Priori is only real if we are cognizant of it; Time, Space, and Numbers are all understood through an innate comprehension. Explaining our innate knowledge of these concepts are both scientifically and philosophically complicated, therefore, we define our understanding by giving it a new name (Priori) under a definition that basically states, "We know because We know". Now, since God could or could not exist, it would be impossible to define him with, "We know because We know". It would be more appropriate to say that "We might know if We can show", which would fit nicely as an empirical approach for validating God's existence.

Pro is implying that, as a Priori, God is only that of an understanding in which we do not need to seek validation due to the innate knowledge of God's existence. This is correct for the examples he has given but incorrect when it comes to an innate understanding of God's existence. I will use myself as an example. I may know that I exist within the "IS-ness" because I JUST KNOW that I exist. It is purely a Priori that I do not need to justify since my innate knowledge of my existence suffices. I can seek to justify it, if I so choose, but the notion is also innately arbitrary since I JUST KNOW. Now, comparatively, when I approach the concept of God, I was conditioned through socialization processes that revealed God's possibility for existence, therefore I could not know that God exists within the "IS-ness", or Priori. My knowledge of God is only understood within the parameters of the information I have gathered through religious ideologies, teachers, friends etc. Now, if I cannot know God without these socialization processes, then how could I possibly understand God in the same way I understand that I "just exist"? Therefore, God not only couldn't be a Priori, God is only known through the information gathered from others (hence the socialization processes). Our understanding of God could not be known without this and our ability to understand God is reliant upon the ability to gather enough evidence to fulfill our subjective need for proof. If that proof is philosophical, then so be it, but this does not mean philosophical proof can collectively satisfy the masses.

Logical Positivism: There is an issue with this approach of logical positivism being a self-refuting issue. First, if logical positivism is inherently flawed, then why would it even be mentioned? The theory implodes on itself before even being considered as an alternative, so your second point to refute the self-refuting theory, claiming ambiguity, is actually ambiguous. The theory should not have even been mentioned if that is your reason for trying to shut it down.

Pragmatism: You do not connect the context of your statements made on God as a Priori and this theory. You have simply said that this theory fits and the one prior does not. I am not implying that this theory is invalid, only that I am confused as to where you see the correctness in a view of God. If you could please explain further and help me understand your position on this, then I will be happy to discuss the idea. Otherwise, I am not going to be able to formulate a concise opinion on the matter. I hope that you can help me understand your point of view. Thank you.

Falsifiability: I would not disagree that philosophy can be falsifiable. However, I do not think that the ability to falsify is a direct correlation to its ability to produce a philosophical proof for God. Reason being, philosophers and great thinkers use logic as a means to speculate possibilities, using this logic as a framework for a practical application. This practical application, more or less, limits a philosopher's ability to incorporate other scientific disciplines in their search for reason. On the other end of the spectrum, science uses a great variety of disciplines (including philosophy) in order to establish proofs that satisfy many fields of study. Philosophy tends to stop at philosophy, leaving physical science as a separate entity. If we use Stephen Hawking as an example, Hawking incorporates philosophical approaches into his theories just as every great theoretical physicist has done. Science is often inseparable from philosophy but philosophy is often not intertwined with physical science. To be fair, philosophy can be intertwined with science, yet the study of philosophy is fairly limited in its ability to understand the physical world due to the complex understanding often required by physical sciences.

Mathematics: I believe this might be one of the biggest flaws in your logic. Mathematics could not be a Priori due to the quantification of the material world. The purpose of 1/2 X base X height is not to measure "numbers" , the purpose is to measure "material objects", which would be the empirical data. If it were referring to a measurement of "numbers", then yes, the theory would be empirically invalid due to the fact that "numbers" are merely a quantification of material/spatial objects, which are representations that cannot be measurable. Also, if your argument is simply stating that "numbers" cannot be empirically tested, then this would also be true for "words". "Words" are merely a representation of how we understand the material world and, likewise, numbers are a representation of how we quantify the material world.
Debate Round No. 2
Ajab

Pro

My opponent baffles me, after stressing so largely that my arguments are individualistic and therefore incorrect, and that the argument should be collectivistic (here he ignores the fact that I give sources of where the majority of philosophers agree) he goes on to provide refutations by exercising his own personal intepretation. That aside to the other remark I can only point out that it should have been quite clear that this would be a philosophical debate. It was after all in the philosophy section and the resolution itself is philosophical. As much as I tried to make academic philosophy easier, it still remains academic philosophy.

Before beginning my counter-refutations I would like to point out that I made it very clear that I would not be giving a proof for God's existence. The resoultion is: "that a philosophical proof of God is adequate for rational belief". I made it very clear that I would argue that a proof nonreliant of empiricality can be valid. This I believe I have done successfully.

Also I believe I made it clear in the rules (rule 4) that a counter argument must be given. That means not rebutals but a counter argument, this rule is there so that my opponent gets to do the same amount of work I did. Since he made no counter-argument my argument will be rather shorter.

1.Issues:
(1.1) A constant problem my opponent has with me is that the proof that would follow from my logic is individualistic. I really do not get how this is a problem for a perfectly rational person will come up with the same conclusion as a perfectly rational community. Regardeless of that my arguments are not individualistic, my opponent fails to show how they are individualistic, and if they are so, how is that a problem. He leaves me quite confused in this regard. Also he makes a principle concession when he states: "The issue with this statement is that yes, of course, a proof CAN be sound on a case by case basis, as it applies to the individual. The validity of philosophical proofs (as they apply to our sought for understanding of the divine) are only as valid as the way in which individuals use them for validation." Seeing how he did not show how my arguments are based on a certain perspective, and agrees that my argument applies, I should win.
(1.2) I mentioned Logical Positivism because that is the theory that in essence says that a theory can only be taken valid if it is empirically proven. And my second objection was based on "even-if".
(1.3) My opponent makes a concession when he states that philosophy has falsification, so that if Philosophy has falsification then a rational philosophical theory should be accepted.
(1.4) It would have been so much easier if he had criticized certain points, e.g (1.1) has this.... Or had he left his argument in points.

2. Epistemology:
(2.1) It took me at the very least 3 tries before my opponents argument started making sense. Firstly he agrees that knowlege can exist a priori, but then he asserts that this is complicated. He also states that my relations of a priori to be Time, Space and Number are vague without criticizing a single proof of these a priori. Now I think my opponent has mistakenly thought that I believe God is a priori, while I believe the idea of God is innate I will not debate on that. I will clarify this, that philosophical proofs are synthetic a priori proofs as explained by Kant. I am not here to give a philosophy lesson, however I need to show that the proof of God would fall into this synthetic a priori category. I do that by showing that since synthetic a priori proofs study those phenomenon that are transcendent of empirical enses, and God by definition transcends space, time and number (for otherwise He would not be God), God can be studies synthetically a priori. Which means that a if there is a philosophically valid proof of God, it would be as valid as the belief in gravity. Remember in my rules I made clear that I will not prove God but show that a non-empirical belief of God can be rational, so that the duty of Con was to show that the belief in God must be empirical. Here is something on synthetic a priori. (I have not explained it because I do not need to, if you enter a debate on Physics you are expected to know what quarks are, synthetic a priori is the single most major event in Philosophy equivalent to Einsteins Relativity theorems)
[1]http://homepages.wmich.edu...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://plato.stanford.edu...
(2.2) My opponent makes a positive claim where he states that he was introduced to God through socializaion. According to the law: "Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat", he must prove this. He has provided no psychological evidence for this, nor any journal and asks us to take this at face value. The simplest refutation would be where did the first person learn the belief in God? In any case one will find below sources which support that humans naturally want to believe in God and that when we are born we have an idea of a grand creator already. That is why in fact that so many people believe in God.
(2.3)The rest of the argument does not make sense. The entire refutation however focused more on the fact that God is not a priori rather than that God cannot be a priori. I will also list numerous sources which argue that God is a priori simply because my opponent raised this issue.
[4]http://religion.blogs.cnn.com... (by CNN)
[5]http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
[6]http://online.wsj.com...
[7]http://www.theblaze.com...
[8]http://www.ccel.org...
[9]http://www.philosopher.org.uk...
[10]http://plato.stanford.edu...
[11]http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_ontological_proof
[12]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[13]http://en.wikipedia.org...

3. Logical Positivism:
(3.1) I really do not know what to critique here, since my opponent did not provide a defence of logical positivism the very theory that states that a philosophical proof of God cannot be valid. Ayer (the father of positivism) argued that even if a perfect philosophical proof was provided it would not rationalise God for God is a phenomenon to be stuidied by science and must be empirically shown (as argued Jon Locke). As I showed that Positivism is self-contradictory I believe no rebutal was provided. Even if the theory was sound why must only a human's empiricalness matter? For a Being the same as God could percieve God (if God existed). Why must science of truth be restricted to human senses?

4. Pragmatism:
(4.1) The theory of Pragmatism states that if something can make a difference to someone then it is not meaningless. Which means that even if Gods existence cannot be empirically proven God is not a meaningless phenomenon. If the Idea of God positevely or negatively effects someone then the Idea of God is not meaningless and may be considered. This means that as long as God makes a practical difference to someone (as theough morality) then the question whether God exists is not meaningless and has a conclusion. This conclusion will of course be philosophical and according to my proposition if this conclusion is in the positive then it an equally valid and rational conclusion as say dark matter.

5. Falsifiability:
(5.1) I think I gave ten sites which list the possible falsification tests in Philosophy, the primary behind all them is Logic. Logic provides the falsitification in Philosophy as Mathematics does in Physics. Especially after Kant and Hegel philosophy was no longer speculative, rather deductive. For exmple the method that Hegel use is that of dialectic logic: Instead of reaching and speculating about an Idea he takes an idea already ascertained lets us say: There is an Uncle (thesis), It logically follows there is a niece (anti-thesis), which means there must be a sibling of an Uncle (synthesis). Then take the sibling as a thesis, take a husband an anti-thesis and so on and so forth ad infinitum one will reach the Absolute Idea. Another falsification is through Modal Logic such as:
s://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com...; alt="" />

This ensures (as strictly as Mathematics) that the propositions are correct and that Philosophy is not speculative rather analytics. My earlier sources give more info, I cannot of course give a lesson in Logic now. The very simply proof that there is falsification in philosophy is that some principles can be argued upon. If I were to say An apple is an apple that might not have any falsification but if I say this apple is from a tree then there may be falsification. As in philosophy we could use dialectic logic to reach the conclusion of a tree.

5. Mathematics:
(5.1) Mathematics is synthetic a priori, for take the number 4 it exists solely in your mind. If I take a hypothetical equation 3x^2+3x+4 and solve for x this is purely arbitrary. Also that is the entire reason that the Principia failed, that there are some axioms in Mathematics which cannot be tested. Hence Godel's Incompleteness Theorems.
s://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com...; alt="" />
[14]http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_incompleteness_theorems
[15]http://kilby.stanford.edu...
[16]http://plato.stanford.edu...
[17]http://www.miskatonic.org...
[18]http://plato.stanford.edu...

Please post a counter-argument, and good luck!

Ajab
DSky25

Con

I do apologize for not adhering to the format you have set forth, I was in a time crunch when I put my argument together. Unfortunately, I am going to have to forfeit this debate. I am fairly new to this website and when I accepted this debate, I didn't realize I only had 24 hours to respond. I've tried to make it work with my schedule but I have had a hard time balancing everything. I should have thought about the time constraints prior to accepting this debate, so I do apologize. Hopefully we can have a debate in the future where I do not waste your time. You are a great debater and you've got a great future ahead. I really appreciate your time and congratulations on the win!
Debate Round No. 3
Ajab

Pro

The Eleventh Commandment:
"Thou shant vote on this debate".

This debate has been agreed to as a tie, so do not vote on it!
This debate will happen again (hopefully) and then please do vote on it!

My friend/opponent/smelly man will be away for a while and I have a DDO Tier Tournament coming up so....why am I expaling all this, its a tie!

El fini,

Ajab
DSky25

Con

DSky25 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Ajab

Pro

How much wood, would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
o.O
DSky25

Con

DSky25 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
Okay, buddy, what is your problem? You obviously have a huge f*cking problem with me, even before you left me your ignorant vote. I don't want to make any more enemies on here, so I'm asking you nicely to null your vote on my debate, and I'll null mine. Could you please do this?
Posted by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
If you still cannot manage we can call this a tie, and re-do it later on. :)
Posted by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
Here is what I will do, I will forfeit, so that you will have another 24 hours to write your argument. Then we can continue on with this debate. Sorry that I kept it 24 but most of my debates are like that because 80 percent of the voters reply in around 12 hours so I thought 24 should be more than enough.
Posted by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
Lol Envisage :P
Posted by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
Holy mother of references!!!
Posted by DSky25 2 years ago
DSky25
I never said that my argument is going to be based on semantics. I am just saying that they are a necessary evil in certain circumstances. Don't worry.
Posted by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
Semantic arguments are equivalent to cheating and it is very clearly expressed in the rules.
Posted by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
I will not allow semantic arguments, yes there may be some semantic use, however an entire argument based on semantics will not be entertained.
Posted by DSky25 2 years ago
DSky25
Ok, I will try to refrain from using semantics but sometimes it is necessary in philosophy.
Posted by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
Collectivistic insofar as that the society as a whole, if perfectly rational, would accept this.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
AjabDSky25Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro constructed a very strong case, Con fell a little short, though I agree with Con's statement of the use of philosophy/theology is often used as an apologetic obfuscation, and Pro did do a little of this, but over all had a slight edge over Con. Though it is rational to believe in a God or Gods if a person has no knowledge of the scientific evidence against such a belief, as it is part of the human condition to believe in supernatural things and to wonder how we got here with simplistic answers, that belief in God provides. For somebody trained in psychology and neurology, belief in God is no longer Rational. That's the difference.
Vote Placed by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
AjabDSky25Tied
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: Null, as requested by Ajab
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
AjabDSky25Tied
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: Nulled, as requested by my conscience.