belief=be lie, as i dont know is true
Debate Rounds (5)
if i should trust science, why shouldnt i trust the bible to then?
Belief is to accept that something exists or is true, not necessarily on the basis of evidence. For example, Christians will believe in God for different reasons, some for the fact that it explicitly states in the Bible that God exists, and some believe purely because they would like God to exist.
If this debate is real then you have to trust science as it is correct, science is correct if science exists, it is a fact we live in this Universe, science exists within this Universe, therefore science exists. Everything could be fake, this could be our imaginations, however THIS argument is taking place within this universe, fake or not. The only logical option is that everything does exist.
Science is backed up with evidence, Science can be tested at any point, you could carry the tests out yourself. Science can not be altered, none of science is based on belief. The Bible however, may have been altered at any point in history. I find it extremely likely that the Bible was altered during the middle ages to keep control of the peasants under the feudal system, this is why certain sections are so careful to point out that we were put in our place by God. It is up to you whether or not to trust the Bible, it requires belief as there is not enough hard evidence to prove the contents factual.
People choose to believe something for different reasons, some logical, some not. If you want my opinion, you should not 100% trust the Bible as it has been open to edits for over two millennia, people lie, people make up stories.
belief is to accept an imaginary idea as true, not something, i dont have to believe that i am reading these Words on the screen, but i can deny it
its a fact that i just took a hard drug, im just lying about taking a drug
unless you define universe as personal physical experience of now, how do you know a universe is true?
there is no true or honest point to make beyond personal experience
imagination is false
i can at best believe what others tell me, unless i dont have to imagine it
You say you know you are reading this, but are you? For example, you claim that if someone was reading this to you they could be lying, however you also argue that, because it is you reading this, you know that you are reading the real text. If the hypothetical "matrix" wanted you to live in a lie, why could it not have fabricated your sights?
How can it be a fact you took a drug when you are lying about taking a drug?
Take drug = !!Take drug
You are saying that
Take dug = !Take drug
Which is incorrect as ! inverts the statement. This is like saying:
1 = !1
If the above was true nothing would happen, if false was true then no Universe would have existed.
I know the Universe is true based on the assumption that I am true. We can never know what consciousness is, about how our feeling of "here" and "now" is created or even describe it. Based on the assumption that I am true, I can confidently say that the Universe is true, based on my observations.
True, you have to believe what others are telling you, though you only have to believe that what they are telling you is correct. You check what you have been told against other sources.
unknown is false by default,
believing that my sights was fabricated by the matrix is false
the problem with that stuff is, there are possibilities i havnt even thought of, so there is an unknown part, there has to be, and that part is simply not known, what is your neighbour doing right now? but to go further, if you ask me, is there a poison that exist that can poison you such that you wouldnt know you were asleep on the floor dreaming/hallucinating, becasue i would have to know all the poisons that exist in the universe to know there isnt a poison like that, BUT belief isnt true, and possibilities are imaginary
am i lying about taking the drug?
how do you assume anything to be true if you are not true? is life true?
i dont have beliefs
Lavaguava forfeited this round.
My apologies, I was absent.
Belief is not necessarily false, it may be found to be true. For example the idea of a Heaven, there is absolutely no way, by scientific means or other, that we may find out whether Heaven exists while we live. However once we die, if it turns out there is a Heaven, we will have a lot of very cocky people running around the place, shouting "I told you so".
You are correct, we can not know exactly what will happen in the future, but as with belief, what we predict, might be true. You can believe whatever you like about the poisons, and that there is "something" creating a web of lies, but you believe this, you yourself argue that beliefs are not necessarily true, and to find whether your belief is correct we must wait until the future. Furthermore you argue that we can not know the future, therefore you have argued against yourself that what you have said is false.
What exactly do you mean, "Am I lying about taking the drug?"? Are you using it as an example, showing that we can not know everything? I have no idea whether you have taken the drug or not. I have never been given the information.
We have to assume life is true. We can never know whether it is true or not, this argument is taking place within life, so if life is not real, you are correct, but you also do not exist, if I am correct, we both exist and I have won. So you see, the only logical option in this dichotomy of thought, is mine.
when you find it to be true is when its not a belief
predictions are unknown
i have no beliefs
future is unknown, kNow=now
if i am lying about taking the drug, is it then a fact?
ok i did take the drug, and wait, but wait, did i take it?
how do you assume anything if life isnt true?
do you have a default assumption that life is false therfore you have to assume its true?
Correct, once a belief is found to be true it is a fact.
Also correct, predictions are unknown, they are merely a best guess.
Yes, the future is largely unknown, however if we were able to build a complete simulation of the universe, or even a small subsystem, we could provide predictions with given certainty, this certainty can never be 100% as quantum effects are completely unpredictable.
OK Neo, take the red pill have it your way. Once again, for you to not to have taken the pill despite the fact that you believe you have taken the pill would involve a web of lies. Your experiences must have been fabricated along with the minor effects that the pill, i.e. whether you taken it or not, will have on the Universe. Your symptoms will have to be simulated, the pill has to go somewhere, and even small considerations such as gravitational effects come into play.
We must assume that life is true, there is nothing to suggest it is, there is nothing on the contrary. Only that we are having this argument, which is to suggest that life does exist. I do not assume anything in this, all of my arguments are based on logical conclusions.
There is little more to be said, this is why arguments on the fundamental nature f reality can never go anywhere. If reality, life, is fake, then the "thing", be it God, aliens, simulators, will always stop us from knowing the truth. If reality is real, there will be no evidence to suggest so, there will be no underlying matrix, what you see on the surface is what you get, there is no proverbial pond of existence, with depths, merely a sliver of surface, a surface that we may observe, never truly knowing is there is a pond. So:
IF: Reality = True THEN: No evidence
IF: Reality = False THEN: Evidence is hidden
I believe that this concludes the debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.