The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
n7
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

only belief is false

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
n7
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/11/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 749 times Debate No: 77545
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)

 

vi_spex

Pro

if everything is just belief, why does the bible require you to believe in it? while if imagination is real, then surely i dont even have to believe santa clause is walking around and living on the north pole all year, because he is.. while at the same time not, because i can imagine that to, perhaps he is having coconut drinks under the palm trees at a beach on Hawaii all year.
n7

Con

Only: No one or nothing more besides; solely or exclusively.
Belief: An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
False: Not according with truth or fact; incorrect.

I contend that you cannot argue for the resolution without running into contradictions

If belief is false, then you would have to accept the proposition that belief is false. Which is the same as saying you believe that belief is false. This is a contradiction, since you'd have to believe that your belief in the resolution is false.

Furthermore, there can be propositions that are false, yet are not believed. For example, if all life in the universe died out, no one would be around to believe anything. Yet propositions would still be false even though there is no belief in the propositions. Like the proposition "There exists life in the universe."

Pro gives no reason why I have to accept that everything is just belief or that imagination has bearing on external reality.

I have given two arguments against the resolution, whereas my opponent has yet to fulfill his BOP.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

there are only 2 other options then belief, know or knowledge

belief=be lie, as i dont know is true

acceptance of reality is not belief, but i can deny reality
n7

Con

there are only 2 other options then belief, know or knowledge

These aren't mutually exclusive. Your belief can be acceptance of knowledge. Pro's statement here is a baseless assertion.

belief=be lie, as i dont know is true

I already defined belief. "Be lie" isn't proper syntax anyway, it doesn't tell us anything. Pro hasn't shown how it relates to "I dont know is true". Furthermore, "I don't know" is a statement about something. Without context of that something "I don't know" doesn't tell us anything.

acceptance of reality is not belief, but i can deny reality

To accept something about reality is to believe something about it. Denying reality would still be accepting something about reality (it's non-existence).

I extend arguments
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

knowledge is truth not false, belief is false, imaginary

if i dont know is true, then belief is false

i dont know=i have to imagine it=i can at best imagine it

false=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now

only know is true

belief is imaginary, not real
n7

Con

Pro hasn't responded to my arguments. I extend them a second time.

knowledge is truth not false, belief is false, imaginary

Do you believe that?

if i dont know is true, then belief is false

Not knowing what? How does not knowing something relate to belief being false? If you don't know something, then it follows that you don't accept it as true (don't believe it). This says nothing about the truthfulness of the belief.

i dont know=i have to imagine it=i can at best imagine it

Not necessarily. You can not have knowledge of meaningless entities, but they cannot be imagined.

false=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now

This is logical positivism. I ask Pro to show that this definition is within his physical experience.

only know is true

I will also ask if you believe this. Furthermore, your belief can be about knowledge. If that knowledge is true, then so would your belief.
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

i have no beliefs, i know my experience of now

if i dont know is true, then imagining it to believe it is not true

im talking about the i dont know position, maybe position

any false answer is imaginary

my personal physical experience of now is everything, and anywhere beyond that is the reflection of nothing

belief=imaginary(false)
kNow=physical experience(logik)
knowledge=memory(machine)
n7

Con

Yet again Pro has ignored my arguments that the resolution is self-refuting and that beliefs aren't the only things that can be false. A majority of Pro's arguments (if they can be called that) are irrelevant to claiming all beliefs are false. He has yet to present any argument in favor of the resolution.

i have no beliefs, i know my experience of now

If you have no beliefs, then you don't even believe your statement. You cannot accept the very proposition that you accept nothing. Furthermore, to state you know your experience of now is to claim you accept your experiences are true. This is the same thing as claiming you believe your experiences are true.

if i dont know is true, then imagining it to believe it is not true im talking about the i dont know position, maybe position

"I don't know" isn't a proposition in and of itself. You have ignored this.

any false answer is imaginary

As I said before, something meaningless cannot be a true, but it also cannot be imagined.

my personal physical experience of now is everything, and anywhere beyond that is the reflection of nothing

This is a restatement of your definition of false. Which is a positivist definition that I asked you to defend. You have not shown this position to be within physical experience.


knowledge=memory(machine)

Memory and knowledge are two different things. For example, I cannot have a memory of the future, but I know that in the future I will either eat a sandwich or not. Both cannot be true, so I know one of those two propositions will be true even though I don't have memory of such a thing. Also, memories cannot count as knowledge, as they can be come corrupt. [1]




[1] http://www.livescience.com...
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

i am certain i have no beliefs

religion is a position on an imaginary claim, accepting a true claim is not belief

agnostic is the i dont know position, the maybe, not yes and no

know=something=meaning

how do you know if a coffe cup is to hot to grab?

future is false

knowledge=memory=truth

truth can only be in the past

memory is unchanging, flawless, not false, logical, never illogical
n7

Con

i am certain i have no beliefs

Like I said before, knowledge and belief aren't mutually exclusive. If you're certain you have no beliefs, then you are accepting that you have no beliefs. This is the same as saying you believe you have no beliefs. I have been saying this since the start of the debate and Pro has continued to drop it.

religion is a position on an imaginary claim, accepting a true claim is not belief agnostic is the i dont know position, the maybe, not yes and no

Religion and agnosticism are irrelevant to the resolution. Thus, it cannot be said to give meaning to Pro's "I don't know" proposition.

know=something=meaning

Pro last time claimed "know=physical experience(logik)", now he's saying it's just something. I think Pro is attempting to respond to my claim that a meaningless proposition is false. However, I never said we can have knowledge of meaningless entities, I said we can know they are false (since they don't propose anything).

future is false

This is a bare assertion, it doesn't refute my example.

knowledge=memory=truth truth can only be in the past memory is unchanging, flawless, not false, logical, never illogical

Can only be in the past? This doesn't seem correct, as it seems we can also have knowledge about the present. Claiming memory is unchanging and flawless is a bare assertion, as I've shown that claim to be false.


Conclusion

I gave two arguments against the resolution. One being that to affirm the resolution is self-contradictory and the other being that beliefs aren't the only things that can be false. Pro hasn't given any argument for the resolution and never addresses my argument.

Pro drops most of his arguments too. He never responded to my refutations, like:
  • Belief and knowledge aren't mutually exclusive
  • "Be lie" isn't a proper definition of "belief".
  • The definition of "false" being a positivist one.
  • How not knowing relates to belief being false.

With that, let the voting begin.

Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
if i say jump, how do you accept that? imagine it?
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
you are a troll m8.. wauw

acceptance is not belief..
Posted by n7 2 years ago
n7
You're a troll, right?
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
how does the bible define them??
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
my personal physical experience of now is everything, and anywhere beyond that is the reflection of nothing
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
love=belief

imagination=false=opposite of reality
Posted by Alpha3141 2 years ago
Alpha3141
vi_spex, you completely misunderstand the definition of belief that is used in the Bible and what the word "belief" actually means. You also confuse what "imagination" means.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
coconut drink?
Posted by ChickenBakuba 2 years ago
ChickenBakuba
Sounds very vi_spex

Hey vi_spex, I didn't know you knew slang
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
belief is imaginary btw
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
vi_spexn7Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments. The arguments point is a clear Con win. The resolution is a fact-claim, and, as such, Pro has the BoP, which Pro fails to fulfill. Con has to contentions against the resolution: One being that to affirm the resolution is self-contradictory and the other being that beliefs aren't the only things that can be false. Pro *drops* both contentions, thus conceding all impacts by omission. Con notes that "false," can only be coherently defined as a positivist definition, which Pro drops. Pro also drops all Con's counter-arguments, and *frequently* fails to establish links to the resolution, e.g. fails to show the link between the Bible and the resolution (see R1), and the Santa Claus analogy is insufficiently explained. S&G. Pro fails to punctuate, and frequently replaces the verb "is" with an "=" sign, which seriously affects Pro's arguments. The poor punctuation and symbolic usage makes Pro's arguments incoherent. Ergo, I vote Con.