The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Fundamental-freewill
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

plus is cause and minus is effect

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/1/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 578 times Debate No: 66152
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (0)

 

vi_spex

Pro

you can not give an apple, without having an apple less

minus is the effect of a cause

plus can not exist without minus, therefore god is impossible

the balancing point between plus and minus equals, so equal is logic
Fundamental-freewill

Con

Absolute certain knowledge is only possible with the existence biblical God. There is a classical question. How do I know I exist? A famous philosopher said 'I think therefore I am'. My opponent my agree that to question existence presupposes existence. How do we know this is correct reasoning. Anything objection made I could counter by asking "how do you know this is correct reasoning." The only way to know one's reasoning is correct is to know everything about logic and philosophy. Attaining perfect knowledge about logic and philosophy is impossible unless you are God who knows everything. I can know that I am reasoning correctly because the God who knows everything pre-programmed all human beings with the basic knowledge of reasoning. Without God nobody can know they exist because unless they presuppose the bible God they can't know if there are reasoning correctly.

Science is not possible without the God of the bible. When any scientist makes an observation in nature he or she assumes the uniformity of nature or that past observations in nature are going to be the same as observations in the future. For example, If scientific discover 211.9F degrees why or how could they ever expect water to boil at 211.9F degrees tomorrow or the next day or a thousand years from now. Some might say of course we can expect future experiments to be consistent with past experiments because they always have been consistent before. As we can see this is begging the question. It is impossible to base an assumption that nature behaviors in a predictable way without also assuming that a God of the universe organizes the universe in a way that is always consistent.

objective Morality is impossible without the God of the bible. Some may argue that the biblical God does some evil acts like sending people to hell or destroying civilizations, but by what standard could anyone call anything morally right or wrong without God. One could assert that Majority opinion makes up objective morality, but this is not really objective if it depends on majority opinion. The majority of people in Nazi Germany believed it was moral to murder mass amounts of Jews but it was never up to them to decade. God is the standard of objective morality not Man.

I ague not the existence of God but that everyone already knows the existence of God. The problem is not about belief or unbelief but of acceptance or rejection. My opponent absolutely believes in the God of the bible because without it he can't know anything to be true since he would have to know everything to know he can't be wrong about anything and know somethings for certain.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

i know its correct reasoning to keep my eyes open if i want to read this as i cant read it on my screen with my eyes closed

cause+effect=logic(cause and effect is logic)

know is everything, i know my experience of now, only today now 1 second looping is true, while 1 second ahead of now remains 1 second ahead of now, imaginary

like this, 1.... 2.... 3.... but 1.... 1.... 1.... or now... now... now...

i know if you cant read these words on your screen if you close your eyes, then it is reasonable to keep them open if you want to read these words

reason+intent=morality
logic+experience=reason(the concept of logic)

you don't feed your child battery acid if you want it to be healthy for a reason, because you know logic

to put my argument about plus and minus more simple, any cause is caused by another cause, therefore a first cause is impossible,
or a cause that didn't cause anything isn't a cause, therefore a first cause would be caused by a cause that is not a cause
Fundamental-freewill

Con

Your whole counter argument is begging the question. I ask you how do you know your reasoning is correct and you responded by saying that I reasoned that my reasoning is correct. This is very circular. For example you said: "you don't feed your child battery acid if you want it to be healthy for a reason, because you know logic." This is assuming the conclusion of an argument. You are in sense saying that "my reasoning is correct watch me reason." Anyone can reason I don't question that you can reason. What I question is how do you know you reason correctly.
. I questioned how do you know Logic without God. I can know that I am reasoning correctly in my world view because I know The the all knowing God of the bible pre- programmed me with my reasoning skills. I am asking you how do you know you are reasoning correctly with your non-God world view.
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

so your saying its reasonable for you to close your eyes to keep reading these words?

i know logic, therefore i know i am reasonable

logic is the measurement of reasonable

so feed your child battery acid and try to honestly state this is reasonable
Fundamental-freewill

Con

How do you know that you are reasoning correctly right now ?
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

know=physical experience of now

i have to have my eyes open to read these words on the screen, therefore i am reasonable in doing so
Fundamental-freewill

Con

I am not asking you if you are reasoning. I did NOT ask you "How do you know you are reasoning." I asked you how do you know you are reasoning correctly. People reason fallaciously all the time. For example, an example of a logically fallacious argument is a "Ad hominem attack." An Hominem is attack is a logical fallacy where the debtor attacks the character of his opponent and not the opponent's argument and acts as if the character of a debtor as any bearing on a argument. For example, lets say Robert makes a good argument against to investing more money in public schools. His argument is that investing money in public schools will decrease crime rates. Lets say his opponent is Kevin and his counter argument is this: "Robert ran a red light this morning so he is a jerk so you should not believe his argument for investing money in public schools." As you can see Kevin did reasoned but his reason was false and incorrect and fallacious. How do you know like Kevin you are reasoning falsely, incorrectly, and fallaciously. I don't doubt that you do reason as I said before and I will say it again. How do you know you are reasoning correctly not just reasoning but reasoning correctly.
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

i am reasoning correctly because i cant see these words with my eyes closed, so i keep them open which is reasonable for me to do as i want to read these words
Fundamental-freewill

Con

I don't know what to say. This whole debate has been about you avoiding the question or giving me a circular answer. .
Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
I cant see through my eye lids

in order for a simulation to exist, there must be something to simulate, and imagination is false
Posted by Fundamental-freewill 2 years ago
Fundamental-freewill
How do you know that we don't live in a hard-deterministic universe were reasoning is not even possible and the appearance of reasoning is an illusion? Therefore you are not even reasoning but have the appearance that you are reasoning.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
I know I cant read these words on the scree with my eyes closed, therefore I know its reasonable to keep them open, and therefore I am reasonable in doing so
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
I know logic, therefore I know I am reasonable
Posted by Fundamental-freewill 2 years ago
Fundamental-freewill
Vi_spex What you don't understand that when you claim that your reasoning is how you know your reasoning is correct it is a circular argument. You might as well say that my reason is correct because it just is. If I said that God exist because he just does you would not accept that as a reasonable argument, but you make a similar argument about you reasoning being correct.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
it dosnt make sense to keep your eyes open is what you are now trying to argue
Posted by gherkin 2 years ago
gherkin
stop..typing...like...this.. its pointless. And all your arguments make no sense. Can you make something that actually makes sense for once
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
you are arguing... that its resonable.... to keep your eyes closed when you read.. what a debate xD
Posted by Leo.Messi 2 years ago
Leo.Messi
I think vi apex has 2 account... Your whole argument was completely circular and proves nothing...
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
oow you are already in there :D, well you can see it because we are friends
No votes have been placed for this debate.