The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
10 Points

scientific fact=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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/20/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 383 times Debate No: 78862
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)




its a fact that i just took a hard drug, im just lying about taking a drug


From what I managed to follow of your convoluted grammar, I believe you are arguing that scientific fact is a cause for belief. Am I correct? If so I am willing to argue otherwise, as it is obvious this is not the case.

I will initiate with a non-religious example. Scientific evidence has lead to the scientific fact that no mysterious "supernatural" force can lead to the apparition of beings, for example ghosts. Scientific researchers have studied supposedly "haunted" areas to prove that there is no presence in the building, no ghosts or "un-dead", merely people's association with supernatural within the building. There have been reports of low frequency electromagnetic waves within the vicinity, however their effect upon humans has been disputed, nevertheless by no means do these waves have to be of other-worldly origin. To conclude, people believe in ghosts, despite the scientific fact that no such entity can exist, therefore scientific fact does not equal belief.

I am unsure whether I have understood correctly, your sentence structure is difficult to follow. If I at any point forfeit a round it is not intentional, it will most probably be due to absence.
Debate Round No. 1


i am saying Scientific fact is belief

the thing is, knowledge is the opposite of belief, and facts are knowledge

there can not exist facts for what isnt real, unless its math maybe

if any facts existed about ghosts, ghosts would necessarily be true

machines cant tell me what is real, only what to believe

so ghosts are not real?

is it a fact that i just took a hard drug, when i am lying about taking a drug?


Is your argument that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence?

If your argument is that all facts are merely belief then you also argue that the entire universe is speculative, and that nothing whatsoever may be proved. Indeed, it is far more difficult to disprove something than prove something, however once a scientific method has been carried out, speculative arguments must be used. Take the example if the ghosts, the scientist argues: "A supernatural entity may not exist as it does no conform with the laws of physics or reason" The onlooker argues: "But what if a new type of radiation exists?" The radiation is not present in our science, however theory and experiments point towards a new type of radiation not existing, or more specifically, the scientist may argue: "Why would the radiation manifest in exactly the correct form to assume a shape that is believed by humans to be supernatural? (The Ghost)" While we can not rule out anything completely, we can determine whether the occurrence fits within the known laws of the universe.
Debate Round No. 2


not having evidence is not having evidence, does that mean god is false? or aliens, in your neighbours house last night?

facts are past observations, but i dont have an honest story to tell of where you were last night, but i can believe your stor

science works with logic, but i can at best believe what others tell me, unless i have to imagine it

religion=to rely on, while self is one

belief=Be lie, as i dont know is true
i dont know=i have to imagine it, i can at best imagine it

know=Physical experience


It seems you are arguing two things here, your viewpoint and the interaction of systems.

Firstly your viewpoint that you can not trust anything you are told. This involves the very nature of your consciousness, you have tied to your consciousness you senses, from your viewpoint these can provide you with a definite set of events that have happened to you, you are excluding other inputs believing that any of them may be fictitious. This is logical, however would slow down your life, it is good to check whether something is true or not, but not everything is a lie.

Secondly, we know that systems interact, that is matter can transfer information to other matter, be it humans, robots or gravitational attraction between mass. The systems interact, if a robot has been programmed to convey, for example, temperature data through a radio signal to another robot, the robot is not going to lie. Therefore the second robot may use this information taken as true.

It is true, you can only believe what others have told you, I have never been to China, yet I "know" China exists, I have seen the news reports, the news reports have been organised in BBC buildings, the BBC have made other programs, these programs have taken place within places, places which people I know have been. For China to be a lie, it would take a vast web of lies, from my experience I know it would not be plausible to set up a web of lies on this scale. The BBC is just one route in knowing about China, it would require all of the other resources that I have utilised to be fictitious as well to complete the lie, therefore I know that China exists.

We can argue, neither of us can be proved correct, based on the very premise of this argument, if everything is fictitious then this debate is not real, if everything is real I the debate is happening and I believe that my viewpoint would be more valid, thus by this logic, the only sensible side to take is that information is true.

This is an excellent debate.
Debate Round No. 3


trust is belief, belief is theism, religion

what is the difference to what santa is and the drugs i just took?

information dosnt exist in reality, information is 0 percent of the light on my personal physical experience

data is not information, not mental

robots cant have a religion, they do as they are programmed, they are actually the definition of what a believer is, like a being that by default only Works by belief, being the input of the creator

i know the light on my tv screen and the sounds, but esentially it is no different then looking into the head of another person, wathcing stories inside

know=physical experience

is it impossible that china blew up 10 minutes ago and so saying you know china is real is false?

hm, ok my position is that, facts dosnt exist beyond my memory, fact is memory and i dont see your memories, but i can believe your story




This time I will structure my reply a little differently, as it seems you are taking the argument in a circular fashion. True, belief is required for trust and it is difficult to decide who to trust, this must be based on a acquired information. Belief is not necessarily theism, I for example believe that reason, understanding and learning should provide a way of living, yet I do not necessarily believe in a deity. Furthermore belief is not necessarily religion, ghosts are not a religion.

When comparing Santa and your drugs, I assume these drugs are proverbial, and not ones which will affect your ability to think in a logical manner. Santa does not certainly exist, returning to what I think was a previous argument, it is difficult to disprove existence. The drugs can exist, they are described by science, they are made of tangible, real matter, they can be sensed, they obey the laws of physics. If your argument is that nothing can be proved then this is the viewpoint taken by you as an external observer confined by your consciousness.

I would beg to differ that information does not exist, it does exist as it may be transmitted and manipulated. The memories of your experiences may be fake, you may be living in a simulation Neo. The problem is, we are observers that may only gather data and observations from our limited consciousness. Your brain contains memories stored as electrical charges, proved by neurologists.

You argue that robots may not have a religion and that they are programmed but why may you argue that humans have religion then? Humans are effectively biological robots with many more faults, programmed to have their proverbial program altered by the environment. By this logic, we do what we are programmed to do; adapt. The robots effectively do believe, though they are forced to do so by their program, they may not be influenced by external sources.

The light on your TV is the transmission of data in a form which you understand. The requirement for this to be fictitious would require a massive web of lies, or would require severe mental disease, either of which possibilities you must therefore accept.

Why do you assign doing to knowing? It is just as likely that your memories have been fabricated as the news that is supplied to you through others.

Yes, it is possible that China blew up ten minutes ago, it will still; have existed, the news will still inform me that China has been blown up. This would not affect whether I know China exists or not, the crater will remain.

If you are so sure of your argument that you may believe my story and yet not know my story, then why exactly do you seek opinion on a debates site? Surely I am fictitious and my thoughts are fabricated.

"If" can not equal false, as false is not a variable, it is a word to check whether a value conforms to another value. For example within C++:

if(A <= B){

Will increment A by one if A equals B, therefore after the program has reached the end of its function A will equal one more than B. (This code snippet could/should be reduced to A = B+1;)

I believe I have covered everything of relevance within your reply. I am still of the opinion that information does not have to come from individual experience. If this were true then science would only have advanced as far as the first scientist ever reached.
Debate Round No. 4


religion is a position on an imaginary claim

belief=be lie, as i dont know is true


ghosts are religion if i believe in them

my point is, i havnt taken any drugs.. its not a fact

in order to disprove existence you would have to exist, so disproving existence is impossible

lies exist

if we cut open a head, and take out the brain, we cant take the information, mind out on the floor, so they are not things, they are nothing

pick up 0 sodas from the floor, you cant do that but you can understand that you cant even thou 0 sodas can never exist in reality

beliefs are not necessary, religion is not necessary

robots have no choice at all, they dont have a know mode, a self, they are programmed based on what the programmer set it to, unable to learn from its mistakes, no intelligence, like a Wheel turning in the Wind

memories can not be put into my head, data is physical

i dont know

prove to me you are not a bot trying to make me think you are human

if the moon is made of cheese a tiny stone will drop on your head as you read this last Word, OMG did i just make that come true? i am sorry :(

there is no true or honest point to make beyond personal experience


You thoroughly remind me of the Emperor of the universe from h2g2, a man that could not trust anything, not even his own memories. I am unsure on what grounds we should argue now, scientific or philosophical. From a scientific point of view, every event is real regardless of external observers (except for quantum superposition's, which when observed possess normal position), if events did not happen without external observers, how, exactly, would supernovae occur?

If we are arguing in terms of philosophy, then what you are saying may be exactly the truth, I however believe it not to be the truth as the evidence does not point this way. Yes, we could all argue that "I am the only one who is sentient" but we do not behave like this in real life, we still treat others as equals, despite the fact that they may not the same level of being as "me". We know ourselves that we are sentient, we observe the world through our senses and process the thoughts in our brains.

With advanced enough technology, we could, in fact, take someone's brain and "read" their memories, the technology side is not doable currently, we are just biological machines. There is no more reason to suppose that the next person is lying as you are.

Your argument about robots is of great debate in itself, whether or not robots may ever gain sentience. You assume that a robot is different to a human, whereas a robot processes in silicon, we process in biological compounds. We have so many of these that the illusion of self is created. The one thing science can not explain is out feeling of "here", why do we observe the universe?

If you are arguing that you can trust something if you have experienced it, why do you argue that you can not trust somebody else telling you about the event? Your experiences could be fabricated. Read that sentence, reply to that sentence in particular.

Conversely you may be the bot, I do not believe so, you do not seem to argue in the way a bot would, again a large web of lies would be required.

No stone dropped on my head.

I would like to continue this debate, please post in the comments whether you accept or not.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by lol101 1 year ago
Nvm. I went a little overboard. His account is closed.
Posted by lol101 1 year ago

There is a new troll in town.

We need you to noobsnipe him.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
information is 0 percent of the light IN my personal physical experience*
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
i can at best believe what others tell me, unless i dont have to imagine it*
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Sarra 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Prior Belief: *sighs* Technically, vi_spex concept that scientific fact at it's core is belief is a true statement.... technically. I believe vi_spex's concept is: "we believe our facts to be true. we will hold onto our facts until some future event causes us to believe in other facts." (the world in flat -> the world is round -> the world is ellipsoidal) "facts are only facts as long as we believe them to be facts" Analysis: No one cites sources. vi_spex has minor grammar mistakes. Both Pro and Con showed good conduct with each others and potential readers. Overall: I am torn as to convincing arguments and who won because I believe Lavaguava may not have fully understood what vi_spex was trying to convey. My feelings are reinforced with Lavaguava's desire to continue the debate.
Vote Placed by Sourec 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm fairly sure that Pro is high out of his/her mind. Also, "facts is memory" kind of pushed grammar over the edge. Sorry, Pro.
Vote Placed by darthebearnc 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: - Con used better spelling/grammar by far than Pro - Con's arguments were more well-reasoned and convincing