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

Discrediting fact to prove the existence of the metaphysical is paradoxical

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/9/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 713 times Debate No: 37535
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




Hi, just like to say before i get started that i am a firm agnostic and will not believe, or act upon, ANYTHING without factual evidence.

Also a fact is a certainty, something repeatedly proven to happen in the context that it is stated. A theory is a supposed, but unprovable, suggestion which may become fact if proved in a debatable manner.

Denying the existence of fact, all encompassing certainties, discredits the metaphysical.

When a person says the metaphysical is real, they are saying, with all certainty, that there is no flaw to this statement. If fact is therefore non existent how can the statement be exact. Possibly the statement should therefore say - i am suggesting god is likely to exist based on my beliefs.

Many metaphysical things are vastly concerned with the physical world. A Protestant would persevere beyond reason that God's commandment is written in the Bible definitely without question as many Muslims would similarly with their holy book. Catholics are also certain beyond a doubt that the Pope receives the word of God. Why would these metaphysical beings provide such physical, factual and graspable items if the physical realm was not important? Challenging fact is challenging your God.

examples -

God appeared to Moses. (this is a certainty then? if metaphysical influence is enough to disprove fact, why did god then physically set a bush on fire to talk to Moses? because physical fact is important).

God created Earth. (is the Earth a physical manifestation? yes. Why not settle with the ethereal? because again physicality is important).

God's word is all powerful. (is it not true to say that God is concerned with fact then?).

Factual statements can be made on the basis of evidence - if metaphysical influences are absent then a fact can proceed based solely on physical evidence.


In first round I will touch three main points:
1. Methaphysics
2. God
3. Quran

I am muslim, I believe in One True God, Muhammed (s.a.s.) is His Last Messanger, and Quran is the Spoken Word of God. Here is the question, why do I believe in all this stuff. Well, I believe in what I know, and I know facts. If we do not know or measure the essence of something, it does not mean it does not exist.

First of all, methaphysics is a phylosophycal point of view(check Merriam-Webster), it has nothing to do with science or Islam. And this goes to evangelists, antimatter is physical entity, we can measure it, it has nothing to do with methaphysics or metha-anything, please check Wikipedia.

Second, God exists, is there any logical proof, Who God is, and Who God is not. Simple way to prove existence of God:
Think about very beautiful palace, Can it be there without designer. Well, guy with double-digit IQ will buy it. Here is few scientific, logical and phyloshophycal axiomatic facts:
1. There are finite number of past events.
2. Nothing comes from nothing.
3. Everything, which has beginning has cause.
4. Space and time has beginning.

If you sum up these facts, conclusion is space and time has cause to exist. Now, this cause and all atributes of this cause are permanent and constant. Means this cause does not change. If you know the consept of time, it should be easy for you to understand it. Basically, time is the chain of events, chain of befores and afters. If this cause has property X (X is variable), then in some point it became it became Y. So, before this property was Y, it was X. This means this cause is subjected to time, but it existed even before time. So we get contradiction here.
This cause must have knowledge (at least mathematical knowledge, at least you have to give credit for π[pi]) also this cause has a will, it wanted universe to exist, so has a will. Also this cause is powerfull, not subjected to anything and one. Because of character limit I cannot write about all of this points. But if you have a question about any of them, I will try to answer in next rounds. All atributes of this cause is the same with what muslims say about God. Check Chapter 112 of Quran, known as Surah Al-Ikhlas or At-Tawheed.

And the last, why muslims say Quran is the word of God. In the Quran God said, He will preserve it, and there is only one Quran, not multiple versions. Quran also chalanges everyone and all, to write alike or better book than it, no one has done it yet. Quran has no internal or external contradictions. Quran has scientific facts, that no one from 7th cen. could know or prove. For example, universe is expanding, sun and earth has orbit, moon only reflects light, life began from water, father is responsible for sex of child, and etc. There is also math facts in Quran. You can google it. But we, muslims acknowledge Quran as book of signs, book of guidance, not some ordinary scientific book.

Conclusion, it was my intro argument, and I touched upon general points. Next rounds I will be more specific, just waiting for my opponent's objections.

Thank you for reading.
Debate Round No. 1


neurotic1 forfeited this round.


tahir.imanov forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


neurotic1 forfeited this round.


tahir.imanov forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by neurotic1 5 years ago
The non existence of the metaphysical is often argued by stating that it isn't factual in the sense it is not observable, accountable or directly reportable. Often a person arguing pro metaphysical existence then discredits fact by saying that there is more to life than humanity may comprehend. Its true my friend.
Posted by Stonewall 5 years ago
No theist with any amount of common sense would say that discrediting fact would benefit their beliefs. This debate is essentially pointless- unless, of course, you get one who has no common sense.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by LoopsEye 5 years 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: Pro FF. so Con wins and I found Con's argument Logical becasue there is nothing in the world without cause. There may be many a things its cause we do not know like 1000 year before people did not knew the cause of so many things which we know now... hence there is someone who has caused it for a cause! and that can not be ignored.