The Instigator
EJR925
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
DwarvinStorm
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Faith is Universal

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/23/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 751 times Debate No: 118692
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

EJR925

Pro

Faith is an immaterial reality that everyone has regardless of your worldview.

If you disagree, Let's have a debate.
DwarvinStorm

Con

Alright, Excited to have my first round on this site.
Let me first start by negating this resolution on a few grounds.
Firstly, An observation within the grounds and definition of today's debate.
My opponent defined Faith as "having confidence or trust in someone or something. " However, Defines within the context of this topic it is "Immaterial. " This is very contrary to the rather materialist view of the definition used.

Let's now focus on the more philosophical realm of this debate.
The important point of this is this universal reality within morality. Because Faith in this (remember contrary) definition is closely tied to Religion. It is true, That one raised may be able to feel a relation to it's morality, But it is more of a psychological phenomena. As if Faith were universal, It would be tied to either a single school of thought, Or a single religion. But, There are many religions forged in different time periods, On a great deal of cultural and historical context. What was wrong once, Is right later. Or in another culture.

Now you might say Faith the concept is universal, I agree in a material sense. But my opponent designs it as a completely separate plane of reality. Now, This plane hasn't been defined, And under what context. And is classified under a general worldview as stated within the challenge. It will be impossible to define what reality it resides in if it is separate from us, And the mental gymnastics and grunt work will have to go into defining the relation of many to this reality. And how does it have a relation to us? I however, Define Faith as my opponent's Comment definition is. Having confidence or trust in someone or something. But, It is material and it is definable. It exists in this same reality, And in the context of religion if you want to say a deity would have made it on the same plane as to have it easy to reach and use. Rather than to transfigure oneself.

Faith in religion is very different, There are varying degrees of it. It seems to follow similar patterns to ideals and thoughts that this reality abides by. It can wane, Change and it can be passed on through apathy. People can be converted. It is no different from Fear, Honesty, Anger and many other "Sins and Virtues. " So, To define it as a universal exception is almost unfair to it's very composition, History and context.

Thank you for the challenge, Can't wait to receive your arguments. May the best debater win!
Debate Round No. 1
EJR925

Pro

I defined faith by the dictionary term. Nothing special. It's literally a synonym of belief, Confidence, And trust.

If you make the claim, "I'm not a person with faith. " You are using faith in order to justify your statement. You are trusting in that statement to be true. If you are trusting in that statement to be true, Then by definition you are using faith to justify your statement. If you make the claim, "I'm not a person with faith. " You are contradicting yourself because you are claiming you don't have faith by using faith to say it. Which is self-defeating. [NOTE: I am not saying that you specifically think or say this, This is just an example].

And no problem. Thank you for accepting the challenge.
DwarvinStorm

Con

Alright, Well second round time.
My opponent states that if I state that I have no faith, Than that is Oxymoronic. And I agree, IF that had been a cornerstone to my argument that would've been quite a weak argument. However, This is the one of two points my opponent has addressed. He did address his definition of faith. However, He said it is "nothing special, " or "literally a synonym of belief Confidence and trust. " By this, My opponent concedes that faith is no different from other traits or so called "Virtues. " By this, They concede the round. As faith is nothing special and on the same plane of reality.

Let me just extend some of my un-attacked points, And show you why they should flow through as reasons I am victorious.
My opponent has not identified why "Faith" is on a separate plane of existence separate from our own. The burden of proof still rests on them. And, In fact if they reside with this un-unique definition, It inadvertently shifts the definition debate over in my favor.

My opponent neither addressed his universal claim saying "Faith is an immaterial reality that everyone has regardless of your worldview. " My opponent has framed an un winnable debate. I agree that all humans can feel hope, Faith and other of these abstract concepts, But to say it is in a completely separate and immaterial reality is how this debate is unable to be solved in my opponents favor. Once again, The burden of proof is on my opponents shoulders, If they cannot provide a consistent philosophical argument to it's deified and quintessential nature (As they have provided nothing but a solid, And materialistic view of Faith which is how I define it and will give me the victory if he concedes. ) then the round cannot be won by them.

To simply recap, My opponent to win must Define faith as a morally consistent, Entity beyond our astral plane, Have his argument defined and properly address my points in refutation. So far, The debate is in my favor. And I win as my Historical argument of Faith has also gone unaddressed. Saying that faith is different morally depending on many materialistic and normal variables. My two previously mentioned points have gone unaddressed, And my opponents only argument thus far is if I theoretically used the statement that I do not have faith, I would be contradictory. So, I urge you all to vote against this resolution thank you for reading.
Debate Round No. 2
EJR925

Pro

It's common sense that faith is an immaterial reality. You can't weigh or measure the chemistry of faith. I stood on the premise of faith being an immaterial reality and is universal regardless of your worldview. You have already acknowledged that faith is universal.

I don't see how it's winning in your favor. Don't give your hopes up. The burden of proof is for you to disprove me and demonstrate that faith is not immaterial and/or not universal.

Faith is an abstract object like the laws of logic or philosophical propositions. Faith seems to exists as properties of persons, Not as mere abstractions. Since the abstract object faith is not itself faithful (just as quickness is not quick or laziness not lazy), It would seem to follow that in the absence of any people faith does not exist. Which seems to contradict the hypothesis. You can't leave them floating in the unintelligible way. The nature of faith seems to be grounded in a divine Creator and Lawgiver. Because faith is independent of human conventions just like the laws of logic. Humans just use words to describe it in order to verbally communicate it or create contingent things that represent their idea of faith.

Now about faith in religion. Faith in the Bible means to simply trust. This stuff is not complicated. Saying faith is universal is not unfair. By definition if you have trust in anything then by definition you have faith in it. It's not tough. You can object to the term. You can use a different term to describe it. By definition that is what faith is or means.

Abstract objects (which are immaterial) although can be EXPRESSED in material, Are independent of human conventions. For example the laws of logic are independent of human minds. Before there were any humans on the earth, Is the statement, "there are no humans on the earth" true?

I'm going to say it another way. Faith is much like the laws of logic. Abstract objects and immaterial and independent of human conventions. Logic isn't a "thing" and neither is faith. It isn't created by anybody. Logic is a word that refers to the inescapable rules of existence. These rules are not contingent. They apply to everything that exists. For anything that exists, Exists, And it is false to claim that it does not exist. Everything that exists, Exists; and it doesn't non exist because if it didn't exist it wouldn't exist in the first place. Faith and logic isn't just "true in this universe or true in a material sense" it's true literally every case of existence. In any possible universe. Logic and faith is not "in" the universe. The universe does not contain "logic" or "faith. " Logic/faith and existence are not able to be separated from one another. But nobody is "forcing" the laws of logic or faith down your throat. There's no cosmic force doing that. Laws of logic (like faith) are necessary and couldn't be any other way. Logic or faith is NOT an entity that you can point out. It's woven into the fabric of everything that exists. You could say that it's a necessary part of any existent thing.

The laws of logic applies to all existent things. Much like faith.
DwarvinStorm

Con

3rd round, Going strong here! Sorry if I assumed your gender, Some people might not appreciate that as I used he. Without further ado,
My opponent states firstly states that Faith itself is beyond the properties of humanity, And not a mere abstraction. And compares it to a sense of logic. But, As you can see here my opponent represents "Divine Creator and Lawgiver. " As well as the Bible. Implying that the even if this is only an example, They are already narrowing down these options. Making it less universal. And more tied to very slim historical and cultural norms within this setting.

The important thing is the disambiguation and abstract nature my opponent brings up, Comparing Faith to Logic. Saying that they are in turn, Beyond human and can be represented physically, But are not physical objects. However, Logic itself is closely tied to ONE true code of provable and observable standards. Logic itself, Is tied to the objective rather than subjective reality. Meaning it exists beyond the corruption of ideals and morals, As truth aligns itself with no morality. And logic follows suit.

Thusly, We can assume that Faith is not as unto logic. As if so, As Logic advances conversely so would religion. In this fact, Religion would be able to have a same sense of Moral logic being applied. However, Religion itself is very different in cultures, And seems to advance on a different trail than science and logic. Faith for sure exists, But is not as Universally consistent or beyond human conventions as logic.

My opponent in their 4th paragraph admitted once again to a materialist definition of faith. Just trusting in something. Which does not coincide with the argument they present later in their case. No common sense admits that Faith is tangible, But neither does any logic point to it being beyond any usual morals or virtues and sins. Faith is immaterial, Just not an immaterial reality that everyone has the same of as you stated in your first resolution. You cannot simplify the definition now, As you chose to argue on these grounds at the beginning of the debate. You are not out to prove that Faith is immaterial or intangible, It is both of those things. But, You must also prove it is a Universal Reality. And so far, We have no consistency on this factor.

The universe contains everything we can conceptualize and perceive, And many things that with our current lenses we fail to understand. Thusly, While morals, Philosophies and religion may be intangible, They are not on a separate plane.

And if "Faith seems to exist as properties of persons, Not as mere abstractions. " Then it would seem to have a similarity within itself. But, Faith itself is shown and perceived in different ways. It may be universal, But it is indescribable, And being abstract is something that cannot under any circumstance, Always keep the same definition and form in all contexts. We can describe an orange as an orange, Because we can perceive it's entity. But, We could describe Faith as Trust, Loyalty or a plethora of other traits. They are interchangeable, And defined by those who use them. Making it impossible to pin a single, Consistent Immaterial Reality that is universal and provable regardless of your worldview.

In conclusion, Faith cannot be consistent in form. And is abstract, Which doesn't allow it to be consistent in worldview. Making my opponents resolution impossible. My opponent uses the Bible and Ultimate Creator as examples, And provides no other lenses to view this case. Thusly, One might find Christianity the only and most logical/moral solution. However, Taoists, Muslims, Jews and a multitude of other religions would disagree. And finally, Faith is not tied to an objective reality as logic is, But a subjective lens. So comparing the two is comparing Apples, And Quantum Physics. Two levels of complexities.

Thusly, Con is winning the round. Thank you very much for all of your time, And can't wait for the next round!
Debate Round No. 3
EJR925

Pro

No problem. Same goes to you.
DwarvinStorm

Con

Huh, We still have one round. So, Might as well just take up that space huh?
Debate Round No. 4
EJR925

Pro

DwarvinStorm wins
DwarvinStorm

Con

DwarvinStorm forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
"Faith is Universal".
Yes. I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. I have faith that I am 45 feet tall is another thing.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
lol
Posted by billsands 3 years ago
billsands
It was in the past, I am not sure about the future, We seem to be growing out of our need for an imaginary friend and enemy
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
missmedic
How convenient that one meaning is the exact opposite of the other.
" When accepting a statement as true, There are two basic methods. The first is reason. It is when the known evidence points to the statement being true, And when the truth of the statement doesn't contradict other knowledge. The second is faith. It is when one accepts a statement as true without evidence for it, Or in the face of evidence against it. "
Posted by EJR925 3 years ago
EJR925
It depends what you use faith for. Either faith based on evidence or faith in spite of the evidence which would be "blind faith. "
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
missmedic
faith; It is when one accepts a statement as true without evidence for it, Or in the face of evidence against it.
Posted by EJR925 3 years ago
EJR925
Faith - having confidence or trust in someone or something.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
missmedic
Define Faith
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.