All Humans Have Faith In Something (Atheists, Theists and Everyone Else)

For Christians it is God. For some atheists it is the existence of physical laws and gravity without origin. In the end, I contend, that everything comes back to a belief that you cannot prove and is equally faith-based. " The concession my opponent made in the first round: "I tried to find a definition for "greater", but it took me to a list of DnD powers and something to do with cities. If the Pro cannot provide a suitable definition, we'll just rely on the connotation. " I never used the word 'power' I used the word 'truth. ' I proceeded to explain and also dismiss his use of the term 'greater power' (which contextually implies something radically different to the intention of the debate. ) I said "I will assume your use of the word 'greater power' is an issue of semantics rather than an attempt to change the intention of the debate. " My opponent found the above quote rude, when I was trying to avoid what we have now: a debate of semantics. Let me clarify that the definition of "greater power" pertains to: military, the game dungeons and dragons, the belief in a god. (wikipedia. org) I am avoiding any attempt to equate my argument with atheists believing in the likeness of a 'god. ' As my intention is to simply equate one faith-based truth with another faith based truth of equal proportions (or that is equally 'great. ' I. e. A great truth. ) I will refute my opponent's rebuttals below. Origin of Everything Firstly, I did not commit a hasty generalization fallacy. Not all Christians believe that God created the world. Many believe he created a separate universe and then the Big Bang Theory resulted from the 'cosmic soup' he made. I simply, as stated in the debate, provided a single example. With Atheism I also provided one example, 'the belief in gravitational singularity. ' I clarified my intention with the sentenced: "So essentially, at its core, Christians have faith that a God exists, Muslims believe Allah exists and caused the creation of Earth, Atheists believe that gravitational singularity existed. Or some believe the universe always existed or there are other theories, but the one thing they all have in common is that something or some force or some material existed (Some theories even state that larger universes existed) but they cannot even hypothesize how. And even if they do hypothesize, there is no tangible proof or evidence suggesting how this is possible. " I state that there are other views an Atheist may hold. It is true that I avoided the religious belief of 'ignorance. ' Simply saying "I don't know," to any question asked. But that proves my point exactly. Ignorance itself is tribute to the point I'm making. We have faith that it doesn't matter we don't have the answers. We have faith that the presuppositions and axioms we've already adopted are sufficient to explain the world even without knowing the 'whole picture. ' Let me clarify that I am not stating all Atheists claim they believe in gravitational singularity (as I clearly stated as such in my argument and provided separate examples of potential beliefs. ) I am stating that they all believe in something preceding the "big bang. " And if they claim ignorance, I claim that is perhaps the greatest step of faith one can make. Because it is a matter of axiomatic reasoning. If I ask enough questions and we get to the fundamental building block of 'your' atheistic belief system, we may arrive at the issue of creationism. Your answer is 'I don't know how the universe started' therefore I say your belief in co-existing enzymes, the big bang, or whatever theory you hope to claim, is based in faith without tangible proof. A great truth you accept as true without proof. Perhaps my favorite quote in my opponent's debate that I feel offers this debate to me is, "The same goes for the Big Bang or Infinate Universe or other universal creation theories. I simply realize that I can't prove it, will likely never know the answer in my lifetime, and I move on. " He states 'he cannot prove it' (faith that it doesn't matter or pertain to him) and will likely never know the answer. He basically says 'He can't prove the origin, so he doesn't know how it happened, but he believes it did anyway. " That is the purest definition of faith. Munchausen Trilemma Myopponent's flaw in his interpretation of the Trilemma is, "the Munchausen Trilemma argument states that you cannot be 100% certain that anything is proven. " That isn't what the Trilemma states. It states that you cannot be AT ALL certain of anything. All comes back to proof. I am not disputing the existence of evidence or proofs in the process of the Trilemma, but when you arrive at the root question of 'why is it true' the answer will be 'Because it is. ' A faith-based statement. (The other two forms of proofs are found fundamentally weak by Greek skeptics and in their definition fall in a 'faith category' by presupposing rational law and without being able to provide further truth--with faith in the process. ) So once again, my opponent hasn't refuted my argument supporting the Trilemma, he has misinterpreted it or misunderstood the implications. "So simply stating the blanket statement that "You can't prove anythiing" does not mean "you have faith in everything". In order for this argument to work, my opponent must first use a specific instance that I believe in and prove that I use faith to believe in it. Otherwise, this argument does not pertain to the resolution. " My opponent has contradicted himself. We have defined faith as above. I would say that 'if you can't prove anything' then yes, you do have faith in everything. And as for proving that you use faith, see above. Other Proofs My opponent is engaging in semantics. An atheist does not 'believe god exists. ' Let's reword the statement as "If the Big Bang Theory was true, we will see evidence of its truth. There is evidence of its truth, so it is true. " In that case it makes the same point, that atheists put faith in the higher concept of logic. Or faith in the power of human thought. Or faith in empirical senses. Or faith in something. Once again I am not going to spell out the question/answer section here because I do not know my opponent's answers. But simply ask the question "Why do I believe this" continually. And you will eventually reach a 'because it is' (faith) statement. Or engage in circular reasoning and ad infinitum. Same argument applies for both points. "My opponent attempts to break down logic into saying you have to believe in it, but he's simply trivializing the issue to the point where it is not an accurate arguement. We know logic to lead to truth because using correct logic has been proven to lead to the correct conclusions in the past. " Unfortunately my opponent is not the judge on what is 'an accurate argument. ' I find it a very relevant debate strategy. Because in my opponent's next sentence he once again proves my point by engaging an axiom (which was the point I was making in the first place. ) His axiom is that truth is the correct conclusion. Because it is correct. Why? Because it is. (Faith. ) (This chain of questioning could go on for years, but the result is inevitably the same. ) I have upheld my burden of proof and my opponent has failed to refute my arguments.