Debate Regarding a few listed subjects.

1. Substance Dualism isn't as crazy as it sounds.
2. One should not believe tales of miracles that contradict of prior experience.
3. Utilitarianism is fundamentally superior to Kantianism.
4. Kantianism is fundamentally superior to Utilitarianism.
5. Pragmatism is a superior life view.
6. Humans are not truly individuals.
7. Causality is not provable.
8. Kierkegaard is wrong, ethics and morality cannot be suspended, even for a higher goal.
9. Assuming that God exists, Abraham was wrong in trying to sacrifice Isaac.

I negate the resolution: "One should not believe tales of miracles that contradict of prior experience."

Definitions:
-"should not believe") I interpret this as a rational ought; to believe this proposition would act against rationality
-"miracles") "[Things] which are done by divine agency beyond the order commonly observed in nature" (Aquinas,
Summa Contra Gentiles)

Argument:
1) If a testimony or tale is reliable, one can be rationally justified in believing it.
- If a tale is reliable, it has evidence for its truth. If there is no evidence against it, one could be completely rational in
believing the tale, considering the fact that their belief would be based on evidence.
2) Therefore, if a testimony or tale of a miracle is reliable, one can be rationally justified in believing it.
-This conclusion simply applies the reasoning from 1 to a testimony or tale of a miracle.

I anticipate an interesting debate.
Vote Con

Okay, to affirm, I will pose two scenarios, both very similar, but with a key difference.

Scenario 1: Dhara Gupta, a young Indian lady in the 1200s lived with her husband, three children, her brother-in-law and his family, and her parents-in-law. One day, a horrible illness killed off her brother-in-law's family. In despair, he left on a long trip, wanting to see the wide world. After 5 long years, he returned, and said that far away lived a huge monster in a lake, called Nessie. This of course was the Loch Ness Monster, which in all liklihood does not exist (I can prove this). Mrs. Gupta of course thinks her brother-in-law is insane, and does not believe him, even though he has never lied before.

Scenario 2: Dhara Gupta, a young Indian lady in the 1200s lived with her husband, three children, her brother-in-law, Rohan, and his family, and her parents-in-law. One day, a horrible illness killed off her brother-in-law's family. In despair, he left on a long trip, wanting to see the wide world. After 5 long years, he returned, and said that far away there was water that was so cold it became a solid. The funniest thing was that there was no real in between period. The water went almost straight from water to the solid, and the solid went straight back to the water. This of course was ice. This also caused Mrs. Gupta to think he was insane. I mean, seriously, water that becomes solid, like a rock? That's insane, at least if you've never seen ice.

So the question is, would it have been rational for Dhara to believe in Rohan's tales. Both were contradictory to her experiences, and both came from a reliable source. I contend that it would be irrational. For example, a more modern example: Everyone has gotten those emails; send me $100 and I'll give you a hundred times that back. These are almost without exception frauds. However, if one day you actually get one that is not a fraud, yet it is indistinguishable from the frauds, you would not be rational to believe it. You have no way of knowing whether or not it is real or not. In all likelihood though, it is false. Clearly it would be irrational to actually do it.

The same applies to Dhara. People often say things about the natural world, I can levitate, I can cure cancer with belly button lint, this South American Poisonberry bush tastes like steak...almost all of these claims are false, even if someone who we trust as reliable says this it would be irrational to believe them. All we have is there world, which is contradictory to our knowledge of the laws of nature.

"1) If a testimony or tale is reliable, one can be rationally justified in believing it.
- If a tale is reliable, it has evidence for its truth. If there is no evidence against it, one could be completely rational in
believing the tale, considering the fact that their belief would be based on evidence."

Rohan is reliable, he has knowledge of the world, he is a trusted relative, why would he lie? However, many travelers in Dhara's village come back with insane tales, there is no reason to believe in any of them. One out of the hundreds may be true, but there is no way to know that that one is the true one. Although believing these tales may lead to one gaining new knowledge, one would have to become very gullible, and believe in significantly more lies.

"2) Therefore, if a testimony or tale of a miracle is reliable, one can be rationally justified in believing it.
-This conclusion simply applies the reasoning from 1 to a testimony or tale of a miracle."

See above rebuttal.

Your move.

Unfortunately my opponent forfeited. I hope he returns next round.