The Instigator
JoaquinBarzi
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Can we know anything for certain?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 4/14/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 969 times Debate No: 89663
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (74)
Votes (0)

 

JoaquinBarzi

Con

We use logic to deductively determine the truth value or soundness of arguments. But even logic rests on axiomatic principles suchs as the identity and non-contradiction principle. If we were to ever doubt of them, what else could we use to determine their veracity? Would we be left with utter uncertainty?

Of course i am not sold on the con argument, i am just defending it for the sake of debate, if there is any point in debating at all.

I am new to this site, so if anyone wants to join the debate, be my guest.
vi_spex

Pro

know=certain=true

i know you cant close your eyes and keep reading until the end of this sentence, unless you have transparent eyes lids or something

know=physical exprience=sense
Debate Round No. 1
JoaquinBarzi

Con

Knowledge=/=certitude

Modern science doesnt even claim anymore to be a method of getting absolute truths, they always admit the possibility of their theories being falsifiable (however excruciatingly unlikely that may be). So you can rule science ( and every inductive method that comes with it) out in the search for abbsolute truths.

In theory, you are left with deductive reasoning, as in this example:

(If A then B) and
(If B then C) therefore
A then C

But my question is, If you were to doubt the laws of logic, the very same laws you must assume axiomatically to, well, prove the truthfulness of anything logically, is there anything else left besides logic to determine the truth? Faith? I doubt it. But you are already resting your faith in the axioms of logic.

So, since we cant logically prove the validity of the rules of logic, what can we say is true or not? All we have got left is uncertainty, assumptions, based on other assumptions, based on logic, which we assume to be true by definition.

I must say though, if we were to throw logic out of the window, everything becomes meaningless, including this very same debate. Is there a god? Yes and know, since contradiction is allowed without logic, so can exist and not exist at the same time. Am i lying or telling the truth? Both. None. What gives.

That was the core of my argument, the core of this debate. To prove that without logic everything is meaningless. Even god.

Best wishes. JBL
vi_spex

Pro

truth is unchanging, science is a religion

logic is absolute, no doubt or faith involved

logic is not an assumption

did you eat a rocket launcher this morning? are you unsure if you are lying if you say thats not the case, you know unless you did eat a rocket launcher.. truth is memory

logic is cause and effect
Debate Round No. 2
74 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 7 months ago
vi_spex
see=light
Posted by Furyan5 7 months ago
Furyan5
True, but darkness can.
Posted by vi_spex 7 months ago
vi_spex
i can see the dark

nothing can not be seen by the eye
Posted by Furyan5 7 months ago
Furyan5
You can only see darkness when its dark. You can't see it when there's light. But seeing darkness and seeing nothing are not the same. A blind man sees nothing. So you can see in the dark.
Posted by vi_spex 7 months ago
vi_spex
i cant see in the dark
Posted by Furyan5 7 months ago
Furyan5
Therefore you don't know you can't see in the dark.
Posted by vi_spex 7 months ago
vi_spex
assumptions are not real
Posted by Furyan5 7 months ago
Furyan5
lol you presume you actually see.
Posted by vi_spex 7 months ago
vi_spex
i know you cant see in the dark
No votes have been placed for this debate.