The Instigator
Almog
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Commondebator
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Do humans know everything?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Commondebator
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/18/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 718 times Debate No: 67309
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (13)
Votes (2)

 

Almog

Pro

Think about it...and when I say think about it, I mean throw away everything you think you know about what you don't, and think deeply about the argument. It is possible to know everything. By possible to know everything, I mean not in a carnal state, but rather in a general state. When one knows everything in a general state, only thing can someone learn everything in specificity. There are may questions people think are unanswered, but they are in our face. In order to know everything, you have to know that this world is nothing. When you know this world is absolutely nothing but an illusion we all live in as humans, you will then understand that we all know everything in the sense of a contradiction. By understanding the world as nothing, you know everything in the world. Furthermore, people against this theory which I already know is fact because I understand the semantics, will ask "How do you know you know everything if everything is unattainable?" Well, you know what you know. You know that you know everything because everything the human race understands is everything we know as a people. It's impossible to say we don't know everything because a person saying we don't know everything is spreading the vibe of knowing everything about not knowing everything...in other words, if we don't know everything, how can you say what we don't know if we don't know it...everything we encounter, we know....for a person to say we don't know the outside world....would be wrong. Think about it. In order to know what we don't know...well stop there....how can we know what we don't know....in order to understand this, we have to understand contradictions. When we know and understand contradictions in full, we know everything in full.
Commondebator

Con

Thank you, for making such an interesting debate.

Deep Philosiphical Space-time continuim argument:

The question "Humans know everything" implies everything that can and cannot be known in the feild of space and time. Now, it is impossible to know everything due to constant entropic changes in the universe. That is why we cannot see the future, because we cannot predict the placement of the 12 fundemental particles. If we could, I personally would be an awesome mystical greel orcale that could tell the future. Unfortunatly, thats not the case. (Dang)

You see, the question is not implying our current knowledge. It refers to everything in existence. And everything in exisenence refers to time itself, which refers to the future. Which we cannot know, as I explained before.

The question itself is a contradiction. This topic is debatable, and we do not know if we truley do know everything. We cannot predict the future to know if we would have any more discoveries. Again, we CANNOT predict the future, so we do not know if humans know everything or not.

Got me thinking. Thanks for the debate
Debate Round No. 1
Almog

Pro

Wow, nice response!

The question in itself is a contradiction, yes, but I also believe the question is answered by how it's looked at. The question at hand is "Do humans know everything?" You went on the answer about the fact that the question isn't implying current knowledge, but about everything in existence, which then you refer to the future. The question's tense is in present tense, so I am indeed speaking on current terms. With this, knowing or not knowing the future is abstract because time is a concept created. Time is really what we live in...the present if you will....but it was created as a past, present, and future concept. We can't say time is the future, but we can only say time is in the present because we aren't living in the future, but in the present. In a technical sense, like I said in my first post, understanding contradictions will help understand everything...As time moves, we live in the past, present, and future all at the same time. I'm not rejecting you saying we cannot predict the future...I believe time is only present, so I really don't believe in a future...I only believe in now. Of course with the actual definition, "future" is legitimate. Correct in saying we can't predict the future only if you believe in the future...I guess the whole debate revolves around how an individual views the world. I believe in knowing everything in the present. Like I said, I can't prove or disprove your statement "we CANNOT predict the future" because I don't believe in a future. Time can end. When it does, future will cease to exist in the society that believes a future is a legitimate concept.

Thanks for the debate...you're very very intelligent.
Commondebator

Con

Thanks for the kind words pro! The civilized manner of my opponent definitely makes a debate enjoyable.


I would like to move on to rebuttals.

R1 "The question's tense is in present tense, so I am indeed speaking on current terms". . .Along with Pro's other arguments in regards to the Time and future.

This may be true gramatically. However, "everthing" implies space and time itself. I will now list in bullet points to have my point more clear.

-Everything implies space
-Space and time are the same thing-Or at least two sides of the same coin. Using that anology, lets assume"everything" is the coin (1)
- In the end, "everything" also implies time
-Time is the same concept no matter which point of time you are
-Thus, making the future part of "Everything"


So, everything also implies the future. Humans cannot know the future due to constant entropic changes of the 12 fundemental particles. Therefore, humans cannot predict the future.

"The future just like the past would be present before its eyes"
-Pierre simon laplace

Upon investigation, it seems as if the main point of Pro's argument was the time/future topic. However, I will breifly cover up the question/contradiction argument.

R2. The question states "Do humans know everything?"

As I have stated before, we do not know if humans know everything. That is part of why the topic is debatable. Again, to make this a little easier, I will address in bullet points.

-We do not know if we know everything because we do not know if we will make any more discoveries
-We cannot know if we will make more discoveries, because we cannot predict the future
- Therefore, we do not know if we know everything
-Therefore, we do not know everything

Wow. . .This really got me thinking. Thanks for the debate!

1. http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com...

A helpful, but random video: https://www.youtube.com...;
Debate Round No. 2
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
once you know everything, you do not know what you do not know, is the same as once you know, then you know
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
true dat

my personal physical experience of now is everything, and anywhere beyond that is the reflection of nothing
Posted by Atmas 2 years ago
Atmas
This can be answered simply by saying, "Once you know everything, you do not know what you do not know" which contradicts knowing everything.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
i can see the future, even with my eyes closed
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
know=physical experience of now

you have to know, in order to know you don't know, i don't know is a know position
Posted by Commondebator 2 years ago
Commondebator
Oh god, so many typos so little time
Posted by Commondebator 2 years ago
Commondebator
lol sorry for the typo
Posted by Almog 2 years ago
Almog
how could you know that you don't know without knowing? that's a double negative...so what you're saying is, how could you know that you know? I know that i know because everything you think we don't know is your figment of imagination doubting itself.
Posted by Commondebator 2 years ago
Commondebator
Greek*
Posted by Almog 2 years ago
Almog
@1Credo, in order to know everything, you have to first know that you know everything, lol...how can you know everything without knowing you know everything?
@vi_spex, you don't have to imagine anything...imagination is for subjection, but you must be factual-based to know everything.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by kawaii_crazy 2 years ago
kawaii_crazy
AlmogCommondebatorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Before reading this debate, I honestly didn't know my stance on this argument. "Do humans know everything?" I don't know, do we? That question in itself is a contradiction, a good point Commondebator brought up, therefore my vote goes to him for more convincing arguments. Humans do not know everything, for they do not know if they know everything. Additionally, Almog did not provide any sources, and did not validate his arguments, while Commondebator did.
Vote Placed by That1User 2 years ago
That1User
AlmogCommondebatorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This was an interesting debate. Both were civil and had good spelling and grammar. None had sources. Pro brought thought provoking arguments to the debate, but Con successfully refuted them, especially with his Deep Philosiphical Space-time continuim argument, as well as these two arguments: -Everything implies space -Space and time are the same thing-Or at least two sides of the same coin. Using that anology, lets assume"everything" is the coin (1) - In the end, "everything" also implies time -Time is the same concept no matter which point of time you are -Thus, making the future part of "Everything" -We do not know if we know everything because we do not know if we will make any more discoveries -We cannot know if we will make more discoveries, because we cannot predict the future - Therefore, we do not know if we know everything -Therefore, we do not know everything These arguments logically refuted Pro's claims, thus Con wins by making more convincing logical argument