The Instigator
Hezekiah_Ahaz
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Awesome-Sauce
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

Existence/Reality and Knowledge.

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 4 votes the winner is...
Awesome-Sauce
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/28/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,050 times Debate No: 23917
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

Hezekiah_Ahaz

Pro

In the book of proverbs it says that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and knowledge.My argument is that anyone who rejects this claim or doesn't fear the Lord cannot know ANYTHING or account for anything he/she claims to know. Since I believe that God is absolutely personal, rational and the source of existence/reality. My argument is that anybody that rejects him is reduced to impersonality, irrationaly, and nearly non existence. That is, the unbeliever cannot even know that he exists and that he is real. So, anybody that thinks otherwise is more than welcome to take on my challenge. That is, to show that without God he can know anything.

All 4 rounds can be used for arguments/rebuttals.
Awesome-Sauce

Con

I accept.

know - to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty
(http://dictionary.reference.com...)

anything -
a thing of any kind
(http://dictionary.reference.com...)

My opponent's claim is that anyone without God (atheists basically) cannot know ANYTHING at all. Therefore the burden of proof lies upon Pro to basically prove that ALL atheists know absolutely nothing.

I cannot refute this firsthand being that I myself am also a Christian, but even I find my opponent's claim to be absolutely preposterous.

In order to refute my opponent's only claim, I shall point out many things various atheists do know even without God.


Atheists on DDO

I am somewhat new to this site, but I have been browsing through debates and the forums and I have to say that there are MANY intelligent people on this site. And a good number of these people are atheists.

- Atheists know how to use technology. Well obviously atheists can use computers and other internet-powered devices - there are atheists on DDO! How do you think they log on to DDO and engage in debates and the forums?

- Atheists know how to debate. That is, the proper format/proceedings of a debate. Take a look at this one

(http://www.debate.org...)

This is a debate between imabench and RoyLatham, two of the best debaters on DDO (I saw that imabench is leaving, which is sad. I enjoyed reading his debates) Ima is Christian - Roy is Atheist. Both of the debaters are very knowledgable and have a great debate. As you can see terms are defined, then a case is made by both sides, and finally each debater refutes the other case. And as you can see, Roy is actually ahead in the votes right now. Against Ima, that's saying something. This definitely proves that atheists know how to debate, and they can debate well.

I'll point out another debate

(http://www.debate.org...)

This debate was actually between my own opponent and waterskier. waterskier is an atheist. waterskier pointed out that he is without God, and he can prove through the transitive property of equality that when X=Y and Y=Z, then X=Z. This is further proof that people without God can know things.


Famous Athiests
  • Lance Armstrong - knows how to ride a bike
  • Bruce Lee - knows martial arts
  • Seth MacFarlane - knows how to write and produce shows
  • Rafael Nadal - knows how to play tennis
  • Mark Zuckerburg - knows how to write computer software
These are just a few examples of famous athiests and just a very small amount of what they know.


My opponent bears the impossible task of proving that atheists, or anyone without God knows absolutely nothing. This is simply not possible. People that are without God can know things.

I have given a few examples, and all I must show in order to refute my opponent's claim is at least one thing that one person without God knows. I have shown many of these, therefore Pro's claim is effectively refuted.

Vote Con!

Debate Round No. 1
Hezekiah_Ahaz

Pro

My opponent seems to be ignorant of scripture which is sad because he claims to be a Christian. Romans 1 says that everybody has general knowledge of God. "Atheist" do know things. However, since they reject or suppress the knowledge of God that's in them they cannot account for the things they know. I wonder if my opponent believes that "the fear of the lord is the beginning of knowledge"?
Where do unbelievers get there certainty from? Is lance certain that he knows how to ride a bike?
Is waterski certain that he can prove things? How does an "atheist" know that 1 + 1= 2?
To shed more light on my claim what I am saying is that "atheist" know. However, they don't know how they know. They base knowledge on a false foundation that they cannot justify.
Awesome-Sauce

Con

"My argument is that anyone who rejects this claim or doesn't fear the Lord cannot know ANYTHING or account for anything he/she claims to know."

This is what my opponent stated in Round 1 and it is what he must prove in order to win this debate.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Refutations

My opponent's argument is that atheists, or people without God, apparently do know things, but they don't know that they know things.

"Is lance certain that he knows how to ride a bike?"

Well, he races competetively, and has won many times, so I would say yes he does?

"Is waterski certain that he can prove things?"

http://www.debate.org...

Well waterskier beat you in a debate just like this one, so I think he and many voters are pretty certain that he can prove things.

"How does an "atheist" know that 1 + 1= 2?"

People don't need God to know that 1+1=2.... People know that 1+1=2 from the simple rules of addition. If you want complete in-depth proof of why 1+1=2, it stems from the Peano Postulates (http://mathforum.org...)

Atheists know that 1+1=2 because of the rules of math, not because of God.


My opponent is saying that atheists know, but they don't know how they know. However, he has not yet given any significant support of his argument, and has failed to fulfill his burden of proof at this point of the debate.

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 2
Hezekiah_Ahaz

Pro

"My opponent's argument is that atheists, or people without God, apparently do know things, but they don't know that they know things."

They can't account for what they claim to know.

"Well, he races competetively, and has won many times, so I would say yes he does?"

Are you certain that he's certain?

"Well waterskier beat you in a debate just like this one, so I think he and many voters are pretty certain that he can prove things."

Why can he "prove" things?

People don't need God to know that 1+1=2.... People know that 1+1=2 from the simple rules of addition. If you want complete in-depth proof of why 1+1=2, it stems from the Peano Postulates (http://mathforum.org......)

Why is math possible?

Atheists know that 1+1=2 because of the rules of math, not because of God.

How do you know?

"My opponent is saying that atheists know, but they don't know how they know. However, he has not yet given any significant support of his argument, and has failed to fulfill his burden of proof at this point of the debate."

I'm asking what needs to be true for everything else to be true. What are the foundations of knowledge?
Do you believe that God is?
Awesome-Sauce

Con

"Are you certain that he's (Lance Armstrong) certain?"

Yes. What else would I say??

"Why can he (waterskier) "prove" things?"

Because he used evidence to back up his claim, thus proving it.

"Why is math possible?"

Seriously? Because the little math leperchauns from magical Mathland came and showed us how to do math... What does this question have to do with anything?

"How do you know? (that atheists know math)"

You know, since all my opponent is doing is asking these open-ended questions, I'll start asking them back - how do you KNOW that atheists don't know math?

"I'm asking what needs to be true for everything else to be true. What are the foundations of knowledge? Do you believe that God is?"

Well since I'm arguing that atheists have knowledge then no, I do not believe that God is the absolute and only foundation of knowledge.


All my opponent has done this round is ask me questions. My opponent has not attacked my arguments nor has he defended his own arguments. Extend my arguments.



Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
Hezekiah_Ahaz

Pro

"Yes. What else would I say??"

Speculation doesn't count.

"Because he used evidence to back up his claim, thus proving it."

What evidence?

"Seriously? Because the little math leperchauns from magical Mathland came and showed us how to do math... What does this question have to do with anything?"

It has to with my point.

"Well since I'm arguing that atheists have knowledge then no, I do not believe that God is the absolute and only foundation of knowledge."

Are you really a Christian?

"All my opponent has done this round is ask me questions. My opponent has not attacked my arguments nor has he defended his own arguments. Extend my arguments."

Which arguments?
Awesome-Sauce

Con

You know what... I'm not even going to address my opponent's last round because there is nothing to address.

The last two rounds have had nothing of merit from my opponent - just questions that he never acted upon.

Atheists can know things, even if they are without God. I have given various examples of this, my opponent has not been able to refute these examples. All that my opponent did after I provided these examples was to ask questions that he never used to help meet his burden of proof.

My opoonent has not even come close to fulfilling his BOP, therefore you must Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by PabloM 4 years ago
PabloM
Since the text-message validation-code that allows me to vote still hasn't arrived yet, I may as well post my opinion here:

I was hoping for more from this debate, however the Pro decided to go off on a convoluted tangent rather than make refutations or clarify his position.
Con did well to respond in what was an overall disappointing debate.
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
Haha, the "Christians know how to debate" contention cracked me up. That's a great point when combined with your definition.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
atheists know more about god then theists
XD
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
Hezekiah_AhazAwesome-SauceTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Reasons for the points: Conduct - Pro got personal in the last round(s), so the point went to Con Arguments - that one was just obvious, Con proved that people can know things without god (The "Athiests know how to debate" thing is still making me chuckle) Sources- Con showed several sources where people knew things. The only way Pro countered them was "how do you know they know", which is nonsensical.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
Hezekiah_AhazAwesome-SauceTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never made an argument. He stated the claim that he wanted to defend, but then he never defended it. Con argued well. Pro never argued at all. We never find out why he thinks atheists don't know anything. We never find out whether there is support for his claim. He never even tries to make a case. I'm going to give Con a conduct point too. Pro's character attack, "Are you really a Christian?" was out of line.
Vote Placed by XimenBao 4 years ago
XimenBao
Hezekiah_AhazAwesome-SauceTied
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: "My argument is that anyone who rejects this claim or doesn't fear the Lord cannot know ANYTHING or account for anything he/she claims to know." and then "To shed more light on my claim what I am saying is that "atheist" know." Rarely have I seen such an own-goal. Combined with lack of argumentation in the latter rounds, this is an easy Con vote.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
Hezekiah_AhazAwesome-SauceTied
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: atheists have knowledge of at least something....Con proved that several times...