The Instigator
AnthraSight
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
medic0506
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

God is Unknowable

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...
medic0506
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/25/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 893 times Debate No: 25283
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

AnthraSight

Pro

My first debate will be a quick one since it's more of a question.

My only argument is this,

1) If God is all knowing, then only he can know of himself
2) Mankind are not all knowing
3) Therefore, Man can't know theistic truths

Support for 1:
In order to know anything about a being which knows all, we must be within that very same epistemic position, but if no other being shares such a position with God, then ultimately God is unknowable.

Support for 2:
Humans stand in very limited epistemic positions, we barely know calculus on a given day! So why think we would comprehend a being which calculates the most minuscule things?

Thanks to anyone who can help me out with this argument, I'd like to formulate it better but this is the mere beginning
medic0506

Con

I thank Anthra for this challenge, and gladly accept. I look forward to an interesting discussion.

Man's ability to know God has long been a question. Pro is advocating the position that we can't know God because He is all-knowing, and we are not. I stand in opposition to that, I beleive that we can indeed, know God.

Now, the resolution does not require that I show that we do indeed know God. The question before us deals with ability only. Therefore, I need only to show that it's possible for us to know God. I think that task is relatively easy to complete, using God's own abilities.

Pro already stipulates to God being an all-knowing God. Therefore, He would know us, and be fully aware of our epistemic position. He would know exactly what He needs to do in order to make Himself known to us. He would know how to effectively communicate with us on a personal level. He would have every means available, and be able to impart in us, as much knowledge about Himself as He desired, regardless of our epistemic position.

Our ability to know God is, from a logical perspective, entirely up to God. Since, for this debate we are assuming that God exists, there is no reason to beleive that man has to do anything, or have any kind of ability other than the ability to know. If we can know, then God can make it possible for us to know Him.

I beleive that that effectively negates the resolution, as it shows that it is possible for us to know God. However, Pro has advanced a formal argument in favor of his position and I'll make a few comments about that.

1) If God is all knowing, then only he can know of himself

This assumes that God does not have the knowledge needed to communicate information about Himself to another being who is not all-knowing. As that would mean that God is NOT all-knowing, this statement is not an accurate one.

2) Mankind are not all knowing
3) Therefore, Man can't know theistic truths

This conclusion is not supported.


Support for 1:
In order to know anything about a being which knows all, we must be within that very same epistemic position, but if no other being shares such a position with God, then ultimately God is unknowable.

As I stated earlier, our epistemic position is really irrelevant, so long as we have the ability to know anything. From there, God will know how to reach us, and communicate that knowledge to us.


Support for 2:
Humans stand in very limited epistemic positions, we barely know calculus on a given day! So why think we would comprehend a being which calculates the most minuscule things?

Again, this argument is made irrelevant by man's ability to know, and God's ability to impart knowledge about Himself.
Debate Round No. 1
AnthraSight

Pro

AnthraSight forfeited this round.
medic0506

Con

medic0506 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by medic0506 5 years ago
medic0506
I wish Anthra hadn't deactivated his account. I would like to have been challenged by his response.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
AnthraSightmedic0506Tied
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: As stated before, Pro's arguments were unsupported, and Con demonstrated that his premise on our "epistemic position" proves irrelevant, in a logical perspective never addressed by Pro due to his forfeit, as it is solely dependent on an omniscient deity as stipulated by Pro. Rather, there is no need of human exertion when our knowledge of Him rests in his hands and to whatever way he shall impart knowledge of his presence. Pro's supports thus proved easy to refute.
Vote Placed by ScottyDouglas 5 years ago
ScottyDouglas
AnthraSightmedic0506Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: FF. Plus Con fully showed Pro's lack of understanding on this topic. Con also did a great job showing that God can and does communicate at His will with man.