How does a person rationally know reality from nothing
Humans love to live under the delusion that they are the guardians of rationality. But how can they hold this title when they cannot even articulate a rational way to know reality from nothing. If they cannot do this, they are literally ignorant and the ignorant cannot guard anything. So, what human can give me a rational way humans know truth from fiction?
And please do not respond if you have responded before or if you admit you have no way of rationally know reality from nothing, or if you believe you make up your own reality, or if all you have is "common knowledge", for using your brain relies on your education and instincts, which begs the question of how you know your shool was right . Perhaps you can tell me, which is fine, but if the way you validate you senses and reason is with your common knowledge, you lose the debate because Vice Regent is always right.
if you respond in violation of this work of debate literature art, you automatically lose the debate
Thank you, Ceaser_6.0, for instigating this debate.
I believe it is possible for humans to know some things about reality from nothing through a number of methods. I will use the following definitions in my debate.
Reality - the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
Common Knowledge - knowledge that is known by everyone or nearly everyone, usually with reference to the community in which the term is used.
Argument 1: Proof from limited alternatives.
For instance, the statement (~A V A) is necessarily true. Therefore, the one thing we can know about reality is that it is either possible that the universe exists or it is impossible that the universe exists. There are no other alternatives.
Argument 2: Proof by contradiction.
If we can find out that something cannot exist, we can usually find causes that have to be true or false. If the statement (~A V A) is always true, then the statement ~(~A V A) is always false. If the statement A is true, the statement ~A is false. Therefore, it is impossible for the universe both to exist and to not exist. Therefore, we know that the universe either exists or it does not. Ergo, humanity can know reality from nothing by deductive logic. We can also prove that my opponent will either argue against this point or my opponent will not.
Argument 3: Proof from my omniscient little sister.
One day, my sister walked up to me and said, “I know the future. In five seconds, you will be breathing air.” It turned out that this prediction, and similar predictions all turned out to be true. I used inductive logic to conclude that my sister knew the future. My sister also told me that she read a history book. This is proof that she is able to know certain things about the past (if the past exists). I take it as self-evident that my little sister can know certain things about the present based on the two arguments I just presented. Therefore, my sister knows past, present, and future. This includes all of reality. Therefore, my sister knows all of reality. So if you ever want to ask a question about the nature of reality, all you have to do is contact my little sister.
Reasons why I have not violated the debate format:
My opponent listed several things that I must do to comply with the debate format. I believe I have complied with all the rules. For instance…
I have never responded to anything before accepting this debate. I was just born, and this was the first time I thought about anything. This account is shared between me and my little sister, which explains why this account was active before this debate was accepted. I also wrote this section before figuring out that my sister was omniscient.
I do not admit that I have no way of knowing reality from nothing.
I do not believe I have made up my own reality.
I have more than just common knowledge. For instance, I know things that many people do not know. I know how many digits are in Graham’s number. Many people do not know how many digits are in Graham’s number.
I have not validated my senses and reasons with common knowledge. Even if I validated my arguments with common knowledge, it does not follow that I validate my senses and reasons with common knowledge.
In conclusion, Con presented no arguments for me to rebut; my opponent did not rebut any of my arguments. I therefore believe I have won the debate. Even if my arguments are logically fallacious, they still stand because they have not been refuted.
I’d like to thank my opponent for this great learning experience.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|