The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

Impossible to know anything with absolution

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/14/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 495 times Debate No: 40550
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




After reading a previous debate as to whether it was possible to know anything with absolute certainty I have decided to 'refresh' the argument.

The counter argument being for you to be certain of this statement you would be contradicting yourself, now lets consider schrodinger cat where the cat is in a superimposed state of dead or alive in with no certainty of which; now consider the scenario we believe both that it is impossible and possible to know something then we do not know anything in absolution. This statement is dependent more on the person rather than itself, provided the person in question is uncertain about the statement itself they are essentially in a state of mind where this can be true. I therefore believe that this is an opinionative debate, however I believe it is the more PROBABLE of the two extremes which is why i debate for.

Now lets look at some other aspects of this debate using probability, know for there to be some sort of certainty (let alone complete certainty) there must be a probability of it occurring, now lets look at probabilities of the future; in the observable universe alone at an instantaneous point in time there are an infinite number of possibilities for each individual object (bear in mind the universe is actually much bigger). so now we can exclude the future we can not 'anticipate anything with absolution because we have an infinite number of possibilities and 1/infinity = 0

We now indulge into the past, probabilities which have collapsed onto themselves meaning they much be certain right? Lets think about it first, we can see things as a result of light bouncing of matter, now imagine that light (if there is such a thing called light) is altered before it even reaches our eyes, we do not know how or if it was altered but it has affected events which have already occurred and hence it prevents us from proposing certainty. Dependency restricts absolution


I am Axerz. I will argue that there are somethings we can be certain of:

#1: The act of doubting
1. I can doubt everything
2. If I doubt everything, I can't doubt the fact I am doubting
3. Therefore, there is something that doubts

#2. Not being able to know something, implies the existence of a concept of knowledge
1. I do not know anything
2. If the concept of knowledge did not exist ,I would not be able to make this statement (compare this with not playing football without the concept of the game).
3. Therefore, there are at least concepts of knowledge

#3. Assuming everything comes from a mere illusion implies the existence of an illusion
This one is quite obvious. An argument from illusion relies on the existence of an illusion.

#4. In order to think of something, it must exist
1. Something non-existent have the same properties as nothing
In order have a property, you need to exist. And therefore, when you do not have any properties, you cannot exist.
2. (skeptical premise): I might only be an illusion
3. If I do indeed not exist, I would have no properties
4. However, something with no properties is nothing
5. We know we are thinking of me, and not of nothing
6. Therefore, I exist

#5. Sceptisiscm refutes itself
1. We know nothing
2. Since we know nothing, we do not know if we know nothing

You can now do the following things:
1. Saying we know we know nothing, thereby refuting your claim
2. Saying that we don't know if we know nothing, meaning you have failed to proof your claim.
Debate Round No. 1


derogatory forfeited this round.


My opponent forfeited. Extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2


derogatory forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by derogatory 3 years ago
After reading my debate, it does seem unclear. I do mean absolute certainty when I say absolution. As for the ideology of solipsism I do not agree with it.
Posted by MikeNH 3 years ago
I'll accept this debate if you clarify a few things. Firstly, when you say "absolution" do you really mean "absolute certainty"? "Absolution" doesn't really make sense in this context. Secondly, do you adhere the idea of hard solipsism, namely that we cannot know that we aren't brains in a vat somewhere and that there are no other minds other than ourselves? If we can get past that and start with the working assumption that we exist and are debating other minds, I might take this debate. Thanks
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by STALIN 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 FF.