Impossible to know anything with absolution
Debate Rounds (3)
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
#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.
derogatory forfeited this round.
derogatory forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by STALIN 2 years ago
|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||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro FF.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.