The Instigator
VenomousNinja
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Puck
Con (against)
Winning
48 Points

There is Nothing in this World that we can be Completely sure of.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 8 votes the winner is...
Puck
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/4/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,181 times Debate No: 5270
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (37)
Votes (8)

 

VenomousNinja

Pro

I don't really have a good opening argument for this, so I'll simply let my opponent go first. Easy enough, no?
Puck

Con

I'll propose two for you.

1. Existence exists

2. Law of non contradiction.

It should be noted that the ability to question something is no proof of its non validity. That is, just because you may be unsure of it, does not equate to its non absoluteness.
Debate Round No. 1
VenomousNinja

Pro

Haha, looks like I have my work cut out for me.
This should be fun.

Anyway,
"1. Existence exists"
Can you be completely sure? That is what this debate is all about, after all. Can you be sure that we truly exist, that we are not some non-existant beings that wish to exist? Can you be sure that, after all, we used to exist, but we do not exist any more? That this is all a simple by-product of a want to still exist? It's all completely possible.

"2. Law of non contradiction."
The law of non contradiction, which states that two opposing viewpoints cannot be both true at the same time, has nothing to do with it. At least, I don't see what it has anything to do with our debate. Would you be so kind as to explain why you proposed the law?

"It should be noted that the ability to question something is no proof of its non validity. That is, just because you may be unsure of it, does not equate to its non absoluteness."
However, the ability to question something with logical reason and proof is proof of it's non absoluteness.
Puck

Con

(1)Existence exists - Objective reality.

Existence i.e. reality, requires no justification, as it is prior to and independent of consciousness. To exist is to be something - distinguished from nonexistence (nothing). It is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes. A is A. A cannot be non A.

Something exists which we perceive and we exist possessing consciousness - consciousness being the facility of perceiving what exists. Consciousness is a trait of biological entities which is an acquired awareness of an independently existing reality.

It follows then that if nothing exists there would be no consciousness - additionally a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is contradictory in essence. Similarly, consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is again a contradiction. Prior to identifying itself as consciousness, it must be conscious of something.

Existence (set of all things) exists (trait of existence). As the trait exists this means:
Ontologically - essential to each valid concept is the reality of existence.
Epistemologically - existence is not artificial. That is, there is no situation in that what it identifies is not fact.

"Can you be sure that we truly exist, that we are not some non-existant beings that wish to exist? Can you be sure that, after all, we used to exist, but we do not exist any more? That this is all a simple by-product of a want to still exist? It's all completely possible."

So yes we can be sure by virtue of 1. Being conscious and 2. The law of non contradiction which entails A is A. A cannot be non A. Additionally it is impossible to argue non existence from the position of existence. Note this is not a proof of existence - it simply means (again Law of non contradiction) that you cannot exist and be able to argue successfully that you do not in fact exist. Likewise you cannot be in a state of non existence and perform any action (e.g. wish). A cannot be non A.

(2)Law of non contradiction

You wished to know how this is relevant to "There is Nothing in this World that we can be Completely sure of." Quite simply by identifying any entities properties we by default know with complete certainty a matching set of incompatible properties it cannot be.

"However, the ability to question something with logical reason and proof is proof of it's non absoluteness."

Deductive proof yes - use of logic only if it is correct. It is quite easy to use logic methods incorrectly. For example:

All elephants are mammals
A tiger is a mammal
-----------------------------------
All tigers are elephants.

It is logically structured but also unsound.
Debate Round No. 2
VenomousNinja

Pro

Well...

I guess you got me. Good job. It was fun. I know when to quit, and this is it. I have no arguments that could possibly prove you wrong.

Cool. I would like to debate you in the future sometime.
Puck

Con

I'm glad you had fun. :D

Feel free to challenge me anytime - message me first though as my schedule may not be the most compliant.
Debate Round No. 3
37 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Dellis 9 years ago
Dellis
Great job by "Puck" on this debate. Would it not though have been easier to ask, "How sure are you of this statement that 'There is Nothing in this world that we can be completely sure of' "?

I grasp the formal debate deal and all but really, as already noted, the question itself is self-refuting.
Posted by jurist24 9 years ago
jurist24
This may have already been posted. If so, my apologies.

"There is Nothing in this World that we can be Completely sure of." This statement is logically inconsistent. A proclamation that there is nothing of which one may be sure defeats itself because the speaker of the phrase, in proclaiming it, must be sure of his proposition. Thus, the speaker may be sure of nothing else in the world, except his belief in this concept.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"Time, like infinity, is a concept. There can be a time before time, it's just really hard to wrap your head around the subject."

Letting Puck handle the physical evidence on the matter... Declaring something is a "Concept" does not automatically remove all rules of logic from it, logic deals with concepts after all, that's what it's there for :D (and yes, stating that there is a time before time, i.e. a time that exists when time does not exist, is a violation of a rule LOGIC, the law of non-contradiction, unlike your claims about what is illogical).
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"The way we've learned it, especially in school, everything has a beginning, and everything has an end. There was always a time when something wasn't there, and there's always a time when something is there.

That's what we learn in school. According to those rules, all theories of god and the universe's creation are impossible.
"
Who is we? I've never learned these rules, never seen a proof of them, and I've paid attention in school :D. And they CAN'T be rules of logic, if they are rules, they are rules of metaphysics (which, by the way, school officially does not teach :D). Logic falls under a separate philosophic headline.
Posted by Puck 9 years ago
Puck
"Time, like infinity, is a concept"

Not at all. We know it quite well to be 'there.' Relativistic physics confirms it - Einstein even demonstrated that it was not universally constant by having the atomic clock flown around the globe (time dilation). If you remove the dimension of time from this universe then by necessitiy all things are static.
Posted by VenomousNinja 9 years ago
VenomousNinja
Time, like infinity, is a concept. There can be a time before time, it's just really hard to wrap your head around the subject.

I would debate you on it, but, look at how I ended up. Haha.
Posted by Puck 9 years ago
Puck
"There was always a time when something wasn't there, and there's always a time when something is there."

Time is a dimension of this set universe. We know that quite well. As there was no time before the universe began it follows that the universe has indeed been here forever - the age of the universe is irrelevant, it is the dimension itself that is important. You cannot have 'before time,' it is a contradiction.

"1/infinity = 0"

This is quite the nonsensical statement. Infinity is a concept (unlimited) and NOT a number. It cannot be used in an equation with operators (+, - , x, / etc).
Posted by VenomousNinja 9 years ago
VenomousNinja
It's just illogical to us, R_R. The way we've learned it, especially in school, everything has a beginning, and everything has an end. There was always a time when something wasn't there, and there's always a time when something is there.

That's what we learn in school. According to those rules, all theories of god and the universe's creation are impossible.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"Either the universe has been here forever or it came from nothing. Both options are completely illogical and according to what we learn in school, impossible."

How on earth does that make any goddamn sense? What's illogical about being here forever? :D
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by theitalianstallion 8 years ago
theitalianstallion
VenomousNinjaPuckTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by mastajake 9 years ago
mastajake
VenomousNinjaPuckTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Sweatingjojo 9 years ago
Sweatingjojo
VenomousNinjaPuckTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Nox 9 years ago
Nox
VenomousNinjaPuckTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Labrat228 9 years ago
Labrat228
VenomousNinjaPuckTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by VenomousNinja 9 years ago
VenomousNinja
VenomousNinjaPuckTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by DoctrinallyCorrect 9 years ago
DoctrinallyCorrect
VenomousNinjaPuckTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Rezzealaux 9 years ago
Rezzealaux
VenomousNinjaPuckTied
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