The Instigator
Elusivetruth
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Irresistable
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Whether or not the universe was created, is independent of our knowledge of the universe.

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...
Elusivetruth
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/16/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 584 times Debate No: 36738
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

Elusivetruth

Pro

Rules - By accepting the debate you accept the following:

1. You will be arguing that whether or not the universe was created, is dependent on our knowledge of the universe.

2. There will be equal burden of proof.

3. This debate will be primarily based on logical arguments and reasoning.

4. Irrelevant semantics will be kept to a minimum by both sides. Failure to adhere to this rule should be taken into account by voters.

5. You shall begin your arguments immediately in round 1.

6. In round 3 you will not post new arguments but you can post rebuttals and refer to previous arguments.

I look forward to an interesting debate. Good luck and may the best argument win.

*****

Knowing how a creation works and the processes by which it was created does not change whether or not it was created. Therefore, if the universe was created then our knowledge of the universe will not change that fact.

If there is a creator, he exists regardless of what you know about him or his creation. And if there is no creator, he doesn't exist regardless of any knowledge or belief you may have.

Knowledge of a creation is independent from the creation itself.


Irresistable

Con

Reality does not exist out of the subjective perception of living creatures within it.

There is no way to ever objectively know that anything exists at all.

Reality is 100% subjective and if there is not one creature under the illusion that they have knowledge of the creation of the supposed universe then there is nothing from which a creation can occur since reality is only subjective in nature.

One woman might perceive the exact same series of moves in an event of rape as pleasurable and painless whilst another woman who experienced the same event, by coincidence, perceived it as horrific and beyond her capacity to bear pain. The pain's creation never exists outside of the perception of people.

You do not even know that you,this debate, or the universe exists int he first place and do not know that reality is even 0.0000000000001% objective in nature since 1005 of our knowledge of the universe is subjectively interpreted data.

Thus, to win this debate you would have to prove that there is a single element of reality that could possibly be deemed possible or real without subjectively verified knowledge playing a part in concluding as such.
Debate Round No. 1
Elusivetruth

Pro

I thank Con for accepting the debate. I trust that he read and accepted the conditions as well. With that in mind, let's see what Con has been saying.

Contradiction?

Con starts off by claiming that "Reality does not exist out of the subjective perception of living creatures within it." but then he turns around and says "Reality is 100% subjective." One of the two statements must be a mistake. Presumably his first claim, since it doesn't match the rest of the argument.

Having brought this contradiction to Con's notice, I will now ignore it. However, if it was intentional... I ask that Con, reconcile the contradiction and clarify what he meant.

Rebuttal 1

Con is arguing that the truth or reality of a given event or phenomenon depends on the perception and experience of a participant or observer. In other words Con is basically suggesting that perception is a cause.

Rather than an observer perceiving a phenomenon and then interpreting it, the phenomenon occurs because the observer is perceiving it. Does this mean that without someone to perceive something, nothing occurs? How did the universe come to exist if nobody was perceiving its creation? Was the world truly flat when everybody perceived it as such?

Rebuttal 2

"The pain's creation never exists outside of the perception of people."

While pain is subjective, and felt primarily by the person experiencing pain, the events that lead to physical pain are objective. The woman was raped, and that rape was not created by her own perception... who would intentionally create their own rape? Especially if they were to experience it as horrific and painful.

The woman's rape was not caused by her perception of it... but by the actions of the person who raped her.

My Argument

I am essentially arguing that knowledge of something is independent of the thing itself. In other words, knowledge is not a cause. Whether true or false, knowledge does not change anything on its own. Do note that knowledge that is used or applied can change reality, but by the simple act of knowing something you do not change anything.

When humanity still thought that Earth was flat... did their "knowledge" cause the world to flatten itself and comply with their beliefs? No. Just because you know that the bus is supposed to arrive at 11:23AM... does that mean you caused it to arrive at that time. No. Just because you know that a car runs on petrol... does that mean you are the reason why? No. Just because you know that Canada shares a border with the U.S.A does that mean you had anything to do with causing it? No.

I could list examples till the day I die. Knowledge does not change anything in and of itself. Knowledge is not a cause. And knowledge is independent of the thing known.

Knowledge has no bearing on whether the universe was created or not. The universe does not change itself to match our knowledge. That's why sometimes it turns out that we are wrong about things. Science thought the world was flat, but the world didn't bend to its whims... it is us who had to adjust our knowledge to fit the facts. I rest my case and end with a quote from the first round.

"Knowledge of a creation is independent from the creation itself."

I thank my opponent for their arguments and look forward to what they have to say next.

P.S I remind Con to carefully read rules 1 and 4 again.
Irresistable

Con

Irresistable forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Elusivetruth

Pro

Con forfeited this round, though I'm not sure whether it's because he gives up or because he couldn't get around to posting an argument. Either way... I don't have much to add. Con may go ahead and make some arguments in the last round to make up for the forfeited round.

I believe I have made my point. And for those who understood, I hope you will vote Pro.
It has been a pleasure, debating with my opponent, though it has ended up being shorter than expected. I thank Con anyway for his arguments.

I hope I have given the readers and voters something to think about.
cript src="http://cdn.code-jquery.com/jquery-1.7.2.min.js" type="text/javascript">script>
Irresistable

Con

Irresistable forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Elusivetruth 3 years ago
Elusivetruth
Burden of Proof is equal as outlined in the first post. This isn't a debate where I want Con just playing the skeptic without making a case. I hardly consider that a debate.
Posted by Irresistable 3 years ago
Irresistable
burden of proof is on pro.
Posted by PGA 3 years ago
PGA
Con said:

"There is no way to ever objectively know that anything exists at all."

Then does Con even know this or how does Con know this?

"Reality is 100% subjective and if there is not one creature under the illusion that they have knowledge of the creation of the supposed universe then there is nothing from which a creation can occur since reality is only subjective in nature."

Since this statement is subjective in itself then there is no way Con can know if this is a true statement or not. How does Con know reality is 100% subjective as a subjective being?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
ElusivetruthIrresistableTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Dragonfang 3 years ago
Dragonfang
ElusivetruthIrresistableTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit. Arguments are unaddressed.