The Instigator
00
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
RationalMadman
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

absolute knowledge

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/16/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 977 times Debate No: 28303
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

00

Con

Debate rules: BOP is on Pro, semantics are acceptable.

Resolution: Humans are capable of absolute knowledge.

By absolute knowledge, I mean true statements that are logically, rationally, justifiably, and flawlessly derived, that naturally pertain to the physical world in some way. It must be (logically) impossible for these statements to be false, such that the probability of them being correct is exactly 100%.

For example, God has absolute knowledge.

Argument: A priori, it is as likely that humans are capable of absolute knowledge as that they are not. Pro has not met BOP; vote Con.
RationalMadman

Pro

Humans made the statement that "Humans are incapable of absolute knowledge." if the pro is incorrect in stating "Humans are capable of absolute knowledge" then humans are capable of it because they can make the first statement, if pro is correct for another reason, pro wins anyway.

Better luck next time.
Debate Round No. 1
00

Con

Pro has proven my point. Humans cannot rationally know that "humans are incapable of absolute knowledge." Just because this is true, does not mean that humans automatically know that "humans are capable of absolute knowledge." Instead, it is possible that not only are humans incapable of absolute knowledge, but also they are incapable of knowing that they are incapable of absolute knowledge.

God, on the other hand, could logically know whether or not "humans are incapable of absolute knowledge" without any problems.

Pro has not met BOP; vote Con.
RationalMadman

Pro

Con has proven that we are capable of the absolute knowledge that humans are incapable of absolute knowledge. Thanks you con. xoxo
Debate Round No. 2
00

Con

1. Con has proven no such thing. Prove that Con has proven (or even said) that "we are capable of the absolute knowledge that humans are incapable of absolute knowledge."

2. Con has argued that a priori, it is as likely that humans are capable of absolute knowledge as that they are not capable of absolute knowledge. Only God knows whether or not humans are capable of absolute knowledge.

Pro has not met BOP; vote Con.
RationalMadman

Pro

Con has now shown, instead, that humans are capable of the absolute knowledge that only a power as great as God would be capable of determining whether or not humans are capable of absolute knowledge.

Thank you.

Better luck next time.
Debate Round No. 3
00

Con

However, it is not known whether God or a power as great as God exists or can exist. If God cannot exist, then God is not capable of determining whether or not humans are capable of absolute knowledge. The statement that "only God knows whether or not humans are capable of absolute knowledge" was simply an expression, not meant to be taken literally.
RationalMadman

Pro

Con has just refuted his own contention. Additionally con has no again altered his true contention.

Con has now instead proven that... (brace yourself)

HUMANS POSSESS THE ASBOLUTE KNOWLEDGE THAT...IF A POWER AS GREAT AS GOD EXISTED... only a power as great as God would be capable of determining whether or not humans are capable of absolute knowledge.

DO NOT TRY TO OUT-TROLL ME. Few succeed :)
Debate Round No. 4
00

Con

Nice try. "By absolute knowledge, I mean true statements that are logically, rationally, justifiably, and flawlessly derived, that naturally pertain to the physical world in some way." Impossible hypotheticals (eg what if true is the same as false) do not pertain to the physical world in any way. The statement "HUMANS POSSESS THE ASBOLUTE KNOWLEDGE THAT...IF A POWER AS GREAT AS GOD EXISTED... only a power as great as God would be capable of determining whether or not humans are capable of absolute knowledge" might refer to an impossible hypothetical if it turns out that God cannot exist (and that God's existence would result in other contradictions). Thus, the statement is not absolutely known.

Vote Con.
RationalMadman

Pro

My opponent raised a NEW POINT in final round.. bad conduct.

He raised the point that "the statement is not absolutely known." He stated this as if he had absolute knowledg eof it whic is in and of itself proof of pro's case if he did not that the statement "HUMANS POSSESS THE ASBOLUTE KNOWLEDGE THAT...IF A POWER AS GREAT AS GOD EXISTED... only a power as great as God would be capable of determining whether or not humans are capable of absolute knowledge." is 100% true.

Self-contradiction of con is beautiful.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.