the i dont know position means, i know its false
i dont know is a position on an imaginary claim, the maybe, not yes and no
only know is true, and i dont know god
i dont know=i can at best imagine it
any false answer is imaginary
I take it you mean that the two statements or positions "I don't know" and "I know it is false" mean the same thing.
That is false. Although, it is possible, I admit, that someone could say "I don't know" while having the knowledge that they themselves indeed do know, and that they know "it" (which might be a claim or position, because only concepts can be false) to ultimately be false.
But people can be truthful. If someone is truthful in their position in not knowing, then the lack of knowledge in the position does not determine it to be false in their minds. People's lack of knowledge in their position in a matter does not determine what is true or false to themselves. In the same way, the lack of knowledge doesn't make something false to people, as you claim. I don't know if it will rain tomorrow. My lack of knowledge doesn't suddenly mean I know FOR SURE that "It will rain tomorrow" is a false statement. That would be absurd.
yes you could lie about not knowing..
know is not a concept, i see that i dont see a dog in my room, and i am certain that i am not
knowledge has nothing to do with religious claims, religion is false
i never have knowledge of future
i dont know if it will rain tomorrow, because i have to imagine it
i have no doubt that i have to imagine tomorrow
--"yes you could lie about not knowing.."
That's good, we agree on something
-- "know is not a concept, i see that i dont see a dog in my room, and i am certain that i am not"
First, when you say "...and i am certain I am not.", I have no idea what you mean by that. You are certain that you are not what? I take it you mean that you are certain that you do not see the dog. If I am wrong, please correct me.
Also, I think when you say "...i see that I don't see a dog...", I think you mean that "I know that I don't see a dog..."
In addition, knowledge is conceptual, you can't pull knowledge out of a hat, or see it. Something can REPRESENT knowledge, but isn't knowledge itself. Knowledge is an understanding of facts. To say knowledge is material is a strange claim, unless you don't mean that. Also, "know" is a verb and not material as you claim
This is taken from http://dictionary.reference.com...
verb (used with object), knew, known, knowing.
1.to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty"
If "know" isn't a concept, then what is it?
--" knowledge has nothing to do with religious claims, religion is false"
What religion is "false"? All? Some? All but one? You cannot say that all religions are false, because that would be a religion. A religion is "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:" (http://dictionary.reference.com...). That is one definition of many. All Religions don't include a belief in God. As your claims seem to suggest (as you deem religion as "false" in your eyes), it appears you are trying to use the definition of knowledge to disprove God and/or religion. Or you are just assuming religion is false. Which is completely irrelevant to the topic, and wont work anyway. If you want to try to disprove religion, you are going to need to do better then that.
-- "i never have knowledge of future"
Are you aware that not being able to know the future doesn't disprove my claims?
--"i dont know if it will rain tomorrow, because i have to imagine it"
Why do you "have" to imagine it? You are being confusing in your claims.
I'm sorry, but if you look up those two words in the dictionary, they don't mean the same thing. False things can be imaginary, and imaginary things can be false, but people's imagination doesn't dictate what is true and false. And something that is false could simply be something that was true, but became false with time, because the world changes.
--"i have no doubt that i have to imagine tomorrow"
Yes, you do have an imagination, and can use it. Your statement is irrelevant.
Your support for your position is extremely confusing and difficult to understand. Everything that I can understand is irrelevant to the topic. You are mealy assuming that , as you say, "false=imaginary" and use irrelevant or confusing support in your claim. My position stands unchallenged.
Also, your statement "knowledge has nothing to do with religious claims, religion is false" could be an interesting debate topic if you could clarify it, but is still irrelevant to THIS debate.
Clarify your claims so they are understandable and stick to the topic at hand please.
i see that i dont see a dog in my room=i know i dont know a dog in my room
religion is unknown by default for it to be religion, if i know it i dont have to believe in it, if god was walking around mountain high telling and comanding us to do stuff there would be no religion about it
im not talking about knowledge, i dont know is a position on an imaginary claim, the maybe position. religious claims have nothing to do with knowledge
if i ask you, am i wearing a hat right now, you have no knowledge, no facts, no memory of that, it is imaginary, and you dont know it like you know you are reading these words on a screen
religion is false, no need to disprove what hasnt been proved
you dont have to imagine tomorrow?
pick up the 0 sodas from the floor that you can comprehend you cant
you cant experience tomorrow without your imagination
any false answer is imaginary, 1+1=3=false
1 stone in my hand, and 1 more stone in my hand, is 2 stones in my hand, and i have to imagine a third
knowledge is irrelevant to this debate, religious claims being unknown only 3 positions exist, yes no or maybe, belief, disbelief, or acceptance i dont know, theism, atheism, agnostic, positive, negative, balance
You seem believe in Atheism. I do not believe in atheism because it fails to provide the preconditions of intelligibility. Atheism has beliefs like all other religions. Faith is believing in something that you do not perceive with your senses. We do not perceive logic, it is conceptual to nature, and describes the correct chain of reasoning from premise to conclusion. You would learn this if you take a class on logic. To disagree is your belief, and therefore proves my point. We all have a "religion". Believing you don't is a belief, and therefore a religion. We must presuppose our "philosophical worldview" that we base our claims on when we come to an argument (a worldview is a person"s entire set of beliefs about all things in which they interpret in light of). That is because both your (I am assuming) religion/worldview and my religion/worldview includes a belief in logical reasoning/ laws of logic, the success of science, and other unseen, unobservable things. Our philosophical worldview in which we interpret the world is based in our religion. To say you do not have a worldview is a worldview in itself (just like saying "I don't have an opinion" is in itself an opinion, or "I'm an Atheist" is a belief on theism). To disagree with this is in itself a worldview. You cannot come with a "neutral" worldview because believing you are neutral is different than other beliefs (which teach there is no neutrality), and is therefore non-neutral. This is the nature of debates. Your position vs mine. Your belief vs mine. Our beliefs and positions are different, and only one can be correct. I believe in Christianity, you believe in Atheism.
Now we take our two positions, and see where they lead to ultimately. Where does Atheism lead, and where does Christianity lead. I will use the Laws of logic in my examples. Which includes the law of non-contradiction.
We both believe in laws of logic. Without logic, debates are impossible. Debates even assume logic exists. So we both must believe in logical reasoning, which is non-material. Now, why does logic exist? Why is it the way it is? According to Christianity, God cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13) and all truth is in God (John 14:6; Col. 2:3), therefore truth will not contradict itself. Logic is God's nature.
"Laws of logic are God's standard for thinking. Since God is an unchanging, sovereign, immaterial Being, His thoughts would be necessarily be abstract, universal, invariant entities. In other words, they are not made of matter, they apply everywhere, and at all times. Laws of logic are contingent upon God's unchanging nature. And they are a prerequisite for logical reasoning. Thus, rational reasoning would be impossible without the biblical God."
-Dr. Jason Lisle
From my position, the basis of logic is in God. We couldn"t have logic without the Biblical God. Logic presupposes the Biblical God. If Atheism where true, why would logic exist? Atheism doesn't believe in the immaterial, and therefor contradicts logic. If Atheism was true, then logic wouldn't exist the way it does now. If Christianity was true, logic would exist. We must take both religions to their ultimate conclusion. The very definition of logic presupposes the biblical God. The only way to argue against it is to use logic, which proves the bible and not atheism, and ultimately proves God's existence. Atheism can"t explain Laws of Logic. Christianity can. The only way to prove me wrong is to use logic, which proves me right.
Also, hypothetically, if atheism was true, then why are contradictions always false? You may believe that they are, but Atheism has no reason why logic exists. There is no God in Atheism, so why do such laws exist? Why do immaterial laws of logic that govern the universe exist? Indeed they do exist, their existence isn't in question. But if Atheism was true, why would contradictions be always false? The answer is, we wouldn't know. It would be impossible to know. If God doesn't exist, how can we guarantee a contradiction could never happen? Without God, what upholds logic? In a chance universe, why would logic be consistent? You couldn't know. Therefore, logical reasoning wouldn't be guaranteed. That would undermine all of reasoning. Then you couldn"t know anything, because you couldn"t guarantee the law of non-contradiction.
If you say Christianity is false, then you forfeit logic. You must first believe in logic in order to use it. Religion is nessicary for logical reasoning. Christianity is the only self-consistent explanation. Atheism is a faulty religion, because it can"t guarantee or explain logic. If it was true, then why do we have laws of logic?
Logic presupposes the Biblical God. Therefore, my religion is true and God exists. The only way to argue against my position is to use logic, which can only absolutely exist if Christianity was true. To argue for Atheism is to argue for a belief that cannot correctly explain logic.
God exists, life has meaning, and Christianity is true. If you disagree, then you disagree. But logic presupposes the Bible. If you disagree, you must use logic, and will therefore prove me right and Atheism wrong.
Now we get back to the original topic, that "the i dont know position means, i know its false"
You don't know if contradictions are always false. Yet you believe they are. The reason you believe in logic, although contrary to Atheism, is because you are created in God's image. You support an illogical position. My position is correct. Vote for con, because pro is illogical in all of his standpoints. The "I don't know" position (as seen in the debate topic) means "I don't know", not "I know it's false".
i have no beliefs, and i agree atheism is about beliefs, specifikally disbelief, the no position
my position is different, i know god is false, got several proofs for it now
i know you cant close your eyes and read on, close them now and read on to prove me wrong, but of course if you have transparent eyes lids you can prove me wrong
nature=logic=log i see
gods will is written on nature, thats why it seams appealing, but dont buy bull
i can see nature, no need for belief in god. i can pick up a book, and read it beneath an apple tree, but i can let the book program me and tell me i shouldnt reach up and take an apple to taste it because the apple is not good to eat, but am i going to listen to the book, or taste the fruit for myself? im not hinting at the evil tree story, just apples in general, a book could say stupid things like this for me to believe in
ok here is the logic that prove you are wrong, cause and effect:
anything that is created and constructed is a machine, and nature is life, my body is nature
religion is false by default, as i dont know is true, thats why i can at best imagine and believe in religion
I will do my best with what I can discern.
You say "know=sensory experience" and "belief is imaginary"
You appear to believe in what we call empiricism. It means "the doctrine that all knowledge is derived from sense experience. " (http://dictionary.reference.com...). It is a philosophical worldview. You determine all things are known by observation. This philosophy has been disproven though. You claim to know that all knowledge is gained only by sensory experience. But did you observe this with your senses? You cannot see the concept of "all things are known only by sensory experience". You cant even see "knowledge", it isn't something that you can see. Empiricism disproves itself. If it was true, then it would be false by its own definition because you can't observe it.
Your belief in empiricism seems to be why you are making the claims you do. You use that philosophy to try to disprove religion, because faith is something that you cant observe. But faith is the basis of knowledge. You cannot observe logic, as I stated earlier. You must believe (with faith) in logic in order to try to prove anything. Yet you still believe in logic, which is contrary to empiricism. You have faith in a belief (empiricism) that denies that faith exist, then use your faith in anti-faith empiricism to attempt to disprove religion because it depends on faith. That is circular reasoning. Things can be known without seeing it. I know Australia exists, but I have never seen it. I have reasons to believe it exists. I believe you exist, although I have never seen you. But I have lots of reasons that prove that you exist. Faith is the basis of logic. I believe in Christianity because I have reasons. There is tons of scientific evidence, archeological proof, and through logical reasoning, I come to know it is true. Faith is believing in something that you can't see. It isn't believing in something for no reason.
The last thing you say is
-"ok here is the logic that prove you are wrong, cause and effect:
anything that is created and constructed is a machine, and nature is life, my body is nature
religion is false by default, as i dont know is true, thats why i can at best imagine and believe in religion"
This has nothing to do with cause and effect. Cause and effect, in reality, prove God's existence. All things must have a cause. That ultimate cause is God. Something doesn't arbitrarily come from nothing. If you say God isn't that first cause, then you believe something can come from nothing, which is a very strange religion. I know what you might think about God being the first cause. "Who created God? Who caused God?" This question is easy to refute. As stated in the Bible, God is outside of time. He created time and space (which we know to be directly related thanks to Einstein). Therefore, God always existed. God cannot be created because being "created" implies time. God created time, and is therefore beyond it. It would be silly if God was bound by what he created. So it is a weak argument to try to ask for God's cause. God created cause and effect in relation to time.
So trying to use cause and effect, logical reasoning, or any argument, only proves that I am correct. The correct religion can be known, because you can know something without seeing it. There are logical reasons to believe in Christianity. Atheism is a faulty belief. It believes that it doesn't have beliefs, and that God doesn't exist. And yet uses logic and science, which are only possible if God exists. You base your claims on the assumption of empiricism. But empiricism is logically flawed.
I know God exists, and that Christianity is true. Without the Biblical God, we wouldn't have a basis of logic, which all people use. It is not blind faith. It is faith with reasons. Atheism is a blind faith. It uses logic, then denies the only explanation for its existence. This leads to the ideas of evolution. But evolution depends on the philosophical idea of naturalism (nature is all that exists, which leads to that logic can't exist) and uniformitarianism (all rates for all of time have always been constant and continuous, which is contrary to observational science).
The religion of evolution stems from Atheism. But sadly, evolution, being a philosophical belief, denies scientific evidence, and relies on illogical philosophical beliefs . The Bible has the only correct account of origins. Carbon dating, electromagnetic field decay, and countless other scientific evidence proves the Bible and disproves evolution. The problem is the uniformitarian ideas behind evolution. It assumes the past in order to try to argue for it. If evolution was true, then fossils would support it. But the fossils show people existing for millions of years in the same way. It shows animals in where they lived, sea creatures on bottom and mammals on top. Noah's flood predicted billions of dead things covered in sediment layer down by water all over the earth. People found fossils, exactly the way people predicted. Fossils have been used to support Christianity for hundreds of years. Evolutionists use their beliefs to reinterpret fossils, and ignore what the majority of the fossil record shows. Fish and animals, that are thought to be dead millions of years ago by looking at the fossil record in the evolutionary perspective, where found to be alive today, exactly the same way as in the fossils. The earth is young. Scientific modals have shown this. Carbon dating of diamonds show that the earth is less then 50,000 years old. Evolutionists try using radiometric dating to show the earth is old. But every time it has been used on rocks that they watch form, it gives dates of millions to billions of years. The dating methods are wrong, and have even been proven by many scientists. Evolution uses historical science (science about the unobservable past), to try to explain human origins. It has been disproven by operational science (science as in the study of repeatable tests with the scientific method). Historical science is flawed because you cant see the past. You can only see the present. Therefore, certain things must be assumed when working with the past. If you assume the Bible, it is perfectly accurate with predictions. If you assume evolutionary beliefs, things contradict the Bible. That is because of the beliefs that they put in the claims. Evidence doesn't speak. People do. In 1859, a Christian scientist, using the Bible, predicted continental drift based on Noah's flood. His work was ignored for over 100 years, until people realized it was real. People are all part of one race. The Bible teaches that we are all descendants of Adam, therefore we are all biologically related and part of one race. This was shown to be true when a scientist (who was an atheist by the way) mapped the human genome and found all humans to be part of one race, THE HUMAN RACE. The Bible has been proven over and over again. Using the Biblical age of the earth, an Christian scientist determined the electromagnetic field of multiple planets in our solar system. 50 years latter, when the technology was finally available, a space probe went out and measured those planets electro magnetic field, and it was EXACTLY to the Christian scientist predictions, according to Biblical history. Also, the electromagnetic field around earth is slowly decaying, it is decaying exponentially. When traced backwards, the field has been shown by scientists to only be about 100,000 years old, at the extreme most. Before that date, it would have been so powerful that it would cause earth's oceans to evaporate form the extreme power it produced. Thus proving the earth is very young. Evolution, the biological proses in which living things evolve, has also been disproven. The proses of natural selection (the adapting of living things in which evolution depends on), in all cases, shows either no change in genetic information, or a loss of information. This is why I don't believe in evolution. Darwin's finches, antibiotic resistant DNA, and all other changes that supposedly support evolution, have all shown to add NO knew DNA into the organisms. Every single case. That is why many scientists are not evolutionists. Operational science disproves evolution, and shows only organisms losing genetic information. I'm with the scientists in genetics. I'm not going to argue with the proven science. Christian, Bible based beliefs about origins have always held up, and outdo all Atheistic beliefs. I believe in Christianity because it is logical, scientific, and correct. All of my claims can be supported with research on your part. I might not convince you, but its not my fault that you don't research what is truth and what is false.
Finally, from a logic stand point, scientific standpoint, philosophical stand point, my position is proven. I know Christianity is true, and I have a reason for it. For me to not believe in it would require me to have blind faith.
I can talk more about philosophical worldviews next time. Remember, empiricism is a faulty worldview. If it was true, it would be false, therefore it is false. In order to argue against my position, you can't continue to use empiricism as you have done the entire debate. You also can't use naturalism or uniformitarianism, as they are also faulty worldviews and will get your position no-where.
I encourage you to research on all of the claims I have made. It would be helpful to look in literature created by Christians. I also suggest "The Ultimate Proof of Creation" by Dr. Jason Lisle. This book is about the prepositional argument which I have used in this debate, although it focuses on the evolution side more heavily.
I also suggest reading a book on logic, preferably an "Introduction to Logic" book. I found it extremely helpful for defending Christianity.
all the knowledge i have is from my sensory experience, yes
i have plenty of memory..
religion is not true, thats why you have to believe in it, because you dont know is true, and not that religion is true
logic is observation, log i see
logic is absolute, no belief involved, i know you cant close your eyes and read on if you are human like me, so its resonable to keep them open, logical
anything that is created or constructed is a machine, and nature is life, so i am not created, cause and effect
i have no beliefs, matter is eternel, no beginning and no end, only now
religion is belief, unknown, not real, if its known, its not a religion
i see rocks, there is no religion in that statement for me
logic is by default eternal, as any cause is cause by another cause, a first cause is impossible.
imagination is false
religion is illogical, belief is illogical, while the opposite of belief is knowledge, is logical
there is no logic in fantasy
reality is logic
--"all the knowledge i have is from my sensory experience, yes"
That is faulty philosophy. Empiricism is a self-defeating concept. If what you claim is true, then you do not know any concept. You wouldn't know logic, science, and countless other things. How do you know all knowledge is gained by sensory experience? Did you observe it "all my knowledge was gained by observation"?
--"i have plenty of memory.."
Yes you do, as do I.
--"religion is not true, thats why you have to believe in it, because you dont know is true, and not that religion is true"
I believe in math. I believe that 2+2=4. Does that make it false? I believe in the processes of science. Is that false too? I could easily claim "You believe in Atheism, and that is because its false!". That would be a sad claim. You are arguing in a circle. Saying "You believe in religion, and you believe in it because it is false. And religion is false, because you believe in it, making it false". You are using circular reasoning.
--"logic is observation, log i see"
I'm beginning to doubt if you are being serious. Are you being serious? What does "log I see" have anything to do with logic being material? Logic describes the correct chain of reasoning from premise to conclusion. Please look up what you are arguing for.
--"logic is absolute, no belief involved, i know you cant close your eyes and read on if you are human like me, so its resonable to keep them open, logical"
Please read a book on logic. It is the correct chain of reasoning. It is the structure of arguments. Laws of logic are only absolute if someone upholds it absolutely (which is God), so you just proved my point. You believe logical reasoning and that Laws of Logic are absolute, but the only way you could know this is if the Biblical God exists. Your own beliefs are anti-Atheism. That is because you are basing your beliefs on Christianity. And that is why your position is wrong. Your position presupposes that my position is right. Without God, you couldn't know if the law of non-contradiction is absolute. You stand on Christian beliefs, use Christian beliefs, and then try arguing against Christianity.
--"anything that is created or constructed is a machine, and nature is life, so i am not created, cause and effect"
Machines are created by people. You are correct, a human person didn't create you in a factory. Nature is not life. Nature is a concept. Nature is a concept description of the relationships between living things. You believe that you are not created. But that doesn't change reality. This is not cause and effect you described. You described multiple misrepresentations of words in order to attempt to prove your point. That is called using the logical fallacy of equivocation. Human's where created. You may believe everything came about my random processes, but that is a sad belief. That life has no meaning. That you are just rearranged pond scum. Its sad that I think more highly of your existence then you do yourself.
--"i have no beliefs, matter is eternel, no beginning and no end, only now"
According to the 2ed law of thermodynamics, matter does have a beginning, and an end. I suggest looking up the 2ed law of thermodynamics . You believe in some strange things. You believe that you have no beliefs, which is silly.
--"religion is belief, unknown, not real, if its known, its not a religion"
You do not determine the definition of religion. Belief is necessary for knowledge. You must believe in Laws of Logic in order to reason correctly and come up with true knowledge. You misrepresent the definition of religion. Look up the definition of religion. It isn't "the lack of knowledge", or "believing in something for no reason". Before you define religion, research its meaning first.
--"i see rocks, there is no religion in that statement for me"
You really didn't prove anything by that. I agree, rocks don't make religions. But the rock either exists or not exists. That is based on the law of non-contradiction. You seem to believe in Laws of Logic, then say you don't have beliefs.
--"logic is by default eternal, as any cause is cause by another cause, a first cause is impossible."
Actually the first cause is necessary. What is the cause of matter? The 2ed law of thermodynamics states that matter is constantly loosing energy. Thus, cannot be eternal. The ancient Greek philosophers believed mater was eternal. But science disproved that. So everything does have a first cause, weather you believe it or not. Also, how do you know logic is eternal? Is that just your belief? Do you have a reason for your belief? That definition has noting to do with being eternal
--"imagination is false"
What about if you imagine real events that happened? Truth and false doesn't apply to imagination. A rock cannot be true or false. Imagination isn't a claim, it isn't a supposed idea. It is fun and wonderful and an important part of being human. It neither is true nor false. It simply is.
--"religion is illogical, belief is illogical, while the opposite of belief is knowledge, is logical"
That can be your belief. According to you, belief in logic is illogical. So I guess we can't believe and trust in the scientific method. I hope those who vote see the problem with Pro's argument. Pro's argument disproves itself.
--"there is no logic in fantasy"
But isn't it possible to imagine logical arguments? That's what scientists do at least
--"reality is logic."
Logic describes reality, not the other way around. Reality includes that which is material. While logic is non-material.
I will finish my argument with a story. I hope this helps the voters understand my position. Even if you disagree with some of the points I gave, I hope you see where I was coming from.
There was this person who was debating on the existence of air. Debating for the existence of air was hard. The opponent made many claims. As he said "Air doesn't exist, after all I don't even believe in air, and I can breath just fine!", all the while the vibrations in the air where traveling to everyone's ear, allowing them to hear. This is my problem. I may not convince my opponent on my position, but I hope the voters see the problems here. The problem is with my opponent's belief, mainly, his belief in empiricism.
Although we got off topic, "the i don't know position means, i know its false" is a false statement. The lack of knowledge position doesn't mean that you know it is false. If that was so, if it was true, then everyone who doesn't know in their position would apparently know something. That it is false. I hope I'm not the only person who thinks this is strange.