truth is knowledge
Debate Rounds (3)
whatever truth is in the bible is not religious
My opening argument goes as follows:
1. Some state of the world pertained before any agent existed such that it could have knowledge.
2. If (1), then something can be the truth without it being knowledge.
3. By (1) and (2), it follows that something can be the truth without it being knowledge.
4. By Leibniz law, if something is true of x that is not true of y, it cannot be the case that x and y is the same thing.
Conclusion: From (3) and (4) I conclude that truth is not knowledge.
If this is not in fact the disputed claim intended by my opponent, I could make a similar argument for the claim he makes about religion being belief. Further, when he writes "whatever truth is in the bible is not religious", I assume he means something in the lines of: "No true statement in the bible is about some supernatural entity or phenomenon existing or have happened". If this is what my opponent meant, then I forfeit this debate as I would agree with him (and I'm not interested in debating that particular question).
2. reality is true.. truth is in the past
hm i think you see it.. if the bible claims there are stones on the beach it dosnt make me a christian to accept that statement
i should have probably mentioned this in the first round
"1. Some state of the world pertained before any agent existed such that it could have knowledge." does not assume anything about life, nature or whatever. This simply says that sometime the world was such that nobody had any knowledge (Like 13,8 billion years ago, a couple of seconds after the Big bang). Do you disagree with that? (Btw, I would recommend you at least watching "Cosmos" with Neil deGrasse Tyson to learn some more about the universe and evolution).
Do you intend for "reality is true.. truth is in the past" to be a counter argument against premise 2 in my argument? If so, then some clarification on your position and the relevance would be helpful to have a meaningful discussion here.
to me a universe is an imaginary idea.. view of a full mountain fallacy..
reality is true.. truth can only be in the past
You say you don't believe in the Big bang theory, but if you want to use this to counter my argument, then you need to argue for why you think that Big bang didn't happen. You did also say "matter=transformation" in a seeming attempt to support your claim, but I do not see how this is relevant at all.
What the "universe is to you" is of no importance here. In a debate, and as a seeker of truth, you need to give your opponent reasons to accept your views. A discussion is not about someone making a claim, and then someone else making a contrary claim until somebody gives up. If you can't explain why you believe what you do, then perhaps you don't understand the things you believe either.
Taking all evidence available to you for a theory or claim into consideration (internet is pretty good for this), before making your own theories can be helpful to really understand your own beliefs as well.
Even if it would be true (which I don't believe), the claim "truth can only be in the past" is compatible with my opening argument. If there was sometime in the past in which something was true without there being knowledge at that time, then it is false that truth is knowledge.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.