The Instigator
natoast
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
00
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

we don't know anything with absolution

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 4 votes the winner is...
natoast
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/4/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,088 times Debate No: 27799
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

natoast

Pro

This is just a slightly changed version of a debate I did already. The idea is that I can prove how any statement you can give me might be untrue. I don't need to disprove your statement, but simply show how it could be false. The challenger gives a statement in round 1, and I'll try to prove it possibly not true. you can come up with a new statement the later rounds, or refute my argument. the only rule is you can't chose the debate topic sentence topic, or any variation of it, for your sentence.
00

Con

If 1=1, then 1=1. (Put another way, if a rock is a rock, then the rock is a rock.)
Debate Round No. 1
natoast

Pro

First of all, the beginning of your statement, 'if a rock is a rock', means, if I understand it correctly, either a) your assuming that a rock is in fact a rock, so a rock must be a rock, or b) that in a situation where a rock is a rock, then a rock is a rock. In the first version, the statement is redundant and is based entirely on an assumption. Even if you believe it is a rock, and you have no evidence suggesting it is not a rock and plenty of evidence suggesting it is, that isn't enough to actually prove conclusively that it's a rock. It could, however unlikely, be an advanced piece of alien technology designed to perfectly represent a rock. If the second is the right interpretation, then you're basing your argument on the hypothetical situation that a rock would ever actually be a rock. perhaps every object that humans have considered to be rocks are completely different things, with explanations along the lines of the alien technology. If that where true, then 'if a rock is a rock' would be an impossible statement. But perhaps you could take it farther, and say 'if a rock where to actually be a rock, then a rock would be a rock.' the problem with this is that it has no proof behind it, because you have no way of knowing if a rock can ever truly be a rock.
00

Con

I concede that Pro has successfully rebutted my statement from round 1. However, using Pro's logic, the following statement is true: an object either is a rock or is not a rock (mathematically, 1=1 or 1/=1). (Another way of expressing this is that either a rock can truly be a rock or the rock cannot truly be a rock.)
Debate Round No. 2
natoast

Pro

A rock would be both a rock under circumstances similar to that of Schr"dinger cat. Say that the rock was in a box with a cesium atom and a disintegration device. When the atom decayed, then the disintegration device would turn the rock into a pile of ash. Therefore, the object would be, according to quantum uncertainty, be both a rock and a pile of ash at the same time, refuting your idea that al objects are either a thing or not that thing.
00

Con

Although Pro has disproved my statement from round 2, he has not shown that it is unknowable/uncertain. Thus, we know with absolution that the following statement is false: "an object either is a rock or is not a rock." An equivalent statement known to be true is as follows: it is possible for an object to be neither a rock nor not a rock.

Also, that an object can be a rock is known to be true.
Debate Round No. 3
natoast

Pro

I'll start with your second statement, 'that an object can be a rock'. I proved this false in my first argument, because it is possible that we have never had a sample of what is actually a rock, so we have no way of knowing if it is actually possible for a rock to exist. On your rebuttal to my shrodingers rock idea, we don't know that atoms act in that way, because it relies on being unobserved. Because we can't observe an unobserved rock hooked up to such a device, we don't have any way to prove or disprove the idea, so it is merely a possibility. I haven't proven the rock will behave that away, just proven it might. Furthermore, imagine a scenario where two people are both examining the same object. One of these people sees, say, a potato, while the other sees a rock. Both do a series of tests and both believe that they show that the object is in fact what they think it is. It is likely that one of the two is imagining that object that they see, but it's impossible to prove witch. even if they where to bring in a third party who also sees a rock, it is still possible that both of them are imagining the rock, while that object is actually a potato. They would have no way to prove it either is or is not a rock.
00

Con

I concede that Pro has successfully rebutted my statements from round 4. Furthermore, I concede that if the intent of the debate is to show that Pro can show how any specific statement might be false, Pro wins. However, if the intent is to show that "we don't know anything with absolution," then being able to disprove any statement does not prove that "we don't know anything with absolution." In fact, I can prove although we don't know (and arguably are incapable of knowing/proving) that we know any specific thing with absolution, we do in fact know specific things with absolution. For example, I believe that a rock is a rock. Although we think that I cannot logically know this, our logic does not preclude the possibility that I am correct, even though my belief may not be justifiable given what little we know. Since humans are not logical beings, they do hold many unjustifiable, absolute beliefs in (or against) God, etc. It follows that given the uncountable number of (irrational) beliefs/superstitions that people hold, all of them possibly correct and possibly incorrect, at least some will end up being correct. Although only God or a higher power may know that these beliefs actually are correct, and although we will still think that we don't know anything with absolution, we will in fact be certain of certain absolute truths, unjustifiably, illogically.

In conclusion, I and many others choose to believe that a rock is rock. Although I agree that logically, we cannot be certain of this fact, I nonetheless continue to believe that a rock is a rock. If I am correct, then I will have known a truth with absolute certainty, but will not have known that I knew a truth with absolute certainty. Because I believe in a great many things, with absolute certainty, it follows that that which I am certain of includes several truths.
Debate Round No. 4
natoast

Pro

I'll interpret this as a victory for me, because according to the description that I gave in round one, my task was to show how something might be false, which I did do, according to your concedences (concedes?). In response to what you said, if you believed a rock is a rock, and your right, you won't have known a rock is a rock with absolute certainty. You will have believed it with absolute certainty, and have been correct. Believing and being rights simultaneously is not the same as knowing. Anyway, you can't prove you believe a rock is a rock, you could be lying. Also, everyone might be wrong about everything ever, making this invalid. So, if that was your conclusion, and your surrender, then you don't have to address these arguments. But obviously you should say something to finish the debate.
00

Con

"Believing and being rights simultaneously is not the same as knowing."
Actually, it kind of is. Knowledge is "the fact or condition of being aware of something." If one is aware and convinced of a truth, then one has knowledge of that truth. http://www.merriam-webster.com....

"Anyway, you can't prove you believe a rock is a rock, you could be lying."
Empirically, humans believe in things with absolution. Indeed, many who profess to believe in God are not lying and actually do believe in God.

"Also, everyone might be wrong about everything ever, making this invalid."
True, however, it is more likely than not that someone knows something is true with absolution that happens to be true. Indeed, the chance of everyone being wrong about everything ever is infinitesimally small.

I do however surrender; vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by TheAntidoter 4 years ago
TheAntidoter
Hi buddy:

HOT SELL Pictures of your mother:====(http://www.fiowieposfnklMommyPics.com......)=====
nobody, likes you, go kill, yourself, because, the Mexican, who sells, bootleg DVDs, on a blanket, behind Walmart, has a better, buisness, model, than you.

Crappy Jeans with mysterious scent: $9
Asian Flu contaminated Baseball Cap: $12
ValueMart Sneakers with a black marker Nike swoop: $33
Wrist watch from a dead homeless guy: $13
Handbags with hidden, lightly used Heroin needle: $18
Bikini with rust colored stains: $22

Come back tomorrow for another Daily Dose of ripoffs! Bookmark this page >>
give you the unexpected harvest of unidentified blood diseases

======(http://www.notarealsite.com......)=======
======(http://www.notarealsite.com......)=======
======(http://www.notarealsite.com......)=======
======(http://www.notarealsite.com......)=======
======(http://www.notarealsite.com......)=======
======(http://www.notarealsite.com......)=======

Recommended dick
Name: Slim Jim

http://www.notarealsite.com......
Posted by natoast 4 years ago
natoast
hey mike,
Maybe the computer is a gift to humanity from god. Where you there when it was invented?
I'm not responding, an AI is responding for me. (as far as you know.)
Posted by natoast 4 years ago
natoast
hey mike,
Maybe the computer is a gift to humanity from god. Where you there when it was invented?
I'm not responding, an AI is responding for me. (as far as you know.)
Posted by miketheman1200 4 years ago
miketheman1200
Or,"what you are using to respond to this debate is an invention."
Posted by miketheman1200 4 years ago
miketheman1200
I would have said,"You are responding"
Posted by natoast 4 years ago
natoast
spelling error, shrodinger's cat. I don't have the ability to make the unique o.
Posted by The_Skeptical_Programmer 4 years ago
The_Skeptical_Programmer
Very interesting debate topic, Pro I have never seen someone use the word rock so repetitively.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
natoast00Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Most unfortunate. Con conceded when he shouldn't have because Pro's arguments did not actually show that we cannot have epistemological certainty, and he failed to show that Con's examples are possibly false. However, Con conceded, so what can I do? Arguments to Pro.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
natoast00Tied
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: Lulz this should've been an easy con win but alas.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
natoast00Tied
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: con conceded was should have been an easy win
Vote Placed by Bodhivaka 4 years ago
Bodhivaka
natoast00Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded.