Instigator / Pro
0
1702
rating
77
debates
70.13%
won
Topic
#3132

Resolution: There is no end to the body of knowledge

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
0
Better sources
0
0
Better legibility
0
0
Better conduct
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
15,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
0
1777
rating
79
debates
76.58%
won
Description

We consider God, at least as understood by theists, to be omniscient; i.e., all-knowing, but I wonder if that is just to offer us a hook on which we can hang a conceivable body of knowledge on God for our benefit, considering we know so little compared to God. This is not a religious, God-based debate; I merely reference God as an idea of an all-knowing being while we are not all-knowing. Is the body of knowledge an expansive field with borders or boundaries, or is the body of knowledge limitless; eternal in nature?

My BoP is to demonstrate that the body of knowledge available to be ultimately known is, in fact, without end; we will never reach any perimeter defining the finite end of knowledge to be had.

My opponent will argue for a finite end to the body of knowledge.

Definitions:

End: a border, or wall, beyond which there is no further knowledge to be had. That is, the body of knowledge is finite.

Body: The sum total of a thing. In this debate, body refers to the sum total of knowledge.

Knowledge: The fact or condition of knowing. The body of the known, factual reality.

Debate protocol

Three-round debate.

R1, R2: Argument, rebuttal, defense

R3: No new argument; only rebuttal, defense, conclusion

All argument, defense, rebuttal, and sourcing will be listed within the context of the debate argument rounds, or sourcing may also be listed within comments within the debate file to conserve maximum space for argumentation, but only during the argumentation’s three rounds. Neither participant may consult with any person associated with DART to serve as a sourced citation as a feature of participant’s argument.

No waived rounds. No more than one round may be forfeited, or forfeiture of entire debate will result. Concession in any round is a debate loss.

No declaration of victory will be made but in the 3rd round. No declaration of assumption of the opponent’s concession or forfeit in any round. These conditions will be obvious to voters only by either participant’s own declaration.

Arguments, rebuttals, defenses, or conclusions may not address voters directly for voting suggestions beyond statement of validity for arguments, et al, made in all rounds. Participants may encourage voters/readers to read/examine any portion of, or entire rounds.

Once the debate is accepted by an opponent, Pro [me] may or may not respond to any post in the Comments section of this debate. The preference is a non-response in favor of concentrating on the debate, itself, and for fear of having influence on anyone during the debate’s argument phase, particularly on potential voters.

-->
@Benjamin

I really just forgot about this one. Gotta vote bump it so people see.

-->
@fauxlaw

It seems like this topic was too obscure and vague for voters to vote. Though it was fun as long as it lasted.

-->
@Intelligence_06
@Sum1hugme
@Theweakeredge
@Undefeatable
@Bones

Any of you able and willing to vote?

-->
@Sum1hugme

Exactly.

It's funny how a single sentence can be more convincing and clear than basically an entire essay.

-->
@Benjamin

I get it. Inherent limitations.

-->
@Intelligence_06

Heizenbergs Uncertainty princible enters the chat.

-->
@Benjamin

I'm pleased you accepted the debate. I will enjoy this one and enjoy debating you in particular. To be honest, I prepared my challenge without preparing at least a first round in advance. Don't know why; I usually do. So, I will not post R1 for a couple of days while I collect my thoughts. Sorry, but it will be posted well before the deadline. Good luck.

-->
@Bones

It's just a little vague.

-->
@Sum1hugme

Well faux did say "I am referring to the whole". Whole, I would assume, would refer to all including possible.

-->
@Bones

Eh, not necessarily. If he means the current body of what we know, then the resolve is a falsism. If he means the body of knowledge including what we don't know, then it's a bop issue

-->
@fauxlaw

Sorry, but I'm not sure I totally understand your answer. When you say "body of knowledge," does that include everything we don't know?

impossible for con to win.

-->
@Sum1hugme

asked and answered

-->
@fauxlaw

Okay, well I'm interested in accepting, but to be clear, you mean potential knowledge?

-->
@Sum1hugme
@Benjamin

Y'all are starting to engage a preliminary glimpse of what the nature of my argument will be, and, that, dear friends, is for the debate. This format, as opposed to the Forum, is not the free exchange of ideas, but is structured, and, by necessity, restricted to the eventual participants, at which point, only my opponent will have the necessity of discourse. Sorry to be so blunt, but a bit of a leap of faith on the potential nature of my debate is all you get, and that has been revealed by the Description and the Resolution. The rest is for debate, should anyone take it up.

-->
@fauxlaw

If the universe is not infinite, then there is only a finite amount of information (aka knowledge) it could contain or would be necessary to describe it. I am afraid you are going to pull some trick in order to push the line out of fininity. Like, create information loops, or paradoxes, which make the body of "potential" knowledge infinite.

-->
@fauxlaw

That seems to impose an impossible burden on you to prove that potential knowledge is infinite.

-->
@Sum1hugme

I am referring to the whole. Our body of knowledge is much less than the potential, which is what I argue is "endless." In a sense, I argue that claiming God is omniscient may be a fallacy, which is specifically why I did not make this a religious debate, but one of philosophy. Do we ever reach a boundary of knowledge beyond which there is nothing? I say: No.

-->
@fauxlaw

It seems like both sides can only conjecture as to how much we don't know. Unless you're claiming that the current body of knowledge is infinite, which is a falsism.

So I guess I'm asking, are you referring to the body of knowledge, or the body of potential knowledge?

Even theists agree there bgg is no end. It would take more processing power than the universe has for a computer to know everything