There are some things that we can NEVER understand through empirical science.

-=he Debate=- Why I will win this debate is flawed wording in your topic. "Understand" is a very flexible word. While your opening argument seems to center on proof as a concept, understanding does not require proof. Allow me to explain. While I agree that we will never be able to prove some things, such as the speed and position of any given particle simultaneously, we can understand them, for example, the particle while not provable in terms of speed and velocity is well understood and that understanding, though limited and without proofs, still leads to remarkable technical achievements. Further, Godel has shown us via his incompleteness theorem that any abstract description system, if complete must contain statements that are both true and unprovable. But the awareness of this inherent resistance to proof actually and paradoxically enhances our understanding of the given system or event. Further, since the data needed to arrive at and show these areas of unprovability were discovered empirically, that is, via experimentation or actually occurring situations, it is fair to say that this understanding was arrived at via what is now called empirical science. So in summary, if you arrive at the conclusion that something can never be known or proven, via experimentation, then you have arrived at an understanding non the less. My apologies for being somewhat sophist and restrictive in my attack on your topic, and leaping through the whole of understanding, but I think its fair given your equally underhanded attempt to shift the burden of proof, of existence, to your challenger. :) -=Batch debate disclaimer v.01=- To my opponent: I am not attacking you, I don't know you, I am attacking your ideas. I am not trying to convince you of anything, therefore do not expect me to sugar coat anything for you with manners or any other euphemism for deception. I am writing for the record and for the future. If I say something unflattering about one of your ideas or your style of debate and you choose to be insulted that is your problem not mine. The very core of a debate could be seen as an insult because at the very least we question eachother's mind. Some things are not a matter of opinion, some things are provable fact. The world being round is not the same as who you think it hottest on Lost. Also, some ideas flow logically from others. Your opinion can be attacked as if it were factual if it is in conflict with a previously stated opinion. If you make a claim that is in conflict with one of mine please try to demonstrate how you arrived at it logically. Simply stating your opinion wastes time and proves nothing. Do not think that simply because I reject your proof I reject all proof. I've debated these concepts my whole adult life, your arguments are probably not new, and nor are mine. Respect for your opinion is not the same as doubt in my own. To my audience and the voters: I'm not trying to convince you either. I expect you to vote as if this were a poll, or other equally unrelated reasons. I already know my skill level and I don't need your approval. I do this because my ideas flow best when I'm challenged. And I seek to be proven wrong if possible. Proven. In short the votes totally don't matter to me. To those who would comment: Please do not try to debate me in the comments, if you wish to bring up a point my opponent missed, feel free, but do not see my lack of answer as a concession of defeat. If you feel strongly enough, challenge me to a separate debate. To the author of the site: Can we have a separate place for disclaimers? Much like an email signature?