Neutral agnosticism versus ALL beliefs regarding God!

The Resolution: Pro undertook to prove that all knowledge is based on physical evidence, that anything not based on physical evidence is not knowledge. That resolution is obviously false. It must be false in any universe containing deductive logic. Four Unchallenged Examples: I gave four examples of knowledge that is not based on physical evidence. The Pythagorean theorem. Equations. The principle that we shouldn't assert things without justifying reasons. The fact that bachelors are unmarried. These are truths, but none of them is based on physical evidence. Thus, they destroy the plausibility of the resolution. The resolution is defeated. Pro didn't try to refute any of those fatal counter-examples. He dropped those arguments, effectively conceding that they refute his resolution. The resolution, therefore, is refuted. Vote Con. Conduct: Pro has moderated his visual tone. Consider rewarding this improved behavior by not voting points for conduct. Spelling and Grammar: Pro's most recent post is only two lines long, but still shot through with errors. Pro's Axiom Gambit: At one point, Pro tried to duck the burden of proof by declaring his resolution to be an axiom. I shouldn't try to refute it, because it wasn't an assertion, it was an axiom. That's silly. If you start a debate to prove an assertion, you can't win the debate by suddenly declaring, "Oh, and now my resolution is an axiom. " That's not even a debate-specific tactic. One could use it in any debate, without regard to topic. And responders could use the same tactic: "You can't dispute my refutation, because I'm declaring it to be an axiom. " This move was without virtue. On the scales of persuasion, it weighs zero. Pro's New Gambit: Pro complains that I argued about logic rather than religion. But Pro's resolution is about logic. It mentions religion, yes, but the resolution is that all knowledge is based on physical evidence. It's true that he says, "especially regarding God," but it is entirely false that, as he now implies, he said "only regarding God. " Had he said, "Resolved: Two plus two equals five, especially in Oklahoma," one wouldn't have to go to Oklahoma to refute him. Any proof that two plus two equals four would suffice. There would be no point in mentioning Oklahoma. And in this case, any proof of knowledge not based on physical evidence will suffice. It doesn't have to be knowledge about god. Any a priori knowledge suffices to refute the claim that all knowledge is a posteriori. Religious Knowledge Without Physical Evidence: But let's indulge Pro anyway. Let's offer more examples of knowledge that isn't based on physical evidence, and this time let's make it knowledge about god. God either exists, or doesn't exist. An omnipotent god would be able to defeat iron chariots. If Jehovah were omniscient, then Adam and Eve couldn't have hidden from him in the garden. It cannot be true in any obvious, logical, straightforward way that a god is both one god and three gods. If Jehovah were omnipresent, then he wouldn't have needed to ride pillars of fire to get down from Heaven. An omnipotent god could cause a baby to be born of a virgin. An omnipotent god could make a worldwide flood by magic, and could make the water go away after by magic. No god could be both perfectly just and perfectly merciful. These are all obviously true statements. And they are all about gods. And they none of them depend upon physical evidence. Therefore, the resolution is refuted. Note that you don't have to agree with any particular one of these examples. While they are all obviously correct, you need only accept one of them. If any one of them is knowledge about god, then (since none of them are based on physical evidence) the resolution is refuted. Self-Refuting Resolution. In fact, even if you don't accept any of the above resolutions about god, it should be obvious that it is possible in principle to make true statements about god that are not based on physics. Thus, the resolution is refuted. But, suppose, for the sake of argument, that we pretended that we couldn't know anything about god without physical evidence. In that case, we would have to reject the resolution. Why? Because there is no physical evidence that the resolution is true. There is no physical evidence that we can't know anything about god without physical evidence. So, if the resolution is true, then it is false. The resolution refutes itself. Conclusion: Pro undertook to prove that no knowledge exists that isn't based on physical evidence. That resolution is obviously false. It cannot possibly be true in a universe containing deductive logic. The resolution cannot be true since it contradicts itself. I don't have the burden of proof, but I have given examples of knowledge that isn't based on physical evidence. Thus, I have absolutely proven the resolution to be false. Therefore, the resolution is refuted.