Neutral agnosticism versus ALL beliefs regarding God!

The Resolution: Pro undertook to prove that "no degree of certainty ... can be achieved without physical evidence." I rephrased that, for clarification's sake, as, "All knowledge is empirically based: there is no such thing as a priori knowledge." Pro has rephrased again, but essentially confirmed: "nothing can be known ... without proof in the form of physical evidence of some kind." So we are agreed on what Pro has to prove. Any example of knowledge that is not empirically based, that is not based on physical evidence, will serve as a defeater, disproving the resolution. An example of non-physical knowledge: the Pythagorean theorem. I offered the Pythagorean theorem as an example of such knowledge. Empirically, we could only demonstrate that 3-4-5 triangles have right angles approximately. It was proven only within our ability to measure. But Pythagoras demonstrated the truth a priori, without relying on physical evidence. So, some knowledge isn't based on physical evidence. Note that Pro dropped this argument, effectively conceding it. Therefore, the resolution is defeated. Vote Con. An example of non-physical knowledge: an equation. I offered another example of non-empirical knowledge: the equation 7+5=12. We know that based on logic, not on experience. This knowledge is a priori, not a posteriori. Therefore, the resolution is defeated. And Con concedes that this is knowledge. He stipulates that there are "many proofs" of the truth of this equation. He gives examples, and the examples are non-physical. They are not based on physics or experience or empiricism, but rather on a priori logic. Therefore, the resolution is defeated. Vote Con. A stipulated example of non-physical knowledge: Pro wrote, "... nothing apart from that nothing should be asserted without evidence to abck (sic) it up." I stipulate the truth of this statement. We are therefore agreed that this is a truth. But, is this truth based on physical knowledge? No, we reasoned it out. It is a priori knowledge, not based on physics. Therefore, the resolution is defeated. Vote Con. A definitional example of non-physical knowledge: By definition, there is no such thing as a married bachelor. Incomprehensibly, Pro disagrees. (Not only is it incomprehensible that he disagrees, but his explanation of why he disagrees is also incomprehensible. Read it a dozen times; it will still be opaque.) We know there are no married bachelors. We didn't learn this by taking a survey of bachelors to see whether any are married (empirical or physical evidence) but rather we know this because of the definition of the word "bachelor." This proof is a priori, non-empirical, non-physical. Therefore, the resolution is defeated. Vote Con. An attempt to evade the burden of proof: Pro makes a peculiar move: After starting this debate in order to prove the truth of the resolution, he suddenly changes his mind, declaring that he doesn't have to prove it because it is "an axiom." He no longer wants his resolution to be challenged. I should just accept it as a given. But then what would we have left to argue about? What would we debate? No, Pro offered to prove that all knowledge is based on physical evidence, and I intend to hold him to that. Pro's burden is to prove the resolution. That he cannot do so is evidenced by his attempt to evade this burden of proof, which can be viewed as a kind of concession. Therefore, the resolution is defeated. Vote Con. Conduct: I suggest that voters give me the conduct point because of Pro's reliance on screaming in all caps and gross fonts. Certainly if he continues this abuse, he'll have earned the loss of conduct points. Vote conduct for Con. Spelling and Grammar: Pro's spelling is quite careless. Many of his sentences are impossible to untangle. Vote S&G for Con.