Metaphysics Debate

Okay, I feel like debating metaphysical stuff, but I don't know which, so here are some topics, if you want to go PRO for the topics I list, we can change them to the negative, so as not to confuse anyone.

1. If we accept agnosticism, you can't prove anything.
2. If life is really but a dream, then we should still live it like it is reality.
3. Empirical evidence is not logically sound.
4. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is an unreasonable burden of proof. (The argument I have for this will be metaphysical.)
5. Cogito ergo sum is fundamentally flawed.
6. We should not acknowledge metaphysics.
7. The wise man is the man who knows he knows nothing

For your r1 post, just say which topic and which side you want, R2 we can discuss parameters, R3-5 are for the actual debate.
23 Hours Ago

I will be con for...

1. If we accept agnosticism, you can't prove anything.

Good luck

100 letters

Okay,

Agnosticism- ne who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god (Merriam-Webster)

can't prove anything- exactly that; nothing can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

I assume my opponent is okay with my parameters.

Here's my case:

In syllogistic form:

1. If one does not know whether there is or isn't a god, there is the possibility that there is an evil god.

To explain this, agnosticism allows the existence of an evil god, as it doesn't a) believe in no god or b) believe in a good god.

2. This evil god could mess with logic and the empirical world.

The evil god would be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnimalevolent, and would be not only able, but prone to to these evil actions. It is a possibility that cannot be proven or disproven.

3. If this was true, all of our knowledge would be false.

All of our knowledge is based on empiricism and logic, without these we could not know anything.

4. Agnosticism allows this situation.

If you don't know whether there is a god, or what its nature is, this situation can occur.

5. Therefore, if we accept agnosticism, you can't prove anything.

To prove the validity of this syllogism, I'll add in variables.

1. If p, then q.
2. If q, then r.
3. If r, then s.
4. x allows p.
5. Therefore x allows s.

This is an extended modus ponendo ponens, which is a valid form of a proof.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

I need to edit my proof of validity. It should read
1. If p, then q.
2. If q, then r.
3. If r, then s.
4. x allows p.
5. Therefore if we accept x, then we accept s as a possibility.

Mary had a little lamb, little lamb, little lamb, Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow.

Vote PRO