The Instigator
AllUnpowerful
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
X1
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Anything is a hypothetical possibility

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/21/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 week ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 110 times Debate No: 97209
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

AllUnpowerful

Pro

I will try to prove that everything is a hypothetical possibility.

For something to cease to be a possibility, every hypothetical statement that concludes its truth must be proved false. However, there are infinite hypothetical statements that conclude the truth of anything.

If this is even a possibility, then it is possible that anything is possible. If it is possible that anything is possible, anything is possible. Therefore, anything is possible.

You can paste and run the Python 3 code of the program I wrote, which is at the end of this argument, in this website (https://repl.it...) and generate statements.

For any variation of proof "x is false", there is a possibility: "that's true, but x is still true" that has yet to have been disproved. Anything disproving "that's true, but x is still true" can be met with a possibility "that proof is also true, but x is still true because y". Anything is consistent for an all powerful being, for example, so they can make anything true or false and have it be consistent with x being true. It is even possible that they don't exist and the logically impossible and being all powerful are impossible and they didn't make it that way, but still simply because they made it that way. So any hypothetical might be true because anything is true if they made it that way.

The code is here:

first = "anything is true."
first1 = "anything is still true even if"
second = " it is false that "

string = first
i = 0
while True:
input('Please press enter for statement {}'.format(i 1))
if i > 0:
string = first1 second string
oString = string[0].upper() string[1:]
print()
print(oString)
print()
i = 1
X1

Con


I would like to thank pro for instigating this topic.


The resolution: Anything is Hypothetically Possible


Possible denotes that something could occur, or to rephrase in logical terms, the resolution is such that there’s no such thing as a logical impossibility, or something that is necessarily false.




I would concede that a posteriori propositions are largely possible, but there are many a priori propositions that are necessarily false, and I all need to do in order to negate the resolution is substantiate one.




Before I do that I would like to address pro’s point. If anybody doesn't knows how a computer program works, you can redefine variables to mean different things. For example, I could input 1=2, and then input 1+1, and the program would give me 4. However, 1+1 is definitely not 4, we’ve merely redefined 1 as 2. I can enter all kinds of absurdities into a prompt, it doesn’t mean they are true.


Square circles are a logical impossibility



P1) X is a square-circle, if, and only if X has the properties of a square and a circle



P2) X can either have the properties of a square or a circle



P3) X cannot have the properties of a square and a circle



C1) Square circles cannot exist



C2) Square circles necessarily don’t exist



P1) Is true by definition



P2) I will defend



P3) Follows from P2



C1-C2) Follow from P1-P3



All I need to do is defend P2



A square may be simply defined as : ”a plane figure with four equal straight sides and four right angles.”


A circle may be defined as: “a round plane figure whose boundary (the circumference) consists of
points equidistant from a fixed point (the center).”



To see that there are no square-circle all we need to do is examine the first part of what a square is, 4 sides. So x is a square, if and only if it has only 4 sides, however keep in mind, x must also have the properties of a circle. X, by virtue of the fundamental laws of logic can have some number of sides S, that is equal to 4, and not equal to 4 at the same time. So if a circle does not have some number of sides, such that S=4, then there cannot be such thing as a square circle. The number of sides a circle has is an odd question, but it definitely does not have 4 sides.



A: If we mean straight sides, then a circle has 0.



B:As L>0, , we get a curved line, which is the circle, which may be loosely interpreted as a side.



C: If we wish to think of a circle as N-sided polygon, then



An N-gon has N sides



A circle is a limit of a N-gon as N→∞



Therefore a circle has lim N→∞ , N=∞ sides



It doesn’t particularly matter which one of these is correct, because the answer is 100% not four.



Recall, X is a square circle, if and only if it has the properties of a square and a circle, and X is a square if and only if it has 4 sides, and a circle does not have 4 sides, therefore X cannot be a square and a circle. Furthermore, X doesn’t refer to anything particular, it’s an abstraction, thereby we can deduce that no square circles can exist, and as a derivation, no square circles exist.



The hypothetical of a square circle is logically impossible, which is to say it is necessarily not the case, which indicates it is not possible. The resolution is negated



Debate Round No. 1
AllUnpowerful

Pro

Even if the premises you gave were to be accepted, I wasn't arguing that square circles are not logically impossible or that logically impossible things cannot exist. I was arguing that you cannot prove every statement that concludes anything is true to be false and you haven't even touched that. Your argument is a non sequitur; it's talking about something that's off topic.
X1

Con

Clarification



Recall the resolution: Anything is a Hypothetical Possibility



This is to say, any hypothetical is the case in some possible world. If I can find one proposition that is not the case in any possible world, then the resolution is negated. I have done this. Pro states this is a non-sequitur, but it follows perfectly from any reasonable reading of the resolution. This being said, let’s address some other points.


Refutations

Look at the first 3 strings of his code:

first = "anything is true."
first1 = "anything is still true even if"
second = " it is false that "
As I said before, this literally accomplishes nothing.


“Anything is true”
Once again, no, If I can find one thing that is not true, this statement is untrue.
“Anything is still true, even if it is false”
Once again, definitely not, things that are true are true, and things that are not true are not true.


This is true by virtue of the law of excluded middle, stating P or ~P is true, and it can’t be the case that both are true, because this is an exclusive disjunct.


Pro says:
” It is even possible that they don't exist and the logically impossible and being all powerful are impossible and they didn't make it that way, but still simply because they made it that way. So any hypothetical might be true because anything is true if they made it that way.”




Pro seems to argue that because an omnipotent being could exist, they could make anything occur, but this is false. An all powerful being is still bound by logic. Even theist philosophers agree that God can only do what is logical. For example,
X is omnipotent if X can do anything.
X can either create a rock he necessarily can’t lift, or he cannot create the rock(exclusive disjunct)
X cannot do both
X cannot do anything


All powerful beings are still bound by logic, thusly somethings, if they are non-logical, are necessarily false.


Lastly, pro states:”I was arguing that you cannot prove every statement that concludes anything is true to be false”


I shall need pro to rephrase this statement in a more coherent manner. If you are arguing that I cannot disprove the proposition that everything is true, then this is false, because I would merely have to find one untrue thing.


If you are arguing that one cannot prove things are either true or false, this is wrong. Any proposition that asserts that X and ~X are true, is necessarily false.


If you are stating that I cannot disprove every proposition that is asserted to be true, then you are correct, however the case that X has not been disproved, does not in any way entail X is true nor even possible.




Debate Round No. 2
AllUnpowerful

Pro

There were a lot of premises in your argument and all of the base ones were yet to be proved. I don't see many rational people agreeing with any of your argument.

Even if you're right about everything, you still haven't proven that it's not the case that, whatever you believe, you're right about everything and a maximally omnipotent god made everything true anyway, as they could do that by definition of being able to do anything. You still haven't disproved every possibility where anything is possible, so it is still possible that anything is possible. If it is possible that something is possible, that thing is a hypothetical possibility. It is possible that anything is possible, so anything is a hypothetical possibility. Therefore, the topic is true.
X1

Con

Pro has conceded the debate.


Recall, if I can find one thing that could not be the case, the resolution has been negated. Pro says my argument doesn’t hold water, however he doesn’t state how, it is merely asserted, so let’s recap my argument regarding omnipotence.


P1)X is omnipotent if X can do anything.


P2)X can either create a rock he necessarily can’t lift, or he cannot create the rock(exclusive disjunct)


C1)X cannot do both


C2)X cannot do anything


P1- This is true by virtue of definition. It must be noted, in this case, I am speaking of omnipotence in the absolute sense, which is precisely what is meant by omni. If a being is omnipotent, which is to say it is all and absolutely powerful, the being must be able to perform all acts, which is to say there must not be an act that the being can’t commit.


P2- Can an omnipotent being create a rock that the being cannot lift. If the being can create a rock which cannot be lifted by the being, there is now an act that this being cannot commit. However, if the being cannot create the rock that he cannot lift, this is also an act which the being is unable to commit. The being cannot create the rock, then lift it, because then the criteria for creating a rock the being cannot lift has not been fulfilled.


C1- It follows from P2 that the cannot both create a rock it cannot lift, and lift the rock


C2- It follows from P2,C1, that there is at least one act an omnipotent being cannot commit, and thereby the proposition there is an absolutely powerful being is nonsense. This establishes existence, and propositions are bound by logic.


Come to think of it, I didn’t even need to argue from square-circles, because the logical impossibility of an absolutely powerful being negates the resolution, however let’s go on to address pro’s refutation.

Pro states:


Even if you're right about everything, you still haven't proven that it's not the case that, whatever you believe, you're right about everything and a maximally omnipotent god made everything true anyway, as they could do that by definition of being able to do anything.


“Everything” is the operative word. As prior established, an absolutely being does not exist, therefore logic is a constraint on existence. Pro adds in the adjective maximally, however, this alone concedes the debate. Maximally is defined as”of or being a maximum; greatest possible; highest.” The catch is, what is maximal is the greatest, as permitted by what is possible, or a possibly possible set of conditions, however, what is possible is set forth by logic, so we can pose the same question regarding the ability to create an unliftable rock to a maximally powerful god, and the result would still remain the same. To rephrase in pro’s terms, it is not possible, for it to be possible for an all powerful, to create an object it can’t lift. And the qualifier “Maximally” indicates that this being's power is constrained by external conditions, therefore there are acts it cannot commit. By definition, a maximally powerful being can not do anything, it can only do what the conditions permit.


Recall my square circle argument, the bulk is that X cannot both have 4 and not 4 sides. This is true by non-contradiction. Therefore, it is not possible for it to be possible for x to have 4 and not 4 sides.


Last note, there is no meaningful distinction between X is possible, which is to say it is the case in some possible world, and it is possible for x to be possible. The latter is essentially reducible to X would be possible if Y, which is reducible to the former, in the sense that if Y is possible, it is the case in some possible world, then X is the case in some possible world. In both cases, the operative word is possible, and what is possible is constrained by logic, and if we accept the validity of the fundamental laws of logic, the resolution has been negated.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by FocusV 1 week ago
FocusV
To prove anything is possible, you would have to prove nothing is impossible, which is also a possibility. It's a paradox that cannot be proved.
Posted by vi_spex 1 week ago
vi_spex
possibilities are hypothetical
No votes have been placed for this debate.