The Instigator
Rational_Thinker9119
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
Corridon
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Convince Me

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 2 votes the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/26/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,269 times Debate No: 34218
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

Rational_Thinker9119

Con

If my opponent can convince me that the common theistic arguments for an infinite succession of events, and actual infinte being impossible are flawed and do not establish that infinity is impossible; then they win the debate. I will have to provide reasons why I am not convinced or reasons why I am, but it will be based on the honor system on my behalf. If one checks my debate record, they will see I engage in a lot of silly debates so I do not care about my record that much (in other words: I am not just going to lie to win this debate to get my stats up). If one thinks they can step up to the challenge and convince me that these arguments showing the impossibility of an actual infinity fail, then lets do it.

In the first round my opponent will post his/ her first argument. In round 4, my opponent will simply put:

"No argument will be posted here, as agreed"

Good luck!
Corridon

Pro

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present my beliefs and ideals to you on this topic. Before I present my argument, I will make a few clarifications on the Common Theistic Arguments for an infinite God that I represent.

~I will be using a Biblical point of view to represent my argument, but shall not use the Bible, nor any other religious book to support my argument unless called upon specifically by my opponent, with the exception of naming sources.
~I will not take the stance of attempting to understand an infinite God but instead to convince the possibility of one.

Now that is over with, let's begin!

—————————————————

The Concept and Evidence of Infinity

Infinity is a tricky thing. Infinity is not a number, it is not a positive nor negative. It is hard to comprehend, because we do not fully understand it nor have we experienced it. One thing we know, is that Infinity is a reality, but it is outside of our universe.

It is not hard to prove that there is an infinity. For without an infinity, how would our world come to be? In the Big Bang theory, and/or every other atheistic theory of how our world came to be, there is a problem of linear time. Linear time is not infinite. It is the truth that there was a beginning, and there will be an end. We know that we operate within a linear time because we have a concept of time.

Without an external source, there was a point when there was nothing. No universe. Nothing. And then... poof! There was something, without any cause. If there isn't an external cause, then there wouldn't be a universe at all, because there would need to be a cause. An infinity of some sort, a God, who called us into existence.
I say again, infinity is not inside of the universe. Infinity is not something that can be proven by science but by reason instead. The realization that there wouldn't be time, space, nor matter, without an external infinity.

The Evidence of an Infinite God

Alright, so now we have down the fact that there is an infinity. We know that without infinity, we wouldn't be here. But without an infinite being, or as we call it, God, there wouldn't be a cause to begin with; in fact, there wouldn't be a possibility of there being a universe, let alone an eternity, at all! To rephrase, there needs to be an infinite being to cause the universe for there to be a universe at all. This is proof enough for an infinite being.
There cannot be two eternal (infinite) things. For that to happen, one must have a different characteristic, something different from the other, which is impossible. This refutes polytheistic views of God such as Mormonism. God cannot be the world, as pantheists believe, otherwise the world would either be eternal, or there would still have to be an outside infinite being.
This concludes my base argument for an eternal, theistic God. It's getting late for me, and I need sleep. I hope this explains a lot, and am willing to answer any rebuttals and counter-arguments that you might have.
~Thanks,
Corridon.
Debate Round No. 1
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting this challenging debate. Most people would not accept this because I can just claim "I am not convinced" and win even with flimsy reasoning according to the debate outline. Fortunately, I am not that petty. Unfortunately, I am not convinced. On the bright side however, I have many good reasons for why I am not convinced which I am going to present in this round.

The Concept and Evidence of Infinity

"One thing we know, is that Infinity is a reality, but it is outside of our universe."

The fact that you said we know that infinity is a reality sets off red flags, because I do not know that infinity is a reality. This is going to have to have support for me to believe it.

"It is not hard to prove that there is an infinity. For without an infinity, how would our world come to be?"

A question is not an argument. Therefore, this is not a convincing argument by definition.

"In the Big Bang theory, and/or every other atheistic theory of how our world came to be, there is a problem of linear time."

I am not convinced there is a problem of linear time. The B-Theory of time posits no linear time and it is Atheist-friendly. It would only be a problem if B-Theory was impossible. It would only seem to be impossible to me if an actual infinite was impossible (which is exactly what you are arguing against).

"It is the truth that there was a beginning, and there will be an end. "

Modern science tells us that the universe will keep on expanding forever. The idea that the universe will end in a Big Crunch or some other scenario is unlikely according to modern science. This means I am not convinced by the above.

"We know that we operate within a linear time because we have a concept of time"

This is assumes that time has to be how we experience it even though relativity indicates different. I do not see how that follows from you; so I am not really convinced.

"Without an external source, there was a point when there was nothing. No universe. Nothing. And then... poof! There was something, without any cause."

The statement "there was a point when there was nothing" is logically contradictory. To say there "was" and "when" necessitates time, which is something. A point is something as well. Thus to say there "was" "a point" "when" there "was" "nothing" makes no sense at all and is not a sentance that be viewed as coherent. In reality, there was a point but it was not nothing; it was the initial state of the universe which was somethnig. Therefore, I am not convinced.

"If there isn't an external cause, then there wouldn't be a universe at all, because there would need to be a cause."

This seems like circular reasoning. I am not convinced by circular reasoning. Regardless, my opponent has not shown what he means by the term "God is infinite". Does this mean:

(i) His mind entails an infinite regress of causally prior thoughts whether temporally or atemporally?

(ii) His mind entails that an infinite amount of thoughts exist timelessly?

(iii) His mind entails that a finite amount of thoughts exists timelessly?

(iiii) His mind entails one super-thought exists timelessly?

Pro has left us without a meaning behind his view of an infninte God.

The Evidence of an Infinite God

This section is based on the assumption that his first section was convincing. It was not. Therefore the conclusions drawn off it here are not convincing by default.

Conclusion

I am honestly and truly not convinced by my opponent's arguments. I provded reasons for why I am not convinced by Pro's case. Pro still has two more chances to convince me before the end of the debate.

Corridon

Pro

<b>I forgot to note that I will not be addressing the audience but instead my opponent directly, due to the format of this debate.</b>

"The fact that you said we know that infinity is a reality sets off red flags, because I do not know that infinity is a reality. This is going to have to have support for me to believe it."

I apologize for not addressing this before I made the statement. I'll go into it deeper in response to some of your other statements.

"A question is not an argument. Therefore, this is not a convincing argument by definition."

Perhaps, but the question was rhetorical.

"I am not convinced there is a problem of linear time. The B-Theory of time posits no linear time and it is Atheist-friendly. It would only be a problem if B-Theory was impossible. It would only seem to be impossible to me if an actual infinite was impossible (which is exactly what you are arguing against)."

Are you truly not convinced of a linear time? Look to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. We know that there is a beginning and an end because the world is running out of energy. The world is winding down. For the world to be winding down, it must first have been winded up. If the earth has been here eternally, the Second Law of Thermodynamics would be null, void. There is no question that the earth is in linear time.

"Modern science tells us that the universe will keep on expanding forever. The idea that the universe will end in a Big Crunch or some other scenario is unlikely according to modern science. This means I am not convinced by the above."

Modern science also tells us of how the universe will end. Maybe there will be a big crunch, however unlikely, before the universe runs itself down into the ground.astronomers claim not only that the universe is expanding but also that the expansion is accelerating. In order to make their observations fit the standard cosmology, they have had to add dark energy with a non-zero value for the cosmological constant and also a significant amount of dark matter.Together these comprise about 96% of the mass-energy content of the universe, yet they remain unknown entities.
There is no sound scientific evidence for an expanding universe, as it is a theory, only observed once by redlights while observing a supernova. There isn't scientific evidence for the unknown of Dark Matter nor Dark Energy, which were principles created by scientists yet unknown, in an attempt to explain an expanding universe. Quasar proper motion, and the Quasar variations are very bad for the big bang model. You'd need an evolution of galaxy size to explain angular size and surface brightness versus the redlights.
There are too many unknown factors in an expanding universe to be proven specifically by redlights in a supernova, and even with an expanding universe, it doesn't help your argument at all. It actually helps mine. Why? Because for the universe to be expanding, there needs to be a beginning point to when it started expanding. If the universe had been expanding for an eternity, where would we be? The earth would be infinitely expanded, instead of expanding infinitely, because we would be stuck in a timeless space.

"The statement "there was a point when there was nothing" is logically contradictory. To say there "was" and "when" necessitates time, which is something. A point is something as well. Thus to say there "was" "a point" "when" there "was" "nothing" makes no sense at all and is not a sentance that be viewed as coherent. In reality, there was a point but it was not nothing; it was the initial state of the universe which was somethnig. Therefore, I am not convinced."

That is correct. It is logically incorrect for the universe to be here without a cause by an external, infinite being. Without an external, infinite being, there would be a necessity of time. You cannot have a universe without an external source because it would be 'logically contradictory'. We would need to necessitate time. And then for that, we'd need to necessitate more time. And it becomes either eternal, or a paradox, which is also logically impossible.

"This seems like circular reasoning. I am not convinced by circular reasoning. Regardless, my opponent has not shown what he means by the term "God is infinite". Does this mean:

(i) His mind entails an infinite regress of causally prior thoughts whether temporally or atemporally?

(ii) His mind entails that an infinite amount of thoughts exist timelessly?

(iii) His mind entails that a finite amount of thoughts exists timelessly?

(iiii) His mind entails one super-thought exists timelessly?

Pro has left us without a meaning behind his view of an infninte God."

I don't know how I can respond to this without using Biblical references, and/or digressing from the topic. So I'll simply say this: I do not know the mind of God. I can provide logical proof of an infinite being, but cannot provide a dissection of the mind of God. Logic is like time, science, and space. Restricted to our universe, restricted to our own set of rules.
Here is an illustration: Angels and Demons are God's creations, they are finite, restricted by time as we are, yet are not bound to our universe. God, infinite in nature, must have a comprehension of time or else angels and demons would not be created. This is simply an illustration, not an argument.

As concludes my rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 2
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

"Perhaps, but the question was rhetorical."

Even a rhetorical question is not an argument.

"Are you truly not convinced of a linear time?"

No I am not, because according to Einstein time is not linear:

"It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four-dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three-dimensional existence." - Albert Einstein [1]

"As it turns out, it is actually impossible to find any objective and universally acceptable definition of “all of space, taken at this instant.” This follows … from Einstein’s special theory of relativity. The idea of the block universe is, thus, more than an attractive metaphysical theory. It is a well-established scientific fact." - Rudy Rucker [2]

"Special relativity [by itself] appears to provide a definite proof of the block universe view." -Vesslin Petkov

According to relativity, if you just went up in one direction forever you would eventually come back to where you started. Many physicists and philosophers of phyiscs do not believe time is linear. Thus, I have good reasons for why I am not convinced time is linear.

"Together these comprise about 96% of the mass-energy content of the universe, yet they remain unknown entities."

I fail to see what bearing this has in infinity.

"There is no sound scientific evidence for an expanding universe..."

Virtually the entire scientific community disagrees with you. Thus, I am not convinced.

"Because for the universe to be expanding, there needs to be a beginning point to when it started expanding."

So? What does this have to do with anything?

"If the universe had been expanding for an eternity, where would we be? The earth would be infinitely expanded, instead of expanding infinitely, because we would be stuck in a timeless space."

The above makes no sense. I am not convinced by nonsense.

"That is correct. It is logically incorrect for the universe to be here without a cause by an external, infinite being. "

That is not what I said. I am not convinced by intellectual dishonesty from people putting words in my mouth.

"Without an external, infinite being, there would be a necessity of time."

Says who? Bare assertions are not convincing.

"You cannot have a universe without an external source because it would be 'logically contradictory'."

I see nothing contradictory in it. This is just a bare assertion. Thus, I am definitely not convinced.

'We would need to necessitate time. And then for that, we'd need to necessitate more time. And it becomes either eternal, or a paradox, which is also logically impossible."

This is self-refuting! The entire point of this debate was for you to convince me that theistic arguments for an infinite regress fail. You are endorsing the impossibility of an infinite regress above.

"I do not know the mind of God."

Well all (i) (ii) (iii) (iiii) are problematic. Those seem to be the only options so you dodging this question is a bad move. Thus, I am not convinced of a mind of God. I think it is logically impossible either way you look at it (that is a different debate though, you are here to convince me).

"I can provide logical proof of an infinite being"

Why don't you? So far all you have provided is...well, not much.

Conclusion

The fact that many physicists and philospophers of physics are B-Theorists and because of relativity, this has me convinced that time being linear is not necessary. Thus, I am not convinced time is linear. Also, Pro's case is self-refuting. Pro is trying to prove that an infinite series is possible (this is what the debate outline entails), but is arguing that an infinite regress of time is paradoxal. Self-refuting arguments are not convincing.

Sources

[1] Relativity: The Special and the General Theory, 15th ed.pp. 150.
[2] The Fourth Dimension, p. 149.
Corridon

Pro

I would love to continue this debate if my opponent would be willing to respond directly to my statements using science instead of the scientific community. I appreciate the opportunity, but I cannot debate under this format. Under this format my opponent has the advantage of, instead of debating me fair and square, my opponent can simply say 'I am not convinced', or 'The scientific community disagrees', without the necessity of using real arguments against me.
I accepted this, because the expectation was that my opponent would not be biased, but balance both sides of the argument fairly. However, this debate format has been used unjustly to my opponent's advantage, him using this as a way to argue his worldview without needing to use real evidence.

Therefore, I forfeit this debate.

~Corridon


I hope we can debate again sometime on fair grounds.
Debate Round No. 3
Rational_Thinker9119

Con



"I would love to continue this debate if my opponent would be willing to respond directly to my statements using science instead of the scientific community."

The above is delusional. You do not know more than the scientific community, if you do then where is your Nobel Prize? Of course, no rational mind is going to believe the universe is not expanding when virtually every scientist does. I do not believe that some random debater on DDO.org knows more about science than the scientific community.

"I appreciate the opportunity, but I cannot debate under this format. Under this format my opponent has the advantage of, instead of debating me fair and square, my opponent can simply say 'I am not convinced', or 'The scientific community disagrees', without the necessity of using real arguments against me."

This was clearly in the debate outline. You did not have to accept.


"I accepted this, because the expectation was that my opponent would not be biased, but balance both sides of the argument fairly."

This is exactly what I have done. All of your agruments are horrible and unconvincing.

"However, this debate format has been used unjustly to my opponent's advantage, him using this as a way to argue his worldview without needing to use real evidence."

You provided no real evidence, just nonsense. You contradicted yourself, which is why you are forfeiting and you know it lol You are supposed to be arguing that theistic arguments that an infinite series is impossible is flawed, yet in your last round you endorsed the theistic argument that an infinite regress of time is illogical. Since you refuted yourself you did not need to forfeit; You lost the debate due to your logical inconsistency in your last round.

Corridon

Pro

"The above is delusional."

I am disappointed that my former opponent has to turn to petty insults to prove his point. I believe my opponent is the one who is delusional, believing that his celebrities and idols overrule scientific laws. I have been the only one to use real scientific laws as compared to hypothesis and theories that have been put out by my opponent.

"This was clearly in the debate outline."


I agreed to the debate outline. You broke our agreement.

"All of your agruments are horrible and unconvincing."

You are entitled to your opinion. At least I made an argument.

"You provided no real evidence, just nonsense."

I have. You have ignored my evidence.


I will not reply any more.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 4 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
No, I gave reasons. Your argument was self-refuting.
Posted by Corridon 4 years ago
Corridon
That's what he did.
Posted by StevenDixon 4 years ago
StevenDixon
Couldn't you just easily win this debate by saying "i'm not convinced" ?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by StevenDixon 4 years ago
StevenDixon
Rational_Thinker9119CorridonTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeit.
Vote Placed by Vulpes_Inculta 4 years ago
Vulpes_Inculta
Rational_Thinker9119CorridonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: I guess Pro forfeited?