The Instigator
katsizelove
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Anyone
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Infinite regression

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: 10/14/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,153 times Debate No: 38886
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

katsizelove

Con

Infinite regression is impossible. There must be an eternal cause, (God), in order for anything to exist today. Without a beginning there can be no result.
Anyone

Pro

First, I reply to the term you've used: 'Infinite regression', for the thing that it seems to me you mean by the term... A tree is tall, and so is a man, so 'tall' is not all the same thing. Many things answer to the description of 'tall', but not all of them are equal. The same goes for the description of 'infinite regress'. (hereafter simply as (IR)

I'm a proponent of the kind of non-IR that it seems to me that you propose here. In that case, the only way I could even debate you on it is if I pretended to speak for the very side with which both you and disagree.

But, as I said, there is more than one thing that can be described as 'IR'.

Here's my basic position on IR in any case:

1. There is a Uncaused Cause (essentially omnipotent), and it is Sentient (essentially omniscient), and essentially Primary Particular (essentially good). In short, God.

2. God created ex nihilo everything else that exists, and created it to continue to exist forever, including, say, human beings individually and collectively. And, if you live forever, given that you currently discover more wonders, you may potentially discover ever more wonders...

...And, if you are created to discover ever more wonders, then either:

a) the Creation currently is a concrete (but not past chronological) infinite regress, or

b) the Creation shall continually be added to, in quantities and depths of wonders, so as to allow you to continue ever to discover wonders.

I believe in a).

So, if you reject a), then you can debate it with someone who cares to defend it. I'm likely not going to be interested in defending it, even though I believe it.

Thanks.
Debate Round No. 1
katsizelove

Con

katsizelove forfeited this round.
Anyone

Pro

Anyone forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
katsizelove

Con

katsizelove forfeited this round.
Anyone

Pro

Anyone forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
(1) Numbers as abstract concepts exist.
(2) Any given starting point of numbers will infinitely regress.
(C1) Infinite regresses are possible. [From (1) and (2)]
(C2) The resolution ("Infinite regression is impossible") is demonstrably false. [From (C1)]

Your argument is invalid. If you meant physical regression, then you should have stated as such; because Pro can win this easily.
No votes have been placed for this debate.