The Instigator
DrRundas
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
vi_spex
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Is Everything the abscence of nothing? Or is nothing the abscence of everything

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/31/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,176 times Debate No: 69241
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (56)
Votes (0)

 

DrRundas

Pro

Round 1 is acceptance, after that there is no real pro or con. This will be a creative debate in which the contender, argues his/her point of view of everything and nothing, as spacial fills. Is there such thing as an absence of anything, a complete void.
vi_spex

Con

if i am alive and nothing is abscent then everything must be

without nothing i cant be aware thou, and without everything i can imagine anything, as im not alive

imagination is not a thing

make the matter that is an apple nothing, i dare you
Debate Round No. 1
DrRundas

Pro

DrRundas forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
DrRundas

Pro

DrRundas forfeited this round.
vi_spex

Con

zzzzzzzzz
Debate Round No. 3
DrRundas

Pro

DrRundas forfeited this round.
vi_spex

Con

vi_spex forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
DrRundas

Pro

DrRundas forfeited this round.
vi_spex

Con

vi_spex forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
56 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
being is absent?
Posted by Esiar 2 years ago
Esiar
"if i am alive and nothing is abscent then everything must be"
This contradicts itself.

If nothing is absent, then everything is present. How can everything be absent if everything is present?
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
your eyes are physical, just search for that balance of having eyes

you cant grab a lie, and you cant grab your mother right now, neither can you see a lie and your mother right now with your eyes(i assume)

false=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now
Posted by NoMagic 2 years ago
NoMagic
No I didn't say that either. There is a tree outside, I can see it right now, I can't grab it in my physical hand, yet it exists. But the tree, nor my mother, is anything like the lie.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
the opposite of physical is mental, like the opposite of reality is imagination
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
you said...... that existence is physical.......... and then you say your mom isnt physical..........

existence=all that can possibly be experienced=A
Posted by Challengerqwerty 2 years ago
Challengerqwerty
By this argument: He can't grab you right now, therefore you don't exist.

Also: Mental processes are physical. They take place in your brain via neurons, hormones, synapses etc.

The mere non-ability to touch something at a given time does not disprove that thing. It just proves that object is not within the distance of your arm.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
you said, existence is physical, and you cant grab your mom right now ergo she dosnt exist

to me the claim is absurd, of course thoughts and lies exist, how could there be religion if lies didnt exist?

the opposite of physical is mental, and if your mom is not physical right now........
Posted by Challengerqwerty 2 years ago
Challengerqwerty
Good luck man. Vi-Spex's arguments can be... difficult to understand...
Posted by NoMagic 2 years ago
NoMagic
Your line of questioning isn't very good. Did I say that?
No votes have been placed for this debate.