The Instigator
Cantseeinthedark
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
themohawkninja
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Nothing does not exist

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...
themohawkninja
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/29/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 806 times Debate No: 39599
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Cantseeinthedark

Pro

Nothing as in the absence of anything does not exist.there is no such thing as the complete absence of some form of matter.
themohawkninja

Con

Oh, this sounds like fun!

I will accept the debate, therefore asserting that it is possible for there to be an absence of some form of matter.
Debate Round No. 1
Cantseeinthedark

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting my first ever debate on this site.
As i have stated Nothing can be defined as a absence of all matter but there is always some form of matter. even a vacuum which i known as an are with no matter within it is in reality a area with extremely small amounts of matter. Even the space in between the components of an atom that were considered "empty" have been retcently discovered to contain even smaller particles of matter
themohawkninja

Con

While it has been shown that the atom, which was considered the fundamental unit of matter is now just the fundamental unit of an element, and that those sub-atomic particles do break down into even smaller particles known as quarks, what can be asserted, is that there can be space between those particles as since evidence has yet to be found for matter between quarks, and the assumption of matter leads to having to flesh out the details of the matter, Occams' razor leads logic to dictate that the better assumption must be that there is in fact no matter between quarks.

Secondly, there is a fundamental problem with the idea that the absence of matter, in a given unit volume, is impossible. Movement would be impossible, as the only way anything is able to be compressed, moved around, or change shape is only possible if there is space for such things to move into. If what you assert is true, then when I want to move my hand, it is already in contact with matter on all sides, all that matter must be directly, or indirectly connected to all other matter in the universe, and therefore my hand shouldn't move, but it does, therefore there must be absence of matter somewhere.

Thirdly, if we say that this universe is the only universe, that must mean that there is nothing outside of the universe (absence of matter), if the universe is expanding, that therefore dictates that the density of the universe is decreasing over time, which means that there is space in between the matter in the universe.

In conclusion, the absence of matter must be possible, because our lack of evidence towards the existence of matter everywhere implies that matter may not be everywhere, movement would be impossible without absence of matter, and our non-static universe leads to a decrease in matter density over time.
Debate Round No. 2
Cantseeinthedark

Pro

I have grown pretty used to others simply accepting the points that i make so you arguing against me is positivley thrilling. I am truly enjoying having a intelegent discussion for once.

While you make a excellent point in defense of nothing as the absence of a form of matter,nothing can also be defined as the absence of a thing in general. I was at first hesitant to use this form of the term nothing because the absence of any form of matter seemed like a more debate-able topic. The fact that there can not be no thing is not. There is ALWAYS something. A vaccum is a thing, it is a vacuum, empty space is a thing, it is empty space. We cannot even truly comprehend the idea of absolutley nothing. We can immagine space, darkness, etc. but theses things ar just that, things.

Nothing if defined as the absence of something is in fact non existant.
themohawkninja

Con

You have simultaneously asserted that my points are correct, and the rest of your argument falls under the fallacy of moving the goal posts.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Cantseeinthedark 3 years ago
Cantseeinthedark
I feel dumb but trully glad i hadthis debate.
Posted by Cantseeinthedark 3 years ago
Cantseeinthedark
I feel dumb but trully glad i hadthis debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by mikicat10 3 years ago
mikicat10
CantseeinthedarkthemohawkninjaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Soz guys, just can't get my head around science so had no idea what you were talking about!!!!!!!!!!!! Con just seemed to have a stronger argument.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
CantseeinthedarkthemohawkninjaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Difficult to judge on argumentation alone, without providing sources to defend one's position it becomes harder to judge. I think Con offered a slightly better argument and Pro didn't really attack Con's argument as well Con countered Pro's. Therefore I will award Con arguments, although I noticed this is Pro's first debate, I would encourage Pro to structure a better argument backed up by sources to strengthen his position further. Overall it wasn.t a bad attempt by both, and I am only voting for Con, not because I believe his argument to be more true, but because Pro didn't really counter the point's Con argued as good as he could have. But well done to both.