The Instigator
Madrugaur
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
RandRichter
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Something cannot exist without Nothing

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: 4/22/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 471 times Debate No: 73942
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Madrugaur

Pro

My very first debate, so its a test run. The topic of this debate is the idea that something can not exist without nothing, I.e. life cannot exist without death and light without darkness. As the Pro I will have to prove that Something cannot exist without nothing. Rules and specifications are pretty loose, just has to be relevant.

Opponent may go first.
RandRichter

Con

Hello, this is my first debate as well. To begin I may have to concede most of my first round in the hopes of achieving some clarity on the proposed topic. To me the posted topic of the debate "the notion that something can not exists without nothing", is very different from your examples that follow,
life cannot exist without death
light without darkness.

In a room filled with light there is no darkness, and the light still exists.
To be more abstract, the only requirement for something to exist to someone, someone must only believe it to be. Most of the fundamentally religious believe that you are "alive" before birth and much like birth what I would call death is just a transition of consciousness to a new plain or dimension (heaven) or even rebirth (reincarnation).
To be less, Life existing has no relationship contingent on upon the existence of death.
I submit there to be no causal or correlating principles, actions, functions that you can name between persons life existing with their death. Furthermore I do not see any reason if you were to remove all causes of death: entropy, oxidation, deterioration, what have you, that death would exist at all. But there is no reason to deduce from there life would cease to exist.

If the examples only sidetracked your something from nothing topic please redirect me and I apologize for furthering confusion.

If the debate is truly confined to the statement that something can not exist without nothing, I hope you and the voters will know it is very important to understand, that you have put me at quite a large advantage. The burden of proof with such a claim relies solely on you. Some topics both pro and con must share in some percentage of that burden, but in this instance the claim you have made is a fantastic one. Along with a fantastic claim, fantastic evidence must follow. I am excited to get into it with you. If I do anything against the rules or code of conduct please make me aware, again this is my first go around.
Debate Round No. 1
Madrugaur

Pro

Thank you for accepting my challenge, and you are of course, correct. It was my mistake concerning the reason for this debate, my own logic driven and formed beliefs were clouded by the fact that thus far no one was there to challenge them. This debate is about the notion that Something cannot exist without Nothing, what I mean by that is that can something be called or see as it is without its opposite, mostly pertaining to human nature.

Can you define good as selfless acts and kindness when there is no evil, no selfishness and greed to oppose such acts? No, in a world without evil there would be no such thing as good, one would not be able to differentiate between the two if one did not exist. If a world had no "good" can you call the "evil"of that world evil? Again the answer is no, you can not label something as evil when there is no such thing as good.

On the topic of life and death, you say and I quote, "To be less, Life existing has no relationship contingent on upon the existence of death." While it is true that life is not fully dependent on death to exist, you have neglected to mention the dependence of death on life. If life were to not exist in this world, death too would not exist.

I am aware that you have a major advantage and while I had no intention of giving you such an advantage I will take the challenge. I'm am unsure as to wether or not you are already aware of this but the notion that something cannot exist without nothing also had a flip side; nothing cannot exist without something. I look forward to your reply.
RandRichter

Con

Thank for the clarification, and might I add some well poised questions. I want to get to your moral relative topics but it must be in a later round if we do. I believe I my reply will get to the heart of the issue and I don't see any way around it for us.
First I will answer your "death without life" comments. I will not cite any dictionary definitions because I believe that behavior is reductionist to a fault and does not bring anything proactive to a discussion. That being said I do propose that death can and most certainly does exist independently from life. I will put it this way, if you remove all the sentiment there is not much difference between my great grandmother and a rock buried beneath the ground. There is no life to be found in either. I would assert that the rock is dead without ever knowing life and that it is regardless of the existence of life. With no way to make a reasonable claim for the opposite. The example of the rock like many things never had a life, never needed one and further is no different because of.

We relate the two ideas, life and death, like we relate any polar opposite meanings or words. But they are only related by an abstract view of the creative human mind and are in no way contingent upon the others existence.
I must regretfully admit to you that something does exist. If I could disprove that I would be quite famous I am sure.

But..... To close the round I would ask for you to provide any substantiated evidence that "nothing" exists.
As you conceded it is an uphill battle, but in providing that evidence we can then even begin to debate that something can, or can't exist without it.
Debate Round No. 2
Madrugaur

Pro

Madrugaur forfeited this round.
RandRichter

Con

RandRichter forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Madrugaur

Pro

Madrugaur forfeited this round.
RandRichter

Con

RandRichter forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
In this case life = exist. Opposite being nonexist.
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
Well one could argue that life is a state. Like water being liquid, solid or gas. But the actual water can exist or not. A glass has water or its empty.
No votes have been placed for this debate.