Something can't come from nothing
We will be debating here whether it is logical for "something" to come from "nothing". I've heard variations of this argument by the religious hundreds of times, but it usually boils down to the following: we exist, and the universe exists, and nothing can't cause something, therefore something must have created everything, and that something must have been my particular god.
For this debate, we're ignoring the last bit there, where they use this logical leap as proof for one particular god among the thousands that are worshiped by man. Partially because I find that portion of the argument untenable, but also because it's extraneous. We'll leave that for another debate.
The pro position will be to support the idea that "something can't come from nothing, therefore something had to create everything" on a purely logical basis.
The con position will be to prove that this incredibly prevalent argument cannot be valid, again, on a purely logical basis. I will be taking this position.
CITATION IS NOT NEEDED. WE WILL BE SCORED ON OUR OWN USE OR ABUSE OF LOGIC.
Structure will be as follows:
(using this round for presenting an argument will result in a loss)
Rebuttal to introductory arguments.
Closing arguments - Addressing your opponents argument as they structured it in all previous rounds.
Thank you, GenesisProject, for accepting the debate. I look forward to seeing the angle you take on this.
Before I begin, I’m going to lay out some definitions so we can avoid confusion:
Special pleading is a form of spurious argument where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.
Causality is the relation between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first.
The problem of induction is the philosophical question of whether inductive reasoning leads to knowledge understood in the classic philosophical sense, since it focuses on the lack of justification for either:
A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience (for example "All bachelors are unmarried"). Galen Strawson has stated that an a priori argument is one in which "you can see that it is true just lying on your couch. You don't have to get up off your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the physical world.
A posteriori knowledge or justification is dependent on experience or empirical evidence (for example "Some bachelors I have met are very unhappy").
Infinite regress in a series of propositions arises if the truth of proposition P1 requires the support of proposition P2, the truth of proposition P2 requires the support of proposition P3, ... , and the truth of proposition Pn-1 requires the support of proposition Pn and n approaches infinity.
The idea we’re arguing (something exists, nothing can’t cause something, therefore something caused everything), otherwise known as the cosmological argument, can be expressed as follows:
Proposition 1- Something exists
Proposition 2- Something cannot be caused by nothing
Proposition 3- In accordance with proposition two, something caused proposition 1
X= “Complex design [or at least the illusion of it] (existence)”
X has always implied Y up to this point, so where Y is absent, X is inherently absent as well.
-Complex design requires a creator in every instance observed thus far, so without a creator, existence could not exist-
This is a formal fallacy, demonstrably so using only a priori justification, hereafter provided:
If the only time I’ve ever cried is when I was depressed, and I’m crying, then by the use of the same logic employed here by the cosmological argument, I must be depressed. To consolidate, other possibilities may exist, but they have never been witnessed, so inherently cannot be true. Any reasonable person can see this outcome is not necessarily correct. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because I haven’t been seen crying for other reasons doesn’t mean it can’t happen. So let’s draw a parallel; tears (existence) are visible, therefore depression (a creator) must be the cause. This statement is obviously inaccurate, and as consequence, so must be the one we argue. It can however be argued that the longer you don’t see something you’re looking for, the less likely it is (if you’re looking in places it should reasonably be), but because this argument hinges upon the absolute statement that something cannot exist without something to create it, such a finding cripples the argument (The problem of induction, #1). Just because no one has ever witnessed something brought into existence by nothing, does not necessarily mean it is impossible. It should also be pointed out that no one has ever witnessed something brought into existence by something either. I could use the exact same structure with exactly the same outcome (a dead end at the same formal fallacy) to make the claim that something cannot be caused by something, only by nothing.
The bottom line here, I believe, is that the statement we’re arguing is an absolute, and in order for an absolute statement to be logical, absolute evidence is required. I have demonstrated that, in this case, absolute evidence, using posteriori or priori justification, is impossible to achieve. This is the first portion of my argument.
Ignoring the fact that the absolute statement made in proposition two is based upon a formal fallacy, consider the implications if it were true; if it actually were provably universally applicable that “something cannot be caused by nothing”. The argument itself (as defined for this debate) expresses the creator of everything as “something”. The implication would therefore be that the something that caused all other somethings to exist must have been created by something; this leads to infinite regress, which is a logical impossibility.
To win this debate, both arguments presented here must be debased, for both are of complete detriment to the pro position.
You took the side of "con" which means you are saying that something CAN come from nothing.
It is a fact that something can come from something else. Matter can come from energy and energy can come from matter.
The problem we have is that we don't have a real definition of "nothing". What is a nothing? Nobody has ever had a "nothing" to examine to see if something can come from it.
By taking the "con" side, you are making a claim that something can come from nothing, yet, you don't have a physical way to prove such a claim. It would be impossible for you to meet your burden of proof.
The pro position is that "something can't come from nothing". My burden of proof it to prove that something can't come from nothing.
The Universe started as a singularity. Even though the singularity was smaller than an atom, it would still count as "something". If that's the case, there has never been, in the entire history of time, a "nothing" for something to come out of.
Therefor, logic dictates that something can't come from nothing, since "nothing" is impossible to exist.
Let X=Nothing. Let Y=Something, Let T=Time
Proposition 1: The entire Universe came from Y
Proposition 2: At the moment the Universe expanded, T=0
Proposition 3: Y existed when T=0
Proposition 4: Y can never be created or destroyed
Proposition 5: T=infinite
Proposition 6: X and Y can not co-exist at the same time
Proposition 7: If T=infinite and Y=can not be created or destroyed (Y is a constant), Y will always exist.
Proposition 8: If Y has always existed and will always exist, X has never existed.
Proposition 9: If Y will aways exist, X can never exist
Proposition 10: If X can never exist, X can't exist
Proposition 11: If X can't exist, there is no such thing as X.
Proposition 12: If X doesn't exist, Y can't come from X.
Conclusion: Y can't come from X (Something can't come from nothing.)
You did not read the rules prescribed for this debate, as is obvious by the fact that you seem to think the burden of proof lies with me. My position was to disprove the verity of your position, as represented by the statement “The con position will be to prove that this incredibly prevalent argument cannot be valid, again, on a purely logical basis. I will be taking this position.” That is to say, I’m in no way obligated [by the rules of this debate] to prove something can come from nothing. I’m obligated to prove the cosmological argument illogical. The burden of proof lies with you. You are to defend the position, I am to attack it. You accepted the debate on this premise. If you were unclear on the resolution provided, you should have questioned it in the comments, not wasted an entire round attacking something irrelevant.
I reread the content of the resolution, and I do not believe I was ambiguous in the format of this debate. Your misunderstanding is yours to bear. I have presented my arguments against the cosmological argument, and you have wasted one of the rounds you could have spent attempting to debase those arguments. Because my initial arguments remain intact, and in fact, completely unaddressed, I see no reason to present further material.
All I can do at this point is recommend you reread the resolution before posting another argument.
The debate is about "Something can't come from nothing" which is a different topic.
I took on the burden of proof to show it's impossible for something to come from nothing.
For example, a seed comes from a tree, not from thin air.
You should have named the debate "You can't have a result without a cause".
Like a marble won't roll unless something pushes it.
Cause and effect is not the same as getting something from nothing.
Cause and effect requires something to act upon something else. There is no "nothing" involved.
If this debate was about the Cosmological Argument, you had no business using the word "nothing" to describe it in the headline.
You used "Something can't come from nothing" (marbles don't appear from thin air) as the headline description and then used "cause and effect" (marbles don't move unless something causes them to move) Cosmological Argument in the body description. Bait and switch.
So, either you go by the original headline "Something can't come from nothing" (which I proved)
or you forfeit. Bait and switch is just not fair.
The cosmological argument is an argument for the existence of a First Cause to the universe.
It has nothing to do with cause and effect, except for perhaps the fact that it has the word cause in it. It deals with the argument that “nothing can’t create something, therefore SOMETHING had to CAUSE everything. This was correctly portrayed in the resolution when I said that pro would be arguing “the idea that “something can't come from nothing, therefore something had to create everything”” It’s very straightforward, really. I’ve never seen an argument deviate so far from its resolution. As consequence of this, I have been denied the opportunity to have my actual argument questioned because you were unable to address a single topic actually relevant to the discussion.
Let me lay this out simply:
You were to argue something HAD to cause everything that exists, which was demonstrated before you accepted the debate in the following sentence: “something can’t come from nothing, therefore something HAD to CAUSE everything.” –resolution
You instead argued for a theory that most scientists think probably explains how the universe began. Not how it was CAUSED. HOW IT BEGAN. There is a difference. You said it in your own argument; our universe has never in its history been “nothing”; the universe has always contained matter and space, right down to when it was a singularity… What does that mean? It means when the universe was a singularity, SOMETHING existed. Your argument, as defined in the resolution, is “to support the idea that SOMETHING can’t come from NOTHING, therefore SOMETHING HAD TO CREAT EVERYTHING.” If the singularity was something, as you say it was, then you’d still have to argue that SOMETHING CAUSED that singularity to exist at all. You have failed to comprehend your own argument to such an astounding degree that we were unable to broach at any point what was actually supposed to be on debate. You accepted the argument that something CREATED everything, CAUSING EVERYTHING to exist. Perhaps you didn’t realize that matter qualified as something. Honestly, I’m so confused by your complete lack of adherence to the debates resolution that I just can’t be sure.. I ask that voters to into consideration the fact that GenesisProject failed to adhere to the debate resolution for any of the rounds. I only say this because he has now wasted all of my turns in the debate forcing me to address his complete lack of understanding, and this leaves him with one last round that I will be unable to respond to. This means if he manages to finally make an argument relevant to the debate, I’ll be unable to respond as should have been my right. Even if his fourth round argument seems to debase my arguments, I won’t be given the chance to defend them, and that is a chance that, in accordance with the structure of this debate, I should have had. Thank you.
The title is supposed to match the resolution. That's why there's a title. What you did was a cheat and a lie.
You think that was clever, I'm sure. Scammers aren't clever.
You're a BS artist, nothing more.
I hope you're proud of yourself.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||6||0|