All Big Issues
The Instigator
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

# Something could have possibly come from nothing

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0

Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
 Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point Started: 7/14/2012 Category: Philosophy Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period Viewed: 1,285 times Debate No: 24720
Debate Rounds (3)

8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 6 years ago
"TPFTFS is not the type of "thing" that is capable of being "something" or "nothing." It's still an equivocation."

Either TPFTFS is either something or nothing due to the law of excluded middle, since it cannot be something because that's incoherent, it must be nothing. That's basically the argument.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
TPFTFS is not the type of "thing" that is capable of being "something" or "nothing." It's still an equivocation.
Posted by SarcasticIndeed 6 years ago
But does the potential exist? I don't understand this argument, really...
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 6 years ago
The best I can ake of it is that the proposition "TPFTFS = N or S" is ill formed. The left side really has only values true or false. "The potential" can only be interpreted as "there is a potential." So the proof depends upon equivocation of "nothing" with "false." Therefore the proof fails."

I don't think you understand the argument. Due to the law of excluded middle, TPFTFS either has to be nothing, or something. Since it cannot be something, because TPFTFS = S is incoherent (There cannot be an A, which also contains within it, the potential for the first A, because it is already an A, and this potential is already used up), then TPFTFS must be nothing.

Think about it, there cannot be a flower with the potential that allows the first flower to exist. It's incoherent, because if a flower exists, then the potential for the first flower cannot exist simultaneously, because a flower already exists. Thus, The Potential For The First Something, cannot also be Something. Thus, TPFTFS = N.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
The best I can ake of it is that the proposition "TPFTFS = N or S" is ill formed. The left side really has only values true or false. "The potential" can only be interpreted as "there is a potential." So the proof depends upon equivocation of "nothing" with "false." Therefore the proof fails.

Con effectively conceded, so Pro wins the debate.

I think the resolution is true, however. "Something coming from nothing" is a matter for science. It is not a purely logical proposition. Science only rules out as impossible things that have been contradicted by observation, and a future possibility cannot be ruled out even if it has not been observed yet. There is in fact a good case that vacuum energy is being created out of nothing as the universe expands. At least science concedes it is possible that vacuum energy is being created from nothing.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 6 years ago
*TPFTFS/ TPFTFSE simply cannot = S/ STE. I hope this answers your question Con :)
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 6 years ago
"This is a nice, quick simple debate. Nice. But how can there be potential if there is nothing? If there is nothing, then potential doesn't exist. Literal nothing means that there is no theories or laws, thus, there can't be potential."

I thank my opponent for this quick, interesting debate.

I am going to address your questions personally, this is NOT for the voters to judge. Regardless, we defined "nothing" in this debate as the absence of any "thing" or lack of some "thing". Since the potential for the first something cannot be something under any circumstance, it follows, that is must fall under the "nothing" category due to the law of excluded middle.

TPFTFS/ TPFTFS simply cannot = S/ STE. I hope this answers your question Con :)
Posted by daytonanerd 6 years ago
Good debate, good debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.