The Instigator
Rational_Thinker9119
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
Controverter
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points

The Claim "Something Cannot Come From Nothing" is Sufficiently Supported

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 6 votes the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/13/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,376 times Debate No: 32427
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (6)

 

Rational_Thinker9119

Con

I will be arguing against my opponent's notion that the metaphysical principle ex nihilo nihil fit is sufficiently supported. Ex nihilo nihil fit is the metaphysical principle, or position, that something cannot come from nothing. Note, how I will not be arguing in favor of the notion that something can come nothing, I will just be arguing against the notion that ex nihilo nihil fit has been justified by my opponent, as I believe that nobody can properly justify it (but that's a different story).

"Nothing" in this sense, is not a quantum vaccum, a simple a void, or empty space, but aboslutely nothing.

In this round (Round 1), my opponent will present his/ her case for why ex nihilo nihil fit is justified, while I am forced to waste this round explaing all of this. However, in the last round (round 4), my opponent sill simply put :

"No argument will be posted here, as agreed"

While I get the last word.

I believe the burden of proof is on the one making the claim that ex nihilo nihil fit necessarily holds, and is justified. It is my burden, to show my opponent's claims to do not hold up.

Good luck :)
Controverter

Pro

If you go from state A to state B (B being existent and A being non-existent) it would still require A to be something.
Debate Round No. 1
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

"If you go from state A to state B (B being existent and A being non-existent) it would still require A to be something."

I agree, because a "state" is something. However, this is a straw-man argument on my opponent's behalf because I'm not talking about a "state", I'm talking about "nothing".

Ayway, if "nothing" exists, then this means no logical and metaphysical laws exist. Either way, we are left with no reason for why "nothing" would adhere to any logical or metaphysical principles. To say "something cannot come from nothing" is to put a restriction on "nothing". However, there is no reason why "nothing" must adhere to any restrictions. There is no garantee that any restrictions can exist if "nothing" does, because if "nothing" exists, then neither do "restrictions".

For these reasons, I think it's clear that the claim "something cannot come from nothing" is not sufficiently supported.
Controverter

Pro

t is okay but what I am saying is that no matter what you will keep thinking nothing is something when in reality it's all an illusion because nothing and everything are just states of being.

Just understand the truth of Nihilism and you will know it. trust me.

Peace.
Debate Round No. 2
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

"t is okay but what I am saying is that no matter what you will keep thinking nothing is something..."

How so? If nothing exists, then I think nothing exists. Not something.

"...when in reality it's all an illusion because nothing and everything are just states of being."

If nothing exists, then no states exist.

"Just understand the truth of Nihilism and you will know it. trust me.

Peace."

This doesn't sufficiently address the issue.
Controverter

Pro

Same to you.
Debate Round No. 3
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

My opponent in his last round said "same to you". That doesn't address my objections sufficiently. Therefore, my rebuttals to his argument still stand, and the resolution has been negated according to the criteria provided in the first round.
Controverter

Pro

To be honest my opponent won this.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Apeiron 4 years ago
Apeiron
Then how can you say that necessary truths like, "whatever begins to exist" is anything like a universe, which began to exist?
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 4 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
"RT, do you think logical law and necessary truths began to exist?"

No.
Posted by Apeiron 4 years ago
Apeiron
RT, do you think logical law and necessary truths began to exist?
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 4 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Would you like to debate the topic with a different resolution philochristos?
Posted by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
I suspect you are bringing this issue up in light of the KCA. If so, then I think you should tweak the resolution to say, "Something cannot come from nothing WITHOUT A CAUSE," or "Something cannot SPONTANEOUSLY come from nothing." People who advocate the KCA believe the universe came into existence out of nothing, so they do not deny that something can come from nothing.
Posted by phantom 4 years ago
phantom
I thought you agreed with ex nihilo nihil fit.
Posted by yuiru 4 years ago
yuiru
I am tempted to accept this but I don't think I know enough about the proposition.
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
This will be an interesting debate. I'll keep tabs on it. Can't wait to read it!
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Rational_Thinker9119ControverterTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: 'To be honest my opponent won this.' - Pro
Vote Placed by Pennington 4 years ago
Pennington
Rational_Thinker9119ControverterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: I do not think either addressed the issue properly. I tie arguments. I also tie sources because neither gave any. I give conduct to Con because he continued in the debate and Pro fazed out. Con had better S/G.
Vote Placed by Ardenwa 4 years ago
Ardenwa
Rational_Thinker9119ControverterTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: The pro has recognized that nothing is inherently something. The moment you try to conceptualize nothing, nothing becomes something other than nothing. Therefore, you do get something from nothing.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
Rational_Thinker9119ControverterTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Conceded.
Vote Placed by Typhlochactas 4 years ago
Typhlochactas
Rational_Thinker9119ControverterTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro said it himself.
Vote Placed by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
Rational_Thinker9119ControverterTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession and FF