The Instigator
Talib.ul-Ilm
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Rational_Thinker9119
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

The Cosmological Argument Is Sound

Do you like this debate?NoYes-8
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 5 votes the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/9/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,373 times Debate No: 34619
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (27)
Votes (5)

 

Talib.ul-Ilm

Pro

The debate is about the Cosmological Argument.

Rules
  1. No swearing.
  2. No insult to character.
  3. No insulting God.
  4. No fallacies.
  5. No forfeiting.
  6. No special pleading. (An argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view)
  7. Burden of proof is shared.
The Cosmological Argument
  1. Premise One: An infinite regression of instances of change in reality is impossible.
  2. Premise Two: Following premise one, there must be a First Principle in reality before any instances of change in reality occurred.
  3. Premise Three: Following premise two, the First Principle of reality must be either a natural mechanism, or God.
  4. Premise Four: The natural mechanism must have been at one point, not causing instances of change in reality, otherwise the fallacy of infinity occurs. A natural mechanism is incapable of willing itself to activation, to causing instances of change in reality. All examples of natural mechanisms in nature show that they simply exist, and do not merely activate on their own.
  5. Premise Five: God is a sentient, self-aware being that is capable of willing instances of change in reality. Only a sentient, self-aware being can imagine a reality outside of the reality that already exists.
  6. Conclusion: Therefore the notion that God is the First Principle is more plausible than a natural mechanism.
First Principle: The first initial point in reality before any instances of change in reality occurred.

Change: The instance of becoming different.

Time: The indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole.

Quantum Mechanics, An Analogy

Imagine if you will, a string that constantly vibrates. The vibrations can not have always been happening, there must have been a point in time that the string was completely still. The only thing that can cause a string to vibrate is something outside of itself.

String: Quantum mechanics, or the natural mechanism.

Conclusion

As I have argued, there cannot be an infinite regression of instances of change in reality. This means we come to the First Principle, the point in time before any change occurred, the moment before time itself began. I have argued that this First Principle must be God, it is Con's duty to show me why this First Principle can be a natural mechanism, and go from being not active, to active, all on it's own without a sentient, self-aware being to will it. He has to give reasoning as to why the natural mechanism went into motion in the first place. Or he must show me as to how it is logical for the natural mechanism to have simply always existed, producing instances of change in reality for an infinite amount of time.

Good luck.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Pro broke his own rule (no fallacies), and thus forfeits the debate.

"Following premise two, the First Principle of reality must be either a natural mechanism, or God." - Pro

This is a false-dichotomy logical fallacy. Pro gives only two options:

(i) A Natural Mechanism

(ii) A sentient personal being (God)

He neglects a third option:

(iii) A non-sentient supernatural cause

Due to the fact that his own rules say no fallacies, and he committed a fallacy first round; I urge a vote to Con.
Debate Round No. 1
Talib.ul-Ilm

Pro

I can't believe you're actually doing this.

Firstly, even if I did commit a fallacy, it would mean that points go to the other for conduct. Nowhere did I say that breaking a rule becomes an automatic forfeit, in fact I said no forfeiting. It would only mean the entire debate if the fallacy was that big of a deal, and continued after addressed.

Secondly, natural in this context means a mechanism without the need of a God.

Please don't ruin this entire debate with your semantics. Just give a proper rebuttal so we can have a real debate. Otherwise you're just being a fool.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con


"Nowhere did I say that breaking a rule becomes an automatic forfeit, in fact I said no forfeiting."

No forfieting does not include automatic forfeits. You broke your own rules, thus you are done.

"It would only mean the entire debate if the fallacy was that big of a deal, and continued after addressed."

Pro admits right here that this means the entire debate if the fallacy was a "big deal". However, a "big deal" only means that it was actually a fallacy, which is it clearly was. When you argue that something must either be "x" or "y", and there is another option ("z"), this is a logical fallacy. Pro concedes the debate.

"Secondly, natural in this context means a mechanism without the need of a God."

You cannot change the definition of words, this is intellectual dishonesty. Natural means natural, and supernatual means supernatural. You cannot define a "dog" a "cat".

"Please don't ruin this entire debate with your semantics."

Not following your own rules is unnacceptable. Also, there is a difference between:

(i) Understanding the english language

(ii) Arguing semantics

If someone called a "calculator" a "speaker" and I corrected them, am I arguing semantics? No, I'm excpeting the other person to know what words mean.

"Just give a proper rebuttal so we can have a real debate. Otherwise you're just being a fool."

You broke your own rules, and admited that it would mean the whole debate if it was a "big deal". It is a "big deal". You set very specific rules for this debate. Once a rule is broken, we are not even debating anymore because this debate was based on a strict guidline. I did not mess up the debate, you did by breaking your own rule. There is no way we can continue this debate, because this debate was based on a strict set of rules. Once the rules have been broken, we aren't engaged in the same debate you outlined in the first round. This means you forfiet whether you want to or not.

Vote Con.

Debate Round No. 2
Talib.ul-Ilm

Pro

No. I didn't elaborate as to what it would mean by breaking a specific rule. Would this mean that if you or I swore, we would automatically lose the debate? Of course not. It would mean a loss of conduct points, if addressed but still continued.

Semantics:

Noun
  1. The branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning.
  2. The meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text: "such quibbling over semantics may seem petty stuff".


Your quibbling over my use of the word natural is pretty petty, bud. Is it that you're afraid of debating against this cosmological argument? I'm going to assume so.

Con forfeited the debate by using semantics, knowing full well what I had intended by a natural mechanism, and offering no rebuttal.

The debate is over.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

"No. I didn't elaborate as to what it would mean by breaking a specific rule. Would this mean that if you or I swore, we would automatically lose the debate?"

Yes it does. Our debate was based on a strict set of rules. Once a rule is broken, we aren't engaged in the same debate outlined. Thus, you forfeit.

"Of course not. It would mean a loss of conduct points, if addressed but still continued."

No, you forfiet the whole debate because this debate was based on the notion of rules that are supposed to be followed. You broke a rule, thus we aren't even engaed in the same debate anymore.


"Your quibbling over my use of the word natural is pretty petty, bud. Is it that you're afraid of debating against this cosmological argument? I'm going to assume so."

I did not squibble over semantics. As I said, there is a difference between:

(i) Understanding the english language

(ii) Arguing semantics

If someone called a "calculator" a "speaker" and I corrected them, am I arguing petty semantics? No, Just because you do not understand words in the English language does not mean I am arguing semantics. Natural means natural, and supernatural means supernatural.

"Con forfeited the debate by using semantics, knowing full well what I had intended by a natural mechanism, and offering no rebuttal."

I have won almost every debate I have done on the cosmolgical argument; trust me, I have rebuttals. However, your rules are ridiculous. Start a new debate with standard rules and we can do this. Howerver, you broke your own rule and lost this debate.

"The debate is over."

Yes it is, because you broke your own rule and committed a fallacy. Also, you cannot define a "playing card" as a "cigarette pack", get called out on it, and then try to argue I am just putting forward semantics. A supernatural cause (my third option), cannot be called natural like my opponent tried to say.
Debate Round No. 3
Talib.ul-Ilm

Pro

This is just sad, just sad.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Yes it is, you start a debate with a list of strict rules and you break a rule first round. I do not even care if I end up winning this debate, (look at my record, I engage in joke debates to the point where my record is severely dented). I will glady rebut your arguments in a legitamate debate, but not with those rules you put forward because they are too easy to break (as you have demonstrated).
Debate Round No. 4
Talib.ul-Ilm

Pro

Sure, bud, sure.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Pro made a debate with a strict set of rules, and I accepted the debate. Upon reading the debate I noticed a false-dichotomy, then I noticed the rules again. The reason the debate could not be continued after the fallacy was because this debate was based on the assumpion that certain rules were to be followed. Since they were not, then how can we say we are engaged in the same debate outlined? Either way, like I said, I engage in debates that clearly show I do not care about my record, so I am not trying to get a "cheap" win here (the people may even take Pro's side on this, who knows).

I will gladly debate this topic with Pro, as I have debated with him before. However, they have to be under better terms because it is too easy to conjur up fallacies by accident in a debate.

If you play a game of Chess and someone moves a pawn like a knight, that means that either they forfeit the game or we start the game over because someone messed up. However, we cannot just "reset" this debate once it has started. Thus, the only reasonable response is an automatic forfeit.
Debate Round No. 5
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
Smithereens wrote:
: @Wiploc, Pro never met his BoP in the first round.

I disagree. Pro laid out an argument. The argument was full of fatal holes, but it was good enough that I'd have voted for Pro if Con had failed to respond. Pro met his burden of proof.

: To say that this means forfeit is as great a non-sequitur as there being a God because tomatoes are red.

Good point! If someone did that to you, you would have fought back. Pro didn't fight back, he surrendered, forfeited, said, "This debate is over."

: The fact is that Pro thought he couldn't continue in this debate because Con had declared it shut and forfeited.

But that wouldn't have worked on you or me, right? Or on anyone else we can think of? Pro should have parried Con's attack, and worked to cure the fallacy, tried to patch over the flaw in premise 3, tried to win the argument.

Instead, he took his ball and went home.

What's the most important thing the voters can teach these debaters if we want better debates in the future? Is it that a debater shouldn't claim to be ahead? Or is it that if a debater claims to be ahead, his opponent---rather than throwing in the towel and saying, "This debate is over"---should counterclaim and say that, no, he is ahead?

: If Pro doesn't present his case in the first round, why does he forfeit the debate?

Pro presented his case in the first round. Con refuted it effectively. Pro didn't respond on topic. He got bitter about being refuted, or about Con's claim that his refutation was devastating, and quit arguing. He declared the debate over and gave up. He declined to engage with Con's argument. He gave up, forfeited.

: If I get shot, then don't call an ambulance, is my death my fault?

Was the shot fatal or not? If not, Pro's job was to say, "Hey, you missed." Instead, he fell down and died. It's not Con's fault that Pro didn't defend against Con's claim that he was ahead.
Posted by Smithereens 3 years ago
Smithereens
Pro in this debate tried to shift the BoP onto Con by simply stating the argument in contention. It should be fairly obvious that he was arguing for God's existence instead of the validity of the cosmological argument. Stating the cosmological argument in this debate does nothing for you as it does not support either case. Pro does not prove that it is a valid argument by stating it, and Con does not prove it is invalid by stating a fallacy then ending the debate before Pro can respond. Both debaters responded incorrectly to each other, but the reason why I chose to award the points to the instigator was because he wasn't the one who sent the debate crashing into a tree.

I don't know why you accepted this debate only to end it in the first round, but there really wasn't any justification for doing so. Why end this debate?

@Wiploc, Pro never met his BoP in the first round. To say that this means forfeit is as great a non-sequitur as there being a God because tomatoes are red. The fact is that Pro thought he couldn't continue in this debate because Con had declared it shut and forfeited. If Pro doesn't present his case in the first round, why does he forfeit the debate? You are pulling rules out of your sleeves my friend.

Furthermore, saying that Pro refused to continue the debate is horridly wrong, being in his shoes, someone has just declared that he forfeited, he 'cannot believe he is doing this.' If I get shot, then don't call an ambulance, is my death my fault? It certainly could have been prevented by me, for sure. Pro in this debate could have called out Con as being at fault but continued with the debate. But the fact that he didn't does not all mean that he is to blame for the end of the debate. No, Con ended this debate, something which just isn't justified.
Posted by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
Smithereens wrote:
: And yes, as a matter of BoP, Pro had it and didn't fulfill it, but we will never find out if he eventually
: does since somebody went and ended the debate :
Pro should have dealt with the distraction briefly and professionally, and then gone on with his job of debating. Since Pro refused to continue with productive debate, Pro is the one who "went and ended the debate."
Posted by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
Smithereens wrote:
: Might I say, pro never made a fallacy as he never made an argument. The argument in round 1 was
: the argument to be debated on, not Pros opening argument.

In that case, Pro never made an argument; and therefore he never made a sound argument; and therefore he never proved, nor even attempted to prove, that the cosmological argument is sound.

In other words, he never tried to meet his burden of proof.

In other words, he forfeited.
Posted by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
RFD:

I don't really know what to do with rules like
- No forfeiting
- No fallacies
- No insult to character
- No special pleading.

Take the "no forfeiting" rule. If someone forfeits, how are you supposed to punish them beyond how you would normally punish them? Suppose a debater says, "I've always believed X, but you have persuaded me that not-X; therefore, I concede and forfeit this debate." Are you supposed to say, "Sorry, that's not allowed. I'm going to score this as if you had continued debating and continued doing a good job"?

My instinct is to just ignore such rules. But I also believe that people have the right to set their own rules. So what should I do? Normally, I just don't read such debates. I don't remember how I got past the unacceptable rules of this one.

Pro undertook to prove that the cosmological argument is sound. He presented a version of the argument chock full of fallacies, unsoundnessess. Con pointed out one of those flaws, thus defeating the argument as originally presented. He dropped all the other errors.

Does that mean that Con conceded that the CA is good in all other respects? All Pro had to do is deal with the false dichotomy? Maybe so, but Pro elected not to deal with the false dichotomy. He made a mistake, and when the mistake was pointed out, he chose not even to try to cure. He abandoned all effort to argue on topic. He left Con's refutation unchallenged.

Pro essentially forfeited the debate.

Thus, persuasion points go to Con.

Conduct: I was going to award conduct to Con because Pro said he was being a fool, but then Con accused Pro of intellectual dishonesty.

The rule against insulting each other doesn't help or hinder or at all affect my reasoning in this matter. Though it did create irony.

I was troubled by the shared burden of proof. But Con absolutely proved that Pro's version of the CA is unsound, and he can't be responsible to prove that other versions are unsound.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
"Round 1 really didn't have a pro case in it, he was waiting for you to attack it. But since he didn't make an actual case, nothing can really be fallacious."

His conclusion said "as I have argued". This means he made his actual case. Also, he did not say "first for for acceptance" which proves I am right. If someone is just outlining the debate in the fist round, then they have to put "first round for acceptance" if it is not its their case. I actually showed a fallacy, because he left out a third option. thus, he committed the false-dichotomy fallacy and broke his own rule.

"If one makes a fallacy claim, they must show the fallacy, they are making the claim. They then need to support that fallacy by showing there was an third option."

I did show a third option. A non-sentient supernatural cause.

"If one makes a fallacy claim, they must show the fallacy, they are making the claim. They then need to support that fallacy by showing there was an third option."

I did show a third. A non-sentient supernatural cause (as I already said).
Posted by Smithereens 3 years ago
Smithereens
Imo, not that my advice is any good, but you should have simply corrected rule 7, which was the only faulty one, then proceeded with the debate to show that there was a fallacy in the Cosmological argument.
Posted by Smithereens 3 years ago
Smithereens
And yes, as a matter of BoP, Pro had it and didn't fulfill it, but we will never find out if he eventually does since somebody went and ended the debate :\
Posted by Smithereens 3 years ago
Smithereens
I don't find anything unnatural about pro putting a conclusion at the end of his post, I do it too. The argument which you attacked as fallacious and in contradiction to the rules did not support the resolution. It's not a Pro argument, everything else was, including the conclusion. Round 1 really didn't have a pro case in it, he was waiting for you to attack it. But since he didn't make an actual case, nothing can really be fallacious.

I'm not sure anyone would agree that you did the right thing. From a voters point of view, you were really unsportsmanlike. Irrelevant to any bias I may have, this debate was pretty much ruined by Con, not pro.
Posted by Harbinger 3 years ago
Harbinger
If one makes a fallacy claim, they must show the fallacy, they are making the claim. They then need to support that fallacy by showing there was an third option. After reading, I am disappointed. How can you give a third option and then do not support it or show it is feasible? By the end, only two options are confirmed available. You cannot say there is three options and then not show the third.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
Talib.ul-IlmRational_Thinker9119Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by ClassicRobert 3 years ago
ClassicRobert
Talib.ul-IlmRational_Thinker9119Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro went against his own rule about fallacies, so conduct goes to con.
Vote Placed by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
Talib.ul-IlmRational_Thinker9119Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gave a false dichotomy. He then changed natural to include supernatural. This is another fallacy known as equivocation. In round 4 and 5 pro pretty much forfeited the debate not attacking Con's claims. This was a pretty poor debate and could've went better. I don't think Pro should lose any point but conduct for the fallacy. Pro only disputed by redefining natural.
Vote Placed by newbiehere 3 years ago
newbiehere
Talib.ul-IlmRational_Thinker9119Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm going to disagree with the previous voter. The topic of the debate was "The Cosmological Argument Is Sound." As Con pointed out, there was a fallacy, making the cosmological argument (as presented) not only unsound, but also invalid. Pro lost this debate both by his own rules and by logic.
Vote Placed by Smithereens 3 years ago
Smithereens
Talib.ul-IlmRational_Thinker9119Tied
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 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: A fallacy in the argument being debated over does not mean the debate ends, it means Con has a case. If Con can successfully prove that there is indeed a fallacy, he wins the debate, as the rules state that there cannot be a fallacy. Con stated the existence of a fallacy in the argument being debated, but didn't provide any material to back his claim. Pro did not make an argument on the topic 'the cosmological argument is sound.' There is therefore nothing that Con can call unsound and in breach of the rules on Pro's part. If it is the argument in contention that is fallacious, then it needs to be pointed out. If this is the case then it is not Pros argument that is in error, it is 'the' argument that is fallacious. Pro in this debate defends the argument and says that it is not fallacious while Con has to prove that it is fallacious. Con did not fulfill his job as the contender which completely screwed up this debate. Conduct and arguments to pro because of that.