The Instigator
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Pro (for)
Losing
18 Points
The Contender
Buddamoose
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

The Universe has always existed

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 11 votes the winner is...
Buddamoose
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/8/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,517 times Debate No: 21812
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (112)
Votes (11)

 

The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro

Universe: The totally of existing things at any time.

Opponent can argue away.
Buddamoose

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for creating this debate.

I will begin immediately by explaining the recently created String Theory. Created by Robert Brandenberger and Cumrun Vafa.

"In this idea, initially posed in the 1980s by Robert Brandenberger and Cumrun Vafa, the universe began as a tightly wound string with all dimensions symmetrically confined to the Planck length. The strings, in effect, bound the dimensions up to that size.
Brandenberger and Vafa argued that in three or fewer dimensions, it would be likely for the strings to collide with anti-strings. (An anti-string is essentially a string that winds in a direction opposite the string.) The collision annihilates the string which, in turn, unleashes the dimensions it was confining. They thus begin expanding, as in the inflationary and big bang theories."

Right here we have the basis for explaining the big bang and the inflationary period afterwards. Yet this still doesnt explain, why was the matter that the big Bang and expansionary period created from, there in the first place? Was that matter created, or was it always in existence as my peer is arguing?

"One controversial conjecture is a cyclic universe model called the ekpyrotic universe theory, which suggests that our own universe is the result of branes colliding with each other."[1]

Essentially what this theory entails is that outside of our universe there a these vibrating membranes, and whenever these strings or membranes collide, a big bang occurs, or, a new universe is created, in other words. This theory would seem to suggest that our Universe was created, not from a small ball of mass that the big bang theory entails, but rather did not exist as anything, and the big bang was merely a by-product of of these strings or membranes colliding.

It is important to note the dimensional side of the theory as well, as in string and membrane theory more than just 3 dimensions that we see ourselves everyday, up/down, left/right, forward/backward(depth). In this theory more dimensions exist than that. These membranes are essentially dimensions. that exist outside of our universe.

"The ekpyrotic model is divided into various epochs (periods of time), based upon what influences dominate:
The big bang
The radiation-dominated epoch
The matter-dominated epoch
The dark energy–dominated epoch
The contraction epoch
The big crunch"[1]

"The story up until the contraction epoch is essentially identical to that made by regular big bang cosmology. The radiation that is spawned by the brane collision (the big bang) means the radiation-dominated epoch is fairly uniform (save for quantum fluctuations), so inflation may be unnecessary. After about 75,000 years, the universe becomes a particle soup during the matter-dominated epoch. Today and for many years, we are in the dark energy–dominated epoch, until the dark energy decays and the universe begins contracting once again." [1]

Thus we see from the membrane theory these things,

1) The Universe was created by two membranes collding
2) The Universe at first expands but eventually will contract back into nothing
3) Until the membranes collide again and a new universe will be created once again.

The big one in this is that the universe was created. Now I cant say what theists think of this, but this theory does do a suitable job of explaining the "cause" of the universe itself, something that has confounded scientists and philosophers for generations now. Therefore if this theory is true, the
Universe at one point did not exist, and in the future it will be nonexistant again, therefore sucessfully negating my peers position that it has always existed. A notion, I should note that scientists in general disagree with, the disagreeance comes from what created or caused the universe to exist.

-----------
Sources:
1) http://www.dummies.com...
Debate Round No. 1
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro

The Universe according to and old man.

"come now, I will tell you--- and bring away my story safely when you have heard it--- the only ways of inquiry are to think: the one, that it is and that it is not possible for it not to be, the path of Truth, the other, that it is not and the necessary for it not to be, this I point out to you to be a path completely unlearnable, for neither may you know that which is not, nor may you declare it." Parmenides of Elea 500 BCE

The Fool: The message is simple. What IS IS, and what IS not cannot be known. For it is not there to know about and so not there to claim. What IS IS the universe. It could never be what is not, because it is. (Sounds almost trivial but it’s a really strong argument.)

Zilch!!
When we think of nonexistence we often think of blackness. But blackness or darkness is something. It’s a default color when there is no light hitting our eyes. Notness is not even that, it cannot be thought of, for even that would exist in the form of an idea or thought. But all ideas would be something but we are talking about absolutely nothing. If you had brain damage causing a blind spot in your vision, and you were looking at somebody, you would see something like a head looking connected to legs, the middle is not dark but literally cut out of perception. That is one thing we could never know is notness therefore notness can never be and explanation, so the universe can only be known to exist.

Even the theory my opponent is talking about, depends on something a string or whatever, but something none the less. It does not go from nothing to something. It just goes from something else to another. It doesn’t help to say something is immaterial for our minds are immaterial and they exist, and thus they are in the universe. The universe is not only physical for it is made of relations of physical and mind. The relations of ideas of physical entities are the logical quantifiers. That we don't create logic but rather symbolize (create a language) which reflects relations of reality and this is the same with math. It rather discovering, than creating and that makes it objective.

Secondly since we experience the world from our mind, anything possible to know, even the most abstract concept exist at least in the form of and idea. We all understand what I mean when I say 1 or 2 because we share the ideas in which the words relate too.

As long as something is there the universe exist. Something cannot from nothing, nor is matter ever created or destroyed, it only changes forms. A form being a different set of relations of matter or mind(idea) The constant changing in the universe need not a first cause for even that would be another change.


Bang!!!!!
Even the in the big bang theory it only accounts for the beginning of our current empirical world in the way we know it now. What they call the initial stage is not empty universe but a hot condensed state of matter. It is still existing, and moving, for heat is the movement of molecules. the change in stability of energy explains the explosion. Even before the condensation It could have been previously seperated.

Elementally Fooled
I will here introduce the Elemental fallacy, you never heard of it, because this is fresh philosophy straight from the hill. That is, Elements, are the supposed to be the most basic constituents of matter, Aristotle had mentioned that there were four elements, Earth, wind, fire, water. He was considered to be refuted when we discovered what we now call elements.(oxygen, hydrogen, etc) But technically that should be considered refuted as well since we have found even smaller elements aka sub-atomic particles, but the name stook even though they are not really the small basic element of matter. This same fallacy is done with the universe, where the Universe is supposed to be all things that exist, thus we shouldn't be talking about other universes, for technically they are just parts(sub universes) of THE UNIVERSE. So the same but this is the same elemental mistake but in reverse. So there are no multiple universes for they are only part of the universe.
Thus re-establishing that the universe is all that exist. but since but something cannot come from nothing, The universe has always exististed.

Review of key points;

1. What universe IS and so it could never be what IS NOT because it would be a contradiction to isness.
2. Matter or energy is never created or destroyed. (law of consevation
3. Energy is unstabilization (definition of energy)
4. The universe is always changing. (always has energy)
5. New things are forming and unforming. (unstabilized change of relations of matter and mind)
6. The universe is the whole that is all. (via explaintion of elementary fallacy)

Therefore the universe has always existed.


The Fool on the hill. ;)
Buddamoose

Con

Ill begin by thanking my peer for such a fine round.

"The message is simple. What IS IS, and what IS not cannot be known. For it is not there to know about and so not there to claim. What IS IS the universe. It could never be what is not, because it is. (Sounds almost trivial but it�€™s a really strong argument.)"

I suppose in a sense you are correct. We really dont know, but that does not prevent us from observing what we can see and do know, and surmise likely scenarios. Thanks to sattelites, telescopes, etc. we are able to observe that there appears to be a limit to how far back in time the light we see from stars comes from. We are also able to observe what we believe to be the "edges" of the universe, some 15 or so billion light years away. So from that we can surmise that the universe is about 15 billion years old.

"As long as something is there the universe exist. Something cannot from nothing, nor is matter ever created or destroyed, it only changes forms. A form being a different set of relations of matter or mind(idea) The constant changing in the universe need not a first cause for even that would be another change."

There lies an inherent problem with this. The knowledge that something cannot come from nothing only comes from observing the way things naturallly happen within our universe or our existence. Without the universe with its set conditions of conservation of energy, space, time, etc. there is no existence. There can be no existence without the universe, before the universe in the state we currently observe, there was no energy, no space, no time, therefore, no existence.

"4. The universe is always changing. (always has energy)"

Correction, the universe always has NO net energy. In other words, this is why philosophers should stay away from science because generally they really dont have a clue as to what they are talking
about. Something cannot be created from nothing, within the confines of existence as we know to be true. Yet for all intensive purposes, thanks to the existence of what is called positive and negative energy, we are able to observe that everything equals out and no energy is made, no energy is used, indeed the change, the expansion, appears to have come from nothing. This is not to say that energy does not exist now though, as we are able to observe, and harness it for our own means. Yet the fact still remains, creation, or existence, does not require energy to occur.

"Second, because of the curious fact that gravity has negative energy, it takes no energy to make a universe. Despite the colossal amount of energy contained in every atom of matter, it is precisely balanced by the negativity of gravity."[1]

One cannot make something out of nothing, yet the universe came from nothing, and it exists. Which would disprove that something cannot be made from nothing.

"5. New things are forming and unforming. (unstabilized change of relations of matter and mind)" With no energy at all, with no energy as a catalyst for change, as that is all energy is really, a catalyst for change, how is there change? According what we are able to observe energy is a requirement for there to be change, but its really not, sooo, make your own conclusions from that.

"6. The universe is the whole that is all. (via explaintion of elementary fallacy)" Yes, and before the universe there was nothing. Zilch, as you put it, time nor space existed, therefore there could be no existence as existence is merely a by- product of the space and time we now currently observe thanks to the creation or beginning of our universe.

"Notness is not even that, it cannot be thought of, for even that would exist in the form of an idea or thought" and yet you still manage to explain it so well, "If you had brain damage causing a blind spot in your vision, and you were looking at somebody, you would see something like a head looking connected to legs, the middle is not dark but literally cut out of perception" Which just ties into my previous point that existence merely comes as a by-product of the Universe, and is inherently reliant upon space, time, or in other words, the current conditions we are able to observe in the universe as a whole.

"That is one thing we could never know is notness therefore notness can never be and explanation, so the universe can only be known to exist. "

Nonsense, essentially what you are saying is that, what we do not know does not exist, yet the universe existed before we as a species existed, and it will continue afterwards. Existence is not reliant upon us thinking of something, but rather it is reliant upon the natural laws that we currently observe. Natural Laws that were here before us and will continue to be for quite a considerable time.

So now to briefly touch on the key points,

1) The Universe has an age, and thus a set time of existence. Something cannot exist before it actually exists, and without the universe and the natural laws that dictate the occurences within it, there is no existence.
2) The Universe was made out of nothing, i.e. no net energy gain or loss.
3) Just because we do not know, or have no way of describing a certain concept, or object, does not mean it does not exist. Our planet existed long before we as a species existed, and it will afterwards.

Ill finish by explaining what is called, "Olber's Paradox." Also called the "Dark Night Sky" paradox. If the universe has always existed, and will always exist, then one can draw the conclusion that it must be infinite in size, with an infinite number of stars, infinite number of planets, so on and so forth. Yet what does the night sky have to do with this? Simple, if the universe has always existed, and there is an infinite number of stars, and infinite size, then if the universe is populated by an infinite number of stars, any sight line from Earth must end at the (very bright) surface of a star, so the night sky should be completely bright. This contradicts the observed darkness of the night.

Thanks to Olbers paradox we are able to observe these things,

1) The Universe is not infinite in size
2) The Universe is expanding
3) The Universe because it is not infinite, and because it is expanding, has an age
4) If the Universe has an age, then like anything else that is born or made, before it was, it was not, and as such did not exist

Vote Con.

--------
Sources

1) http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro

‘The things that are perish into the things out of which they come to be, according to necessity, for they pay penalty and retribution to each other for their injustice in accordance with the ordering of time” Anaximander of Miletus 610 BCE

The Fool: That is it is only forms of existence that get destroyed only to become other forms, which change into others, but never into absolute non-existence.

What IS IS, and what IS not cannot be known. For it is not there to know about and so not there to claim. What IS IS the universe. It could never be what is not, because it is.

Non-existence simply put doesn’t exist. So any claim that there is such a thing is nonsense, because it is precisely what is not. So it never makes sense to say there was non-existence. (for their literally no sense in which it exist.) That is 100% certain.

Please judge fairly, look at what he actually saying:

Sophist: “Essentially what you are saying is that, what we do not know does not exist, yet the universe existed before we as a species existed, and it will continue afterwards.’

Is this really what I am saying? Come on now. I said cleary non-existence as a thing in itself is nonsense. It is not the same as not recognising something in the past. There is recognition and existence.

Even the idea of non-existence is impossible because the idea would have to not exist. This is clearly demonstrated in the Zilch! Section above.

Please judge fairly, look at what he is actually saying:

Sophist: “I suppose in a sense you are correct. We really don’t know.”

Please note he is saying: “In a sense its true and we don’t know” at the very same time. (Contradiction)

Remember there is blackness and non-existence they are not the same. Thus the telescope example is justly rubbish. This has already been argued. Secondly, according to science the empirical universe is expanding at the speed of light, so even to look for the end, makes absolutely no sense because you could never catch up to it.

Please judge fairly, look at what he is actually saying:

Sophist: ‘We are also able to observe what we believe to be the "edges" of the universe, some 15 or so billion light years away.’

The knowledge that something does not come from nothing could never be asserted naturally or empirically. For it is often the case that we see things appear out of now where, that is what random is. And in science we perceive that all the time, especially in quantum mechanics.

Please judge fairly, look at what he is actually saying:

Sophist:“The knowledge that something cannot come from nothing only comes from observing the way things naturally happen within our universe or our existence.”

That something cannot come from something is a purely logical explanation called “the principle of sufficient reason” proposed by the Anaximander of Miletus 610 BCE.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Now when I say the universe is always changing, because of energy. It has nothing to with the semantics; in types of energy we all know what that means. It’s not that complicated.

Please judge fairly, look at what he is actually saying.

“Correction, the universe always has NO net energy. “ = “philosophers should stay away from science because generally they really don’t have a clue as to what they are talking about.”

My opponent doesn’t know my background at all; net energy has nothing to do there being energy. It’s just law of conservation again. My opponent is disregarding and distorting what I have written. Secondly, this is posted in the philosophy section not science. It is also a false dichotomy anyways.

"Dark Night Sky and the Fool"

The Sophist: If the universe has always existed, and will always exist, then one CAN draw the conclusion that it must be infinite in size.

The Fool: Key point here is CAN. And that is the death of an argument.(Foolery 101) For we can draw any conclusion that is must be some way. To have a sound argument it must follow by necessity not possibility. Thus it can’t be a logical paradox. It’s a Para-Not. So it’s gets an F for… Fool! ;) Let’s look at the scraps for some something worthy of investigation. This was a very unsatisfying victory.

Who's that Fool in the garbage bin?

Let’s grant that the argument was sound.

Sophist: If the universe has always existed, and there is an infinite number of stars, and infinite size,

The Fool: Even still doesn’t follow that there would be and would be and in finite number of stars, when again law of conservation says nothing can be created or destroyed. Yes. Even lion and Tigers and

Sophist: Even lions and Tigers and Bears?

The Fool: oh my. ;)

Sophist: awww ;( what about infinite size?

The Fool: it very well might be, if it’s true that universe is expanding at the speed light then we could never know how far because we can’t catch up the speed of light if it is the fastest speed possible. It’s a pretty poor claim of the big bang theory because it doesn’t seem to be falsifiable. I think it is only theoretical, so much for expansion and infinite size.

But it’s the best explanation we have. Why? Because upon new information it can be changed, and thus its can evolving, is not a final explanation and nor is it meant to be one. We may have a better theory then quantum mechanics tomorrow. Knowledge comes in time, work and effort so we have to be patient, its others that distort its claims of reality aka The Sophists.

An untimely Fool

Well nobody lets to find out that Santa clause doesn’t not exist, we cling to that a little while longer even when we know he doesn’t exist. If you are not ready to grow up, you might want to skip this part. For fresh knowledge is not always happy knowledge. It’s interesting to me to see what people say that the universe has an age so it must have been born; I never get the feeling of born-ness when I gaze as the sky from a hill top. For one most people don’t grasp as clear as they think is time. What is time?

Young Fool: what is time master?

The True: time is what happens.

Young Fool: Everything happens, that doesn’t help.

The True: You just need to ask the right question Young Fool. How does happens happen?

Young Fool: I don’t know, all I see is happenings.

The True: How do you tell them apart?

Young Fool: in relation to each other.

The True: and you have your answer.

Young Fool: hmmm. Oh

The True: think! About the differences!

Young Fool: oh okay, time is the difference of happenings?

The True: exactly

Young Fool: time is the difference of change between something and another. Hmmm. So our time must be the change between movement of the earth and its axis, while a year is relative to the location of the sun and earth. Yeah. That makes sense, just as an hour is synonymous with sand moving through an hour grass. Or water from a bucket. That is we measure time by change but time does not exist in itself! Awww But what about Christmas and birthdays and such?!!

The Tru: The calendar is just convention that been forgotten. We all have to grow up sometime Fool!

Aka time does not exist in the universe. You heard it here first!. And that is straight from the hill!

Therefore it follows by NECESSITY the Universe is eternal!

Review of key points

1. Matter or energy is never created or destroyed. (Law of conservation, and by logic)

2. Energy is, unstabilization (definition of energy)

3. The universe is always changing. (unstabiliztion is change)

4. New things are forming and unforming. (unstabilized change of relations of matter and mind)

C Therefore the universe is eternal and creation is not necessary.

1. What universe what IS and so it could never be what IS NOT because it would be a contradiction to is-ness.

2. The universe is the whole that is all. (via explaintion of elementary fallacy)

3. Time is not a part of the universe. (via untimely fool)

Each of these indiviually proves the universe is eternal.


It’s not cool, to be ruled, by stool, vote FOOL!
Buddamoose

Con

I quite enjoyed reading my peers last round, and am going to hi-jack his format of a conversation and compose a transcript of how the hypothetical conversation would actually happen.

The Fool: That is it is only forms of existence that get destroyed only to become other forms, which change into others, but never into absolute non-existence."

That something cannot come from something is a purely logical explanation called the principle of sufficient reason proposed by the Anaximander of Miletus 610 BCE.

The knowledge that something does not come from nothing COULD NEVER BE ASSERTED NATURALLY OR EMPIRICALLY. For it is often the case that WE SEE THING APPEAR OUT OF NOWHERE, that is what random is. And in science WE PERCIEVE THAT ALL THE TIME, especially in QUANTUM MECHANICS.(NOTE THE CONTRADICTION)

Me: Then the statement that something cannot come from nothing, though it may be logically true, is ultimately false, science has disproven it. Also, what is the purpose of this statement? "Secondly, this is posted in the philosophy section not science. It is also a false dichotomy anyways."

Science is in and of itself a philosophy. Science an explanation of how and why things are/work. A Philosophy is ones own explanation of how and why things are/work. Physicalism is a philosophy, physicalism is based on science, ergo science is a philosophy.

The Fool: Ok, but what about the mind? It doesn't help to say something is immaterial for our minds are immaterial and they exist, and thus they are in the universe.

Me: As pro burden of proof rests with you. As con i need not present a case as to why it is not true, unless you give evidence suggesting that it is. If you do not all that I must do is say you have no proof, therefore it is not true. Besides, conciousness or the mind is merely a physical aspect of our brains. There is a multitude of evidence to support this, but again, I need not even present this evidence until you present evidence yourself. Until that point the immateriality of the mind is a null point.

The Fool: But the immateriality of the mind cannot be proven!

Me: Exactly, next point please.

The Fool: According to science the empirical universe is expanding at the speed of light, so even to look for the end, makes absolutely no sense because you could never catch up to it.

Me: First off the universe is not expanding at the speed of light. It is expanding faster than the speed of light.

The Fool: But no thing can travel faster than the speed of light.

Me: Except spacetime, the limits that apply to objects in the fabric of spacetime do not apply to spacetime itself. This much we can see from judging the speed at which galaxies move away from each other. Galaxies are moving away from each other faster than the speed of light, therefore it MUST be concluded that spacetime expands faster than the speed of light.

The Fool: This is logically impossible

Me: And yet it is true, so your logical deductions do not apply

The Fool: But what is logically true must remain true.

Me: No, logically true things are proven false all the time, such as the principle of sufficient reasoning. Something can be created from nothing, therefore the principle of sufficient reasoning is false.

The Fool: Then what basis do i have to hold the validity of my argunents with? If logical deductions alone are not sufficient to prove my arguments.

Me: Exactly. Although I will point out that a logical conclusion is a form of evidence, but if it is shown to be empirically, naturally, etc. false, then the logical deduction is false. As of yet you have not even used a logical deduction to attempt to hold the assertion that immaterial things exist have you?

The Fool: No :(

Me: Then as of yet your argument holds no basis as you have not proven anything to be true. Again, next point please

The Fool: net energy has nothing to do there being energy. Its just law of conservation again

Me: Ahh I see my semantics have caused a misinterpretation, let us allow stephen hawking, explain.

Stephen Hawking: The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero.([1] Hawking 1988, 129)

Me: The total energy of the universe is zero. There is actually no energy in the universe, so how is matter created with no energy? The only logical answer is, it is created from nothing.

The Fool: But the principle of sufficie-

Me: Enough with that, that has been disproven, stop bringing it up. Next point please.

The Fool: time does not exist in the universe. You heard it here first!. And that is straight from the hill!

Me: If time does not exist, then space does not exist. And if space does not exist, then there can be no things that exist. Space and time are two seperate, but ultimately combinable entities in the realm of physics. Here, let a lesser known mathematician who worked with the widely known physicist Albert Einstein on his theory of relativity, explain.

Herman Minkowski: Henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality.(2)

On another note let me bring this point up. If time does not exist then resolution is proven false. Here is why, The resolution is: The universe has ALWAYS existed. Always implies that time exists, for if it did not, there would be no always to speak of. Not only does always imply the existence of time, but it implies infinite time. To state that time does not exist and say that the universe has ALWAYS existed is contradictory in nature, therefore the resolution is proven false semantically.

The Fool: Then its probably in my best interests to retract the assertion that time does not exist?

Me: Precisely, furthermore, if time does not exist then space does not exist, spacetime remember? If space does not exist, then no thing can exist, because for something to exist there must be spacetime for it to exist in. So if spacetime does not exist, then the universe...

The Fool: Must not exist?

Me: Precisely

The Fool: But the universe exists!

Me: So spacetime must exist!

The Fool: Oh :(

Me: Now then, we have established that spacetime exists, and that the resolution entails that the universe has always existed, therefore the universe has been around an infinite amount of time. What, I ask, does this entail for space?

The Fool: That space is infinite?

Me: Precisely, which leads right back to Olbers Paradox. If Universe has always existed one must hold that spacetime is infinite as well. If spacetime is infinite then one MUST conclude that it is filled with an infinite number of things(infinity leads into infinity into infinity) and therefore an infinite number of stars. If this were the case then the night sky would be completely bright, as every line of sight would end at the very bright surface of a star.

Oh and theres another problem with a universe that has always existed. Zero-Entropy, otherwise known as the heat death paradox. The argument holds that: If the universe were infinite in extent it would also have to be infinitely old. Any hot object transfers heat to its cooler surroundings, until everything is at the same temperature. For two objects at the same temperature as much heat flows from one body as flows from the other, and the net effect is no change. If the universe were infinitely old there must have been enough time for the stars to cool and warm their surroundings. Everywhere should therefore be at the same temperature and there should either be no stars, or everything should be as hot as stars.

Since there are stars and the universe is not in thermal equilibrium it can not be infinitely old; since it is not infinitely old it cannot be infinite in extent.

VOTE PRO
Debate Round No. 3
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro

“I have noticed that the senses are sometimes deceptive; and it is a mark of prudence never to place our complete trust in those who have deceived us even once. “ Rene Descartes

Recognition vs reality

One of the popular mistakes that we make is that we often confuse what recognize for being the reality and also the reality being only what we recognize. As Descartes points out, our senses make mistakes often. That since all scientific observation is supposedly based of sense information; we never get absolute certainty, nor are most physical theories meant to be at all, quantum mechanics being one of the must uncertain theories of them all. That is, because of its statistical nature it can’t by definition give certainty of anything. This is not to be confused with anything physical being uncertain. Scientist are people, and like anybody they make mistakes typically philosophical ones. But science is of what we recognize with the sense, but not the absolute of reality. So logic takes priority in the sense that if are findings are not logical its mean our scientific theory is flawed, thus the theory is due for and upgrade.

Beware! dark clouds are heading towards the hill!

As with most arguments of this kind there is certain point where people get desperate and their integrity starts to flail. With that there becomes a shift in the argument style usually in the sense that it becomes darker. That is, more insulting, more deceitful, they may copy their opponents and become more fallacious. This is always something to look out for in these types of debates.

The Sophist revenge! ;(

The Sophist: I will fix that fool and his conceitedness. I'll fool him this time. Take a look at this proof.

P1. Science an explanation of how and why things are/work.

P2. A Philosophy is ones own explanation of how and why things are/work

P3. Physicalism is a philosophy,

P4. physicalism is based on science,

C. ergo science is a philosophy.

QED!!???????? And that is straight from my house!!

The Sophist: That felt great, I feel, feel so alive now! I will say it again. And that’s straight from my house! Wooo hoo!.

A Foolish reservation

The Fool: Very wise, so what you are saying is that science is ones own personal explanation of why things are/work. ;)

The Sophist: look at my proof.

The Fool: Secondly it also follows that since Physicalism is a philosophy and is based on science that science is a philosophy.

The Sophist: yes.

The Fool: There is only one problem it’s trivial so I won’t bother. ;(

The Sophist: What is that?

The Fool: well it’s so small it’s not worth mentioning. It’s just I was under I guess the false impression that The Philosophy of Science was The Philosophy of Science. ;)

The Sophist: No its Physicalism!

The Fool: And I thought cognitive science was science of the mind. I guess I was studying something else. Err other never mind, then.

;

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Fool: ;)

Foolish is as foolish does

The Fool Fan’s know their fool, by the integrity of style which always maintains faithful to the argument of the opponent. For the fools adheres to the chivalries of reason, in this case the Principle of Charity. I always use direct quotation, unless it joke that is not actually related to the argument at hand.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

While the Fooler aka The Sophist, misconstrues their opponent’s positions by any means necessary for the sake of appearing to make sense rather than a clear and open demonstration of justification. Such morals are unknown to the Sophist.

Note: He is not copying me in the same way, because he is actually writing in arguments that I don’t hold.

Time to deal with the darkness

I am only going to bother with what is related. It’s too bad the debates become like this, I feel an eerie feeling in my stomach when I see the dark side of people. I am voiding all positions I didn’t position that I didn’t hold.

Note: the argument is about the universe. The Rest of his argument is fabrication and he should be flat out disqualified for that.

The mind and madness!

But again let just for fun, pretend I really held the position he made up! (JUST FOR FUN!)

Evil Sophist: based of my awesome physicalism argument consciousness must be proven to know the universe exist.

Rene Descartes: !!!!!???

Evil Sophist: The mind the mind! How do you prove consciousness?

Rene Descartes: You got to be kidding me.

Evil Sophist: As pro burden of proof rests with you. As con i need not present a case as to why it is not true, unless you give evidence suggesting that it is.

Rene Descartes: Oh you mean The Fool? Yeah he is a pro and we should all vote for him!

Evil Sophist: yeah vote pro!

The Fool: woo hoo! Vote pro!

Evil Sophist: If you do not all that I must do is say you have no proof, therefore it is not true. Besides, consciousness or the mind is merely a physical aspect of our brains.

Rene Descartes: WTF are you talking about!

Evil Sophist: There is a multitude of evidence to support this, but again, I need not even present this evidence until you present evidence yourself.

Rene Descartes: My name doesn’t ring a bell.

Evil Sophist: Until that point the immateriality of the mind is a null point.

The Fool: But the immateriality of the mind cannot be proven! ;(

Evil Sophist: Exactly, next point please.

Rene Descartes: I think therefor I am!

The Fool: woo hoo! Cartesian High Five! Smack!

Rene Descartes: and that’s straight from the tomb!

Evil Sophist: Noooooooo. I hate you Fooooooooooooooooooool!

At the speed of light!

The Fool: The extent of the universe can't be measured with certianty.

I thought that skit would be faster!

Sophist: logically, true things are proven false all the time.

The Fool: ;)

Rene Descartes: ;)

Sophist: Such as the principle of sufficient reasoning.

Anaximander: what an idiot!

Rene Descartes: :o !

The Fool: ;O !

Sophist: hey that was rude. Ahh! (rolling on the ground in pain) Audience, look what they did to me!!!

The Fool throws up a green flag.

Rene Descartes: he didn’t even touch you it’s not soccer.

The Fool: I didn’t say anything! I didn’t know he was still here. He was my last round philosopher.

Anaximander: but I didn’t get to talk as much as Descartes.

The Fool: he is not an idiot okay! He is buddamoose.

Anaximander: I have never heard of this kind of Moose.

Rene Descartes: I could use some Mousse

Sophist: not that kind of moose!

The Fool: who gives a moose!

Anaximander: Budda I do!

Rene Descartes: Budda don’t

The Fool: budda boom badda bing!

Sophist: WTF is going on here.

The Fool: Exactly how things would be if logic was breakable. For it would not be logic at all now would it.


Well I was way off!!!

I don't think he is grasping the reality of debate. Principle of sufficient reason is not even the one he needs to pick on. Olbers Paradox blew, it’s not any stronger because he says it again. He just deleted the CAN. But an argument based on science can't follow by necessity.

He only took shotes at Untimely Fool with an appeal to authority. But its a live logical proof! Fresh from a hill top. I don't think the reality has sunk in.

Review of key points

1. Matter or energy is never created or destroyed. (Law of conservation, and by logic)

2. Energy is, unstabilization (definition of energy)

3. The universe is always changing. (unstabiliztion is change)

4. New things are forming and unforming. (unstabilized change of relations of matter and mind)

C Therefore the universe is eternal and change is happening, no creation needed.


These following need to individually be proven wrong.

1. What universe what IS and so it could never be what IS NOT because it would be a contradiction to is-ness.

2. The universe is the whole that is all. (via explaintion of elementary fallacy)

3. Time is not a part of the universe. (via untimely fool)

The Sophist may have his days but not this one. Come on now, it would just be plainly cruel, if you didn't vote Fool!

Rene Decartes: vote Fool! ;)
Anaximander: vote Fool! ;0
The Fool: Woo Hoo! Vote for me! ;)
Buddamoose

Con

Well I'm not quite sure how to respond to my peer's last round as he really didnt refute any of the evidence I've brought forth. He just said its wrong without explaining how/why...

" As Descartes points out, our senses make mistakes often. That since all scientific observation is supposedly based of sense information; we never get absolute certainty, nor are most physical theories meant to be at all, quantum mechanics being one of the must uncertain theories of them all. That is, because of its statistical nature it can't by definition give certainty of anything"

Yet by his own standards:

1) Logic is based off of the senses- "That we don't create logic but rather symbolize (create a language) which reflects relations of reality and this is the same with math. It rather discovering, than creating and that makes it objective."

Look at that, REFLECTS RELATIONS OF REALITY. To reflect is a synonym of to observe. Relations is a synonym of interactions. Reality, now this is a sticky part, because he holds that the mind is immaterial. Yet what we observe is limited to what we physically sense. We no more observe time, then we do the mind. It is through the observation of interactions between physical objects that we justify the existence of time. Can the same thing be said about the "immaterial mind"? No.

2) Math is on the same level as logic: "this is the same with math"

Now note the complete contradiction between that statement in regards to logic and math and their objective qualities and how they are the same types of processes(ones which we symbolize not create.)

"That is, because of its statistical nature it can't by definition give certainty of anything"(In regards to science)

So he originally states that math is the same as logic. Then proposes that:
A: Science cannot be trusted because
1) It is based on our senses and our senses can fool us.

Now I will briefly pause and say. Do you not think scientists know this? Do you think they dont have ways to erase almost all doubt that our senses are indeed fooling us? Its called testing the hypothesis, a vital part of the scientific method. Its not enough to just test it once, the hypothesis gets tested multiple times, and then it gets reformulated based on the results. Then, just to be sure, it gets tested some more. Now its easy to say, "well that one test couldve been our senses fooling us." But after 5 tests? After 10? After 15? 20? 50? tests. And each time those results come back the same, how much of a chance is there that it was just a "trick of the senses?" Anyways continuing on

2) Statistical in nature
B: Logic is:
1) It is based on our senses(reflections of relations of reality)
2) Not statistical in nature
C: Logic is superior to science(So logic takes priority in the sense that if are findings are not logical its mean our scientific theory is flawed))

Now I cant be the only one seeing that contradiction, its so obvious. Now i'll lay out a case for why Science is superior to logic using what has been said by both myself and my peer.

A: Logic cannot be trusted because:
1) Based on our senses
2) Not Statistical(Mathematical) in nature(if science is statistical in nature and that is the difference between logic and science. From what my peer has said thats the only difference I can surmise that he seeks to claim logic is superior, because by his own admission logic is based on our senses)
3) If logic is solely based on our senses it cannot be objective as our senses are fallible
B: Science is superior to Logic because:
1) Based on our senses
2) Statistically based(objective)
3) Science uses more then just senses to base conclusions
4) Science can be objective(statistically based) but is not always(sense-based as well)
C: Science is superior to logic as it factors in more than just our senses.(More information=better understanding) As well as being partially objective(due to incorporation of mathematics)

Anyways, continuing on to the matter of mind body-dualism. If mind body dualism were true then why have we been able to map out the brain into areas that control certain thought processes?[1] Also, if the mind is immaterial, and independent of our physical bodies, explain:

1) Causal Interaction- If consciousness (the mind) can exist independently of physical reality (the brain), one must explain how physical memories are created concerning consciousness. Dualism must therefore explain how consciousness affects physical reality.
2) Effects of Brain-Damage- The point is that, in instances of some sort of brain damage (e.g. caused by automobile accidents, drug abuse, pathological diseases, etc.), it is always the case that the mental substance and/or properties of the person are significantly changed or compromised. If the mind were a completely separate substance from the brain, how could it be possible that every single time the brain is injured, the mind is also injured?
3) Simplicity- why anyone should find it necessary to believe in the existence of two, ontologically distinct, entities (mind and brain), when it seems possible and would make for a simpler thesis to test against scientific evidence, to explain the same events and properties in terms of one. It is a heuristic principle in science and philosophy not to assume the existence of more entities than is necessary for clear explanation and prediction(Occams Razor mean anything?)

All these point to mind-body dualism being false. The Second is the biggest one as it accounts for the discovery of information through science. Discoveries made long after Descartes was alive, discoveries that would have left him, and leave dualists today, confounded.

"As with most arguments of this kind there is certain point where people get desperate and their integrity starts to flail. With that there becomes a shift in the argument style usually in the sense that it becomes darker. That is, more insulting, more deceitful, they may copy their opponents and become more fallacious. This is always something to look out for in these types of debates."

This is purely an ad hominem attack with no basis as to why the assertion that I am being deceitful, or fallacious. As such it cannot be held to be true.

"While the Fooler aka The Sophist, misconstrues their opponent's positions by any means necessary for the sake of appearing to make sense rather than a clear and open demonstration of justification. Such morals are unknown to the Sophist.
Note: He is not copying me in the same way, because he is actually writing in arguments that I don't hold."

1) Ad Hominem- I have no morals
2) Claim of straw-man that has no basis as no reason to why/how it was true was given. Ultimately it must be held to be false

"Evil Sophist: based of my awesome physicalism argument consciousness must be proven to know the universe exist.
Rene Descartes: !!!!!???

1) Good job straw-manning me right after accusing me of doing the same thing. I never said prove consciousness exists, I said to prove it is immaterial and not merely physical(the brain). Talk about hypocrisy!

"Principle of sufficient reason is not even the one he needs to pick on"

I disagree as one of your key points was, "Matter or energy is never created or destroyed. (Law of conservation, and by logic)" You proved that false yourself, I further explained with The Hawking Card.

"Olbers Paradox blew, it's not any stronger because he says it again. He just deleted the CAN. But an argument based on science can't follow by necessity."

As i previously showed, science is superior to logic. Also Olbers paradox and the Heath Death Paradox play into each other.
1) Heat Death shows that the universe cant be infinite in age. If it is not infinite in age, it cant be infinite in extent(a finite cant lead to an infinite)
2) Olbers shows that if it is infinite in age(ALWAYS), size is infinite(constant expansion). The night cant
be dark(inifinite stars)
----
1) http://www.umich.edu...
Debate Round No. 4
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro

If I can turn back time

The Sophist: You know you should retract that statement!

The Fool: why would I do that?

The Sophist: It negates the resolution!

The Fool: No it doesn’t its perfect for the resolution.

The Sophist: but it negates your definition also, Universe: everything that exist at any time.

The Fool: no

The Sophist: How’s that?

The Fool: Anytime is no time in particular.

Change is everything

The Sophist: You have a lot of explaining to do this Round Fool!

The Fool: You know you’re pretty a demanding Sophist.

The Sophist: Well that’s how arch enemies are supposed to be right!

The Fool: Well it is, what it is eh!

Parmenides: You mean what IS IS fool!

The Sophist: And what is not is not!

Parmenides: NO!! What is not does not exist.

The Fool: Then what are you talking about?

Parmenides: Exactly!

The Sophist: Okay change bits!

Heraclitus: Its always changing!

Parmenides: No! No! there is no change!

Well that’s how arch enemies are supposed to be right?!0

Historically Heraclitus and Parmenides were two rival philosophers. Parmenides famous for his IS IS, argument figured that if that is true well change must be an illusion. For Existence=existence, so his argument can’t be false. “For never shall this prevail, that things that are not are.” He is credit with the first formulation of Ontology, which I really don’t think had anything progress sense. In that the question is really about discovering the forms of existence. = existence.

e.g. Thus to say the car is red is to explain a form of existence of the car.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

But things are always changing; there is never a moment when things are not changing, so that is impeccable too. Heraclitus argued heavily on change “Everything changes and nothing remains still... and... you cannot step twice into the same stream.” According to him the world was in constant flux. The Fool interprets the flux as referring to the constant change in the relations in logical nature. Most people are confused of the nature of logic. This happens to any authoritative concept because everybody wants to claim such authority and others don’t want to be wrong by it so the truth of it gets manipulated and distorted.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Plato demonstrates that the universe exist and what changes is the forms.

Reality vs Recognition part 2

Observations are only recognitions. We know there is radio waves and radiation coming from our phones or internet, but we don’t see this. Scientists often think we see the real 100% directly. But our perception is post-processing. Information is transduced through the senses to chemical electrical action potentials up nerves which get organized in the brain then to our mind. We learn the world through the relations of ideas. These provide the form, (organization of the external world). An object is a set of relations, made up of properties of mind.(colour shape, size,etc) This set of relations stores in the mind/memory as an idea.

You have been fooled!

let’s say we are watching Inferno and Rouge playing pool. We watch a pool ball move and knock the next over. We see this many times. We see cause and effect. A sophist is spotted under the table. He has two big magnets and the pool balls had steal cores. He had been moving one ball and the next they weren’t knocking. What happens do you perception of cause and effect? Its suddenly vanishes, for it was you mind putting cause and effect on your physical atmosphere, it was never in the balls. As a matter a fact we never see a knock we only see one ball move and then the next one move, you mind does the rest. You’ve been Fooled!

What time is it?

It is the same way we extrapolate time on the world, time is just relation of change. What we use as time is simply rotation of the earth in relation its axis. (I already said this in untimely fool) and we compare that change with other change, but there is no actual time in particular, there is only change!

The time we put on the universe like the big bang is just arbitrary to the apparent explosion. It’s not related to existence.

A bale of straw

The Fool: I really felt that you didn’t say anything related to my argument.

Sophist: You said Logic is based off of the senses. Math is on the same level as logic, science can’t trusted and space is infinite.

The Fool: I didn’t say any of that! I said math if the logic of quantity.

The Fool: I said nothing about infinite. You said that. I said things change form. I don’t have that kind of information. We could never know infinite. There is no way to check. We should only say, we don’t recognize an end.

Quantum THEORY??

People and scientist forget quantum mechanics is only a THEORY and a very imperfect one at that. So any theory based form it is an uncertain theory within an uncertain theory. When we get something like an uncertainty principle or random happenings. That is a lack of an explanation, for we are no better off with random then complete ignorance. RANDOM IS IGNORANCE.

Principle of sufficient reason.

  1. Everything in the universe has a cause.
  2. Aka something cannot come from nothing.
  3. x->y conditional

The Sophist: I disagree as one of your key points was, "Matter or energy is never created or destroyed.

The Fool: you could never ever claim something comes from nothing there is no way to tell between not knowing where it came from. Hawking it talking about recognition, trust me he is not going give and just make something up to fill the gap.

They don’t show anything

Sophist: Also Olbers paradox and the Heath Death Paradox play into each other.

1) Heat Death shows that it can’t be infinite in age and size because there would be no stars or light. ;)

2) Olbers shows that if it is infinite in age(ALWAYS), size is infinite(constant expansion) the sky would be completely filled with stars. :0

They are contradictory and they are both bold assumption.

Ad Homina Andromina!

Sophist: Audience look what he did to me! He said this and that and the other thing.

The Fool: Audience! I confess, I did say this! And I did say that! But I swear to god, you got to believe me, on all my heart, I didn’t’ say the other thing!

The Fool: Nor did I have sexual relations with that woman….. RoyalPaladin.

RoyalPaladin: yes he did it was awesome, were having a baby.

The Fool: It wasn’t me! ;)

Let’s draw straws!

Sophist: Straw man! Straw man! I never said “based on my awesome physicalism argument consciousness must be proven to know the universe exist.”

The Fool: that was under the heading (JUST FOR FUN!)

Sophist: I never said prove the immaterial not consciousness! What are you a Fool!

The Fool: you want me to prove NOT material!!? Maybe you should consider becoming a Buddest monk. It is only there, in a deep meditation, when your mind is absolutely clear of all thoughts will you find the answer you seek. Except try doing it………ON WEED. It was fun, I smoked but I didn't inhale.

The denouement

The Fool: you know Sophist, I liked you a lot better this round,

The Sophist: Why is that?

The Fool: You were like a little less me budda little more moose! Ohh!..

The Sophist: :0

Review of key points

1. Matter or energy is never created or destroyed. (Law of conservation, and by law of non-contradiction)

2. Energy is, un-stabilization (definition of energy)

3. The universe is always changing. (un-stabilization is change)

4. New things are forming and un-forming. (un-stabilized change of relations of matter and mind)

C Therefore the universe is eternal and changeing.

These were independent arguments.

C1 What IS IS and what is not does not exist. (law of non-contradiction)

C2 The universe is the whole that is all. (via explanation of elementary fallacy)

C3 Time is not a part of the universe. (via untimely fool)

Come on, you can’t’ vote for con, he is the bad guy! ;) And he is a Moose for god’s sakes! That doesn’t even make sense! Does that even count? The Fool wins by default! Yaa ;)

Vote for a Human vote The Fool!

Buddamoose

Con

" A sophist is spotted under the table. He has two big magnets and the pool balls had steal cores. He had been moving one ball and the next they weren't knocking"

I was hoping you wouldnt see that! I was only trying to help one of them win!Anyways...

C1: What IS IS and what is not does not exist. (law of non-contradiction)

I don't see a contradiction between there being a point where there was no universe though. If
Nothingness was, then there was no universe(existence) to contradict it...

C2 The universe is the whole that is all. (via explanation of elementary fallacy)

No problem with this one, its right, as its just rephrasing the given accepted definition of universe.

C3 Time is not a part of the universe. (via untimely fool)

Yes, yes it is. You speak of change, how everything is "changing." So change is a part of the universe, well change is time, and time is change. As in, over the course of time, things change. Change wouldnt be happening without matter/energy there to change, so you cant say that exists either by your own standards. Nor can you say that for space, and no I'm not speaking of the "cosmos" because that actually not space at all, I'm talkin of the distance between two objects. I suppose space doesnt exist either by that same definition.

To say that time is not a part of the universe is absurdity. Change is a part of the universe, motion is a part of the universe, space is a part of the universe, and all these things existing= time. Just because something is dependant upon something else for its existence doesnt mean it doesnt exist. In reality, at the moment of the big bang, space, time, and matter were all created simultaneously.

1. Matter or energy is never created or destroyed. (Law of conservation, and by law of non-contradiction)

Pssst, it can be created, and it can be destroyed. I know, we dont see that on a large scale, but on the microscopic quantum level, it happens all the time. In this case our logic is wrong.

2. Energy is, un-stabilization (definition of energy)

It is often understood as the ability a physical system has to do work on other physical systems. But you are right, when matter unstabilizes, energy is created. Atomic bombs, yeah.

3. The universe is always changing. (un-stabilization is change)

Yes it is. This just plays back into the existence of time.

4. New things are forming and un-forming. (un-stabilized change of relations of matter and mind)

Now see heres this thing about the mind again. Our mind is just our brain, our brain is physical, so throw that in with matter.

"Except try doing it………ON WEED. It was fun, I smoked but I didn't inhale."

You didnt inhale? So wasteful, shame on you.

"The Fool: Nor did I have sexual relations with that woman….. RoyalPaladin.
RoyalPaladin: yes he did it was awesome, were having a baby.
The Fool: It wasn't me! ;)"

Oh now this is turning into a soap opera :O, so juicy and dramatic, please tell me more.

"1) Heat Death shows that it can't be infinite in age and size because there would be no stars or light." ;)

See you misunderstand this, there would be light, light is a form of radiatiom, radiation=heat. Either everything must be as hot as stars, or there must be no stars. Because there is stars, and there is
not thermal equilibrium, the universe cant be infinite in age sir. If its not infinite in age, it cant have always existed...

"Everything in the universe has a cause.
Aka something cannot come from nothing.
x->y conditional"

Now see this just plays right into the universe not always existing. Imagine if you will a block. This block is all that exists. So for illustrative purposes this block is the universe as it is the only thing that exists. What was the cause of that block? The only conclusion is that the block ultimately was created from
nothing. Whether it was always a block or not, eventually you regress back and what makes up that block(matter) had to be created from something. If the matter that composea that block hasnt always existed, because it requires a cause for existence, then the universe has not always existed. Extens that to everything that exists now, everything that exists ultimately has a cause. But what is that
cause? Energy? Well the total energy is zero. Nada, zilch, ultmately there is no energy. If you regress far enough back to the singularity, there was no matter, supposedly just energy right? Yet there is no energy, so that energy had to come from nothing!

"Sophist: WTF is going on here.
The Fool: Exactly how things would be if logic was breakable. For it would not be logic at all now would it."

There we see the grand point, for all our attempts to logically explain what happens in the universe, we come to the realization that the universe is utter chaos. There is
no logicality on a microscropic scale. Just utter and complete randomness or chaos. The orderly macroscopic universe we percieve is just an illusion. A mere approximation of what is happening. When what is really occuring? Chaos, randomness, logic ultimately fails when you get down past the macroscopic level. Logic is merely our attempt to create order out of the chaos and that is where logic ultimately fails. Because its logically contradictory to say that chaos can be orderly, or that order can be chaotic.

"RANDOM IS IGNORANCE."

On the note of logic. Funny that you equate random with ignorance. When proclaiming that logic as it stands presently is infallible, is an even grosser statement of ignorance. As you said, and I've shown logic is merely our attempt to make order out of chaos, from what we observe in nature. Science is the study of nature, in an attempt to explain why/how things work. If we observe in nature something that contradicts current logic, it is not nature thats flawed. Say its our senses(we have ways around that though) so essentially you are saying that it is nature thats wrong and logic that is correct. Methinks this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. To explain this clearly and concisely, LOGIC IS AN EXTENTION OF SCIENCE. Logic is not independent of science, no it is quite dependant upon science, for without an understanding of nature, we would have no logical conclusions to draw.

Yes, eventually we might find an answer to everything, and what we have discovered thus far is by no means a definitive answer, but at least science is able to come to terms with this. You sir, obviously have not, and that is where your argument fundentally breaks down and fails.

So to summarize, the universe cannot have always existed, eventually you regress far back enough and the same question remains, how did it all begin? This debate sadly, is not about that topic. Its about whether or not the universe has always existed. Olbers, and Zero-Entropy paradoxes sufficiently show why this cannot be the case, and sadly my peer only brushed them off as non-applicable despite my multiple explanations of why they are. Beyond that my peer contradicts the resolution itself by stating that time does not exist(then always cannot be) as well as the given definition of the universe.

Given these factors, and the refutations of not only part of his main points(the ones that really mattered) and thusly his conclusions, it must be concluded that the universe has not always existed. Thus the vote must go to Con.

I thank my peer for such a fine debate and wish him/her the best of luck with the voters. Thank you for this debate and ill end with this,

".. common sense(logic) is nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down in the mind before you reach eighteen."
Quoted in E T Bell, Mathematics: Queen and Servant of Science

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 5
112 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 2 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
The Fool: Lol Buddamoose agrees with me. lol. You have been caught. Nor was it science vs philosophy.

Buddamoose:
Ive understood for awhile that physics(science in general) was a "philosophy" Thank you for the link btw, had no clue there was a wiki for it.

The Fool: String theory was in favour of my argument. so you have been caught.lol
Posted by Lauren_k 2 years ago
Lauren_k
this was great
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 2 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Yeah but I think he refering to those other ones I said. And he is what you call a Niave Empiricist. that is he relies to much on the phyiscal and forgets to count in his own mind. Scientist like everybody get too proud, and often stubborn as the get older. He would not reject logic. He is problably thin

The misconception is very common, most people under university don't know that. it is because when it started to take off in 1600 hundreds only the rich were educated in such intellectual discliplines butthe majority of poeple had not education at all.. So because we can see the science Natural philosophy with our eyes. Everybody could recognized it with out having to be very educated.

So it became know as The science to eventually just science. But all scientist back then were all also philsohpers. As time passed over 3 hundred years people started studying as only scienctist and the conncection got lost. In the main population. Even to the scientists. And here we are now.
.
Posted by Buddamoose 2 years ago
Buddamoose
I wasnt saying science was physicalism. I was merely trying to give an example of a philosophy that might have been more well known, that uses scientific principles. As you can tell its a common misconception that science and philosophy are two seperate entities. Hawking and his "philosophy is dead" comment can be partially attributed for the lack of connection imo.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 2 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
ITs not physicalism I gave a link to this is the good stuff. Take a look at it.

Philosophy of science

http://en.wikipedia.org...

We have to know why science makes sense before we do it. I am a philosoher of science.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 2 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Because science comes from philosophy almost all discplines come from philosophy, Scientic method starts with Plato and Artistotle. It was called natural philosohpy. All bodies of knowledge in philosphy were called sciences. THey are not against each other. There some types of philsophy that not knowledge based like post-modernism and continental. but not the rest like logic math, anayical philsophy, The philosphy of Sceince,(that was the joke) because we have philosophy Science
But such thinking was suppressed by the church for 1500 years. It when gallilio defied the church and published a philosophical argument againt the idea that the sun moved around the earth. Most of his books were burned but some gotta way. It was him Decartes and Franceses Bacon who finally got the method down and it took off.
o
Lol I told you. . Its just new stuff you will learn in university!!
Posted by Buddamoose 2 years ago
Buddamoose
Ive understood for awhile that physics(science in general) was a "philosophy" Thank you for the link btw, had no clue there was a wiki for it.
Posted by Buddamoose 2 years ago
Buddamoose
LOLOL, ""How does it happen that a properly endowed natural scientist comes to concern himself with epistemology? Is there no more valuable work in his specialty? I hear many of my colleagues saying, and I sense it from many more, that they feel this way. I cannot share this sentiment. ... Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as 'necessities of thought,' 'a priori givens,' etc." -Albert Einstein WHA-WHA? =O
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 2 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
See even phyisics and quanum theory are based on philsohpy. you have no ideas what you are talkiing about.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 2 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
All the reasoning you are doing now, about what your reading is only possible because the princples are part of you mind. You couldnt even talk about evolution. Let alone get it out of evolution. You are using to reason as you speak!. By saying there is reason, you using the princeple suffience reason, every you ask that questoin, of give a reason you are relyin on this logical inference.
P->Q P is the suffient reason for Q that is why you can't drop it. Because noting makes sense without it.

You cant run in both direction at the same time and get some where. Because its a contradition. We don;t have a say in the matter. try doing it. Trying being to places at once!> you can't because its a contradiction. The logic is universal, whether we like it or not. There is nothing you can do about it. You are just not education on the subject . I am sure you will get it later.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Travniki 2 years ago
Travniki
The_Fool_on_the_hillBuddamooseTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pros intelligent philisophical arguments could not brush off Cons scientific facts and defending of string theory
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 2 years ago
1dustpelt
The_Fool_on_the_hillBuddamooseTied
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: You can't use philosophy to explain science. Pro tried that. Con proved Pro false and caused him not to meet BoP.
Vote Placed by thett3 2 years ago
thett3
The_Fool_on_the_hillBuddamooseTied
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: Counter to dustpelt.
Vote Placed by PARADIGM_L0ST 2 years ago
PARADIGM_L0ST
The_Fool_on_the_hillBuddamooseTied
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: While PRO admirably attempted to defend a minority position, I thought way too much emphasis was placed on philosophical principles that were speculative at best and antiquated at worst, whereas CON met those challenges as well as supplied empirical evidence to support the contention. It was argued well by both sides, but ultimately CON gets the nod.
Vote Placed by 000ike 2 years ago
000ike
The_Fool_on_the_hillBuddamooseTied
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: A factor of Pro's argument involved the law of conservation (energy and mass), which Con addressed by stating that such a principle was derived from empirical observation. This refutation did not stand since logical deduction such as the impossibility of something coming from nothing is of a priori knowledge and does not need to be observed. For the remainder of the argument, Pro relies on irrefutable logical principles whereas con relies on the inconclusive assertions of a developing science.
Vote Placed by Rational_Thinker9119 2 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
The_Fool_on_the_hillBuddamooseTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro took this pretty easily once he defined the universe the way he did. The membranes colliding that created our universe would still have to have to be part of some kind of existence to collide, meaning it would still be part of the universe as defined. Con also kept equating the known universe with the entire sum of existence which is how universe was defined. Vote = Pro
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 2 years ago
ConservativePolitico
The_Fool_on_the_hillBuddamooseTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro tried to use philosophy to explain science. Energy states the universe had to have a beginning. Con used more science and busted Pros burden of proof.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 2 years ago
RoyLatham
The_Fool_on_the_hillBuddamooseTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Tough debate to judge: Pro had the burden of proof and didn't meet it, but Con conceded something "existed" prior to the known universe. Con presented much better science, and his use of the word "existence" agrees with the scientific meaning as ascribed by Stephen Hawking. Pro was hard to follow, arguing philosophy against science.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
The_Fool_on_the_hillBuddamooseTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was using scientific theories and facts. Pro attempted to use philosophic arguments to win the debate. On a debate like the age of the universe science comes before philosophy. Con proved science says the universe had to have a start therefore it could not have always been. Those reasons are for arguments. Sources as Wikipedia < other sources (edu, telegraph.uk) Wikipedia is a good source but those sources trump Wikipedia.
Vote Placed by GeoLaureate8 2 years ago
GeoLaureate8
The_Fool_on_the_hillBuddamooseTied
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: Con was equating our observable universe with the entire Universe. Yes, our observable universe (which as Pro aptly pointed out, should be called a 'subverse') has an age and is not infinite. But Pro was referring to the literal meaning of "Universe," that is, everything that exists, not just our observable "hubblesphere" as it's called. The Universe has always existed, our observable "subverse" had a beginning.