The Instigator
Overkill
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
gryephon
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The Universe was Created Last Thursday

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/7/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 825 times Debate No: 69624
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

Overkill

Pro

I will be using this round for acceptance. I will be arguing that the universe was created last Thursday. I acknowledge my onus.
gryephon

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Overkill

Pro

The universe, along with all of its contents, were created last Thursday.

(ref: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...)
"Content
The things that are held or included in something"

These contents (memories, sites, people, personalities, events(, et.c.)) and their perceived age were included in this creation ... therefore, the past was constructed and all remembrance is unreal. The conclusion is, therefore, inevitably true.
gryephon

Con

Well, there is a problem with your reasoning, it isn’t real... so you’re not really reasoning to begin with.


Truth is a part of the contents of the universe. So for your logic to remain consistent, your statement would have to be inevitably untrue.

Debate Round No. 2
Overkill

Pro

(ref: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
see: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...)
"Truth
The quality or state of being in accordance with fact or reality"

In regards to con:
"Truth is a part of the contents of the universe. So for your logic to remain consistent, your statement would have to be inevitably untrue."

The concept of truth was included in this creation.

Should truth be manufactured, then we must conclude that it is true that truth is untrue, but this reaches a paradoxical scale in which we must then assume that nothing is true; that nothing exists. This scale is reached because the truth of the statement "truth is untrue" is untrue because the truth of the statement must have surely been constructed.

Rather, we must define these qualities ourselves through critical thinking.

If the universe exists, and there is no compelling evidence to a time prior to Thursday, then we must assume that the universe was created last Thursday. Due to the construction of the argument, the conclusion must therefore be true.

The reason qualities such as age do not fit is because they are qualities commonly used to suppose that something may have existed prior to Thursday. This perceived age can be subjective and is a product of the creation, not an acquired state.
gryephon

Con

Pro is defining truth in such a way that causes problems with her case. I think her claims that the universe was created last Thursday is nothing more but a dream.




Dialogue on Proof

What does your model predict? If it is true, how do we show that it can be false? Falsifiability is important for discerning things that are true. From my point of view you’re making it up because I myself remember days before Thursday, as well as everyone else’s memories who judges this debate. Simply, how do you prove that you’re not dreaming? I think you’ve created a burden of proof so heavy, that I doubt that even an all mighty God could lift.

Dialogue on Truth

Truth can’t be manufactured. Truth isn’t based off of casual existence like us mortal beings. It’s impossible for truth not to exist, for if nothing existed, then it is true nothing exists, hence why it’s impossible for it not to exist (its non-existence is self-refuting). Since it’s not based off of casual existence, it cannot be manufactured, because that would mean that there was a point in time when it did not exist (which would be self-refuting).

Truth is incompatible with paradoxes, truth cannot be false. For paradoxes to work it requires it to be possible for it to be true and untrue simultaneously. What is true and false is always as far as the east is from the west, they can never be together out of their own nature. Truth is something that is not false, false is something that is not true.

Dialogue on the Worldview

Why must we assume that? If we did this debate again next week, we would have to believe that the universe was created the following Thursday, and so on and so forth even if we did it next month. Do you not see the folly in this worldview?

Dialogue on Nothing

Well it’s easy to disprove the idea that nothing exists. I see something, therefore something exists. If nothing existed, we wouldn’t be able to see anything. Nothing has no shape or dimensions, it’s not casual, it takes up no space, and in its own nature it lacks existence because it’s the absence of all things.

Debate Round No. 3
Overkill

Pro

In regards to Con:
"From my point of view you"re making it up because I myself remember days before Thursday, as well as everyone else"s memories who judges this debate. Simply, how do you prove that you"re not dreaming?"

As stated, these memories were apart of the creation and are therefore unreal. This concept did not arise out of creation as it was an acquired thought as opposed to a lingering one (one that began development prior to Thursday).

"Why must we assume that? If we did this debate again next week, we would have to believe that the universe was created the following Thursday [...]"

If we were to define the topic, "The Universe was Created February 5th," it would not be susceptible to reinterpretation of this form. Ignoring this additional hypothesis, you go on to say that this process, without modification, must be repetitive...

It is possible to believe that the universe regenerates every Thursday, therefore turning things that once existed into an entirely identical, yet separate, object. This allows us to still state that memories are unreal as 'we' did not experience them.

In regards to your "Dialogue on Nothing" ...
(Con, Round 2) "Truth is a part of the contents of the universe. So for your logic to remain consistent, your statement would have to be inevitably untrue."
(Pro, Round 3) "the truth of the statement 'truth is untrue' is untrue because the truth of the statement must have surely been constructed."

To extend on this, the hypothesis is not restricted to the logic of predetermined quality because it is an acquired hypothesis, not a lingering one. It acquired its quality of truth rather than having been formed with creation where its truth becomes corrupted.

When I claimed "we must then assume that nothing is true," I say so because the hypothesis' truth could not be restricted to creation, else we'd have to assume that truth has contradicted itself. In order for its truth to be arguable, it would have to be acquired and therefore open to interpretation.
gryephon

Con






Dialogue on Proof

"From my point of view you"re making it up because I myself remember days before Thursday, as well as everyone else"s memories who judges this debate. Simply, how do you prove that you"re not dreaming?"

As stated, these memories were apart of the creation and are therefore unreal. This concept did not arise out of creation as it was an acquired thought as opposed to a lingering one (one that began development prior to Thursday).

That really wasn’t the answer I was looking for. What you have given me is a dream, a vision on how the world is, yet no reason to believe it. If people can’t trust their very own memories, how can they possibly trust your case? What I’m asking for is proof, and none was provided. What comes without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. The burden of proof is on you.

If you read the words prior to this quote, I asked like what do you predict, or falsification, elementary science questions that you dropped. But there is no hint that your case is possibly true, let alone reasonable. Unless you really want to debate magic, I don’t.


Dialogue on Truth

{…}It acquired its quality of truth rather than having been formed with creation where its truth becomes corrupted.

Truth is incorruptible. 2+2=4 will never change to be 2+2=5, it is forever and ever, eternal. People’s perception of truth may change if we spawn a new generation of idiots, but truth remains the same regardless of people’s perception.


Dialogue on the Worldview

"Why must we assume that? If we did this debate again next week, we would have to believe that the universe was created the following Thursday [...]"

If we were to define the topic, "The Universe was Created February 5th," it would not be susceptible to reinterpretation of this form. Ignoring this additional hypothesis, you go on to say that this process, without modification, must be repetitive...

Even that scenario wouldn’t work, because you would have to merely change the time. The arguments are too general that it could apply to any date, day, or time. Observe…

    1. There is no compelling evidence prior to 15 minutes ago, therefore "The Universe was Created 15 minutes ago"
    2. There is no compelling evidence prior to January 15, therefore "The Universe was Created January 15th"
    3. There is no compelling evidence prior to last Friday , therefore "The Universe was Created Last Friday"
    4. There is no compelling evidence prior to 10 billion years ago, therefore "The Universe was Created 10 billion years ago"
    5. There is no compelling evidence prior to next Thursday, therefore "The Universe will be Created next Thursday"

Need I go on? All I merely need to do is redefine the text regarding time, and Shazam! The arguments agree with me. This is because it’s built upon fallacious reasoning. There is no reason to believe one time over another, that the universe was created last Thursday instead of say 5 minutes ago. In your worldview nothing is true, so it wouldn’t be able to account for any true compelling evidence. Using similar logic, there is no compelling evidence that you’re wrong prior to now, therefore we must assume you’re wrong.


It is possible to believe that the universe regenerates every Thursday, therefore turning things that once existed into an entirely identical, yet separate, object. This allows us to still state that memories are unreal as 'we' did not experience them.

The problem here is that the topic states the word “Created” not “regenerated” in the resolution. Creation is different than regeneration because it can only happen once, regeneration might also imply that there wasn’t a creator which also sets it apart from the word “created” as it does imply a creator. We’re also talking about “The” universe, not “a” universe, so it’s talking about a specific universe (not separate ones like your proposing). Sure it might allow you to keep the memory unreal gig, but then your case ceases to be consistent with the resolution. This would be case shifting to the resolution of “A universe regenerates every Thursday” which we are not debating.

It’s also possible to believe that time traveling gay unicorns created the universe 10 billion years in the future, and we merely precede the cause. Anything is possible in the imagination, but not necessarily possible in reality. So why believe it happens every Thursday? Why not Friday? Or Tuesday? Why assume it? You never really answered the question, you merely tried to dodge it by speculating that it could happen every week. So the same question again in a different context, why every week? This is a basic question that needs to be answered because the resolution states “The Universe was Created Last Thursday”. Dodging it with imaginary speculations isn’t satisfactory, especially when we’re talking about the resolution, as it’s Pro’s obligation to show why it’s true. This merely shows that Pro’s case is shifty, merely making it up as she goes, it’s empty and inspired by nothing true.

Dialogue on Nothing

(Con, Round 2) "Truth is a part of the contents of the universe. So for your logic to remain consistent, your statement would have to be inevitably untrue."

(Pro, Round 3) "the truth of the statement 'truth is untrue' is untrue because the truth of the statement must have surely been constructed."

To extend on this, the hypothesis is not restricted to the logic of predetermined quality because it is an acquired hypothesis, not a lingering one. It acquired its quality of truth rather than having been formed with creation where its truth becomes corrupted.

Hypothesis never acquire truth, they are simply discovered to be true. For example, if I see my van missing in the driveway and speculate that my mother had driven off with it, then later find out that she really did, does this mean that my hypothesis became true in that moment when I found out? No. The hypothesis that she left with it was true to begin with, I just merely discovered it. So hypothesis can’t be created to be true, it must be true from the beginning. Hypothesis can never precede truth, it can only come after it.

When I claimed "we must then assume that nothing is true," I say so because the hypothesis' truth could not be restricted to creation, else we'd have to assume that truth has contradicted itself. In order for its truth to be arguable, it would have to be acquired and therefore open to interpretation.

It’s impossible for “nothing is true” to be true. Truth itself is something that is true, so if truth is not true, then “nothing is true” can’t be true. It’s a self-refuting statement. As stated in the 2nd round, your reasoning isn’t real, this is why, because your truth isn’t really truth.



Why should you vote in favor of Con.

  1. Burden of proof, pro failed to provide evidence that favored her position. I even asked in round 3 for falsification or predictions (which was dropped), she didn’t even provide a hint of it being true.
  2. Bad Worldview, Pro reasons that since there is no compelling evidence, we must assume it true. Yes, seriously. True story.
  3. Her case can’t be true. As pro said “Nothing is true”. If that’s true her case is not true, her case is something, therefore not true. Entirely self-refuting. It even fails to answer basic analytical questions as to why it’s true, as when I inquired why we must assume it’s on Thursday it was responded with speculation. It’s almost as if she didn’t really know.
  4. Something exists. Her case hinges on nothing existing (mentioned next to “nothing is true” in round 3), I refuted it by noting my eyes see something. She dropped it, so I will assume she agrees with it.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Overkill 1 year ago
Overkill
Honestly I don't believe in Last Thursdayism. I thought it'd make for an interesting debate and wanted to see if I could build a case for it despite knowing several ways over on refuting it.

Thanks for the debate, gryephon!
Posted by Daniel_Nemes 1 year ago
Daniel_Nemes
This is a fool's debate. The Instigator will win no matter what, because her argument both, makes sense, and cannot be disproven. While I disagree with her, she is the winner.
Posted by PhiloofSophy 1 year ago
PhiloofSophy
Lol the thing is, the instigator has won this no matter what because you cant prove anything is real except your own existence, and even that can only be proved to yourself. But The Instigator is also going off-track, saying "that you cant prove it' which is true, but h=the statement is that the universe was created last Thursday. Thus, you are both incorrect. You guys should reference Rene Descartes and what he says in "Meditations on First Philosophy"
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 1 year ago
MyDinosaurHands
God's gonna reveal himself in this debate, I can feel it.
No votes have been placed for this debate.