The Instigator
BruteApologia
Pro (for)
Winning
28 Points
The Contender
Hopeliveson
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Universe's Existence is Explicable

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/28/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,864 times Debate No: 16200
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (6)

 

BruteApologia

Pro

In this debate I will support the notion that "The Universe's Existence Is Explicable" -- in other words, it is more plausible to think that the universe has an explanation than its negation. What this explanation is is irrelevant to the metaphysical question of whether the universe can be plausibly thought to have an explanation at all. The opponent may either take the offensive position of disproving my arguments and/or provide reasons for why the universe is an exception to explicability through showing an explanation to be impossible or implausible.

We'll reserve the arguments for the next round as this round is for accepting only.
Hopeliveson

Con

Hello there! Glad to be debating with you over a philosophical topic!

Thanks for bringing this topic up for debate, I'm sure it will be fun for both sides~ The Universe is an interesting concept to explore no matter which side of the debate you take up.

As the Con, I believe I will be attempting to provide reasoning for why the Universe can not be explained, if I am understanding the topic correctly, but I can freely debate under anything so if I am wrong feel free to inform me.

So then, shall we begin? :D
Debate Round No. 1
BruteApologia

Pro

Thank you for accepting my challenge! I like your eagerness for philosophy and overall willingness to discuss this respectfully and openly. We seem to have the same passion! You're correct but just to clarify, you can choose to either provide reasoning for why it is impossible OR implausible for the universe to have an explanation for its existence. Whichever position you take is up to you. For this discussion, I will be claiming that it is at least more plausible to think the universe's existence has an explanation than its negation. So, without further ado, here's my argument:

1. A proposition is plausible if it has explanatory power.
2. If an inexplicable proposition has no explanatory power, then it is not plausible.
3. Inexplicable propositions do not have explanatory power.
4. Therefore, it is not plausible to posit inexplicable propositions.

For a proposition to have explanatory power, it needs to explain why something exists through probability, reason, or observation. There are two kinds of explanations; either something is necessary by its own nature or it requires an external reason for its existence. Inexplicable propositions, on the other hand, are propositions that are said to simply be the case without any reason for why they are the case. These inexplicable propositions may possibly explain other facts, but this could apply to many other competing inexplicable propositions as well. For example, the fact that I have presents under my tree could be said to have appeared without any reason. Or perhaps Santa Claus popped into existence for a moment to deliver the presents but then vanished into non-existence for no reason. Both of these would trivially explain the fact that I have presents but I would have no reason for positing either of them to be true. On the other hand, I do have valid reason to think that my parents or family put the presents under the tree through observation.

Now, which one would you say is more plausible? I don't think it is difficult to understand that explicability should be the default position. Even if I did not observe who provided the gifts, it seems more plausible to think that it is explicable (regardless of whether we know what that explanation is) than to arbitrarily posit inexplicable propositions that have no reason for why we should think them to be true. What this suggests is that in order for someone to claim that an inexplicable proposition is true, you'd need to provide a reason why it is implausible or impossible for the universe to have an explanation. However, doing so would subject you to assuming premise (1) as true. The universe in particular is known to exist because we have reason to think it does but to then propose that "it exists because it exists" just seems to be a useless tautology. It does not answer why the universe exists at all but instead begs the question. Even if the universe is eternal, that would still not answer "why" it exists.

Let me just distinguish here between having a reason to think that something exists and knowing why that thing exists. These two should not be confused, even if they are related. The former has to do with existence and the other has to do with causes. Perhaps the universe must exist or was caused to exist. Both of these options qualify the quality or kind of existence in question. Logic would be an example of something that must be true because it cannot be false. On the other hand, a computer exists because it was created by humans, not because it has to exist by its nature. It may be argued that we cannot know what the cause of the universe is because it is beyond our scientific observation. This is not true as we can still infer or deduce a cause through reason. However, even if I was to grant this assumption, this only shows that we cannot know what the cause is. It does not tell us that it is implausible or impossible to think that it has some kind of cause. I hope that this was clear enough. Looking forward to your objections!
Hopeliveson

Con

Hopeliveson forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
BruteApologia

Pro

I extend my arguments to this round.
Hopeliveson

Con

Hopeliveson forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
BruteApologia

Pro

Unfortunately, it seems my opponent has forfeited. Once again, I extend my arguments to this round.
Hopeliveson

Con

Would be unfair to post up anything now, official forfeit ^.^
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Hopeliveson 5 years ago
Hopeliveson
Dang, sorry, couldn't find the free time to reply ><
Posted by vardas0antras 5 years ago
vardas0antras
Ah, too bad :(
Posted by BruteApologia 5 years ago
BruteApologia
No problem, would you like me to run up the remaining time before responding? If you need more time then I wouldn't mind doing so.
Posted by Hopeliveson 5 years ago
Hopeliveson
Whoops, my bad, had to focus on schoolwork and miscalculated the time I had left X_X
Posted by BruteApologia 5 years ago
BruteApologia
I completely agree :) What fascinates me about philosophy is its tendency to simplify and clarify issues while introducing complex problems that challenge us to think harder. It reveals the hidden treasures of the world but also reminds us of the locked treasures that we may not unlock anytime soon. Well, I hope we both have fun with this discussion :D
Posted by Hopeliveson 5 years ago
Hopeliveson
Philosophy is always my favorite, how it boggles your mind with the possibilities is truly enjoyable, I get a kick just thinking about it. ^^
Posted by BruteApologia 5 years ago
BruteApologia
Hehe, naw it's no problem! I'm just glad someone accepted the debate :D I wasn't sure if anyone would be interested in arguing on this issue.
Posted by Hopeliveson 5 years ago
Hopeliveson
Oh, sorry x_x
Posted by BruteApologia 5 years ago
BruteApologia
Whoops, too late XD
Posted by BruteApologia 5 years ago
BruteApologia
Yes. If you look back at the first half of the sentence, I quoted the debate's resolution as "The Universe's Existence is Explicable". Thus, it refers to whether the universe has an explanation for its existence. I'll edit it to make it clearer. Thanks!
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
BruteApologiaHopelivesonTied
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: ff
Vote Placed by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
BruteApologiaHopelivesonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeit by Con.
Vote Placed by Dimmitri.C 5 years ago
Dimmitri.C
BruteApologiaHopelivesonTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro wins as a result of argumentation. Con loses as a result of forfeiture.
Vote Placed by vardas0antras 5 years ago
vardas0antras
BruteApologiaHopelivesonTied
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: Clear win due to forfeit. I wanted this to be an epic debate so badly :(
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
BruteApologiaHopelivesonTied
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 forfeited and wasted Pro's time and Pro's arguments went unchallenged
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
BruteApologiaHopelivesonTied
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: Clear forfeit, but it looks like an honest attempt, so no need to drop the banhammer of 7 : 0.