The Instigator
anonynomous
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
LatentDebater
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The prime mover argument fails

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: 1/27/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,088 times Debate No: 29621
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

anonynomous

Pro

The prime mover argument can be defined as follows

P1) All things have a cause

P2) the universe is finite

P3) an infinite regression of caused events in a finite universe is impossible
thus

P4) there must be at least 1 uncuased event

P5) that uncuased event is god

if con has any problems with my interpretation of the prime mover please notify me in the comments
God will be defined in the deistic sense not to any specific religion

first round is acceptance
2-3rd rounds are for rebutall and case
LatentDebater

Con

I have an issue with how you drew 4 from 3 and 5 from 4.

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
anonynomous

Pro

anonynomous forfeited this round.
LatentDebater

Con

It has been brought to my attention that I'm in fact supposed to be debating in favour of this argument (since con to 'fails' is reversal of roles).

Thus I shall assert that if everything needs a cause, there's no logical first cause other than an inexplicable supernatural force.

(I don't believe this but knwo how to assert it).
Debate Round No. 2
anonynomous

Pro

anonynomous forfeited this round.
LatentDebater

Con

LatentDebater forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by LatentDebater 4 years ago
LatentDebater
Okay then I will defend it.
Posted by anonynomous 4 years ago
anonynomous
latent i thought the resolution made it pretty clear that i was going to be disproving the prime mover. My intetion was to show "why the prime mover fails" as pointed out in the resolution not vica versa.
Posted by anonynomous 4 years ago
anonynomous
im sorry the third premise should read regression not progression that may have confused you
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
This sounds like a cosmological argument, but one I've never heard of before.
No votes have been placed for this debate.