The Instigator
Credibility
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
RationalMadman
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

The universe is infinite

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
RationalMadman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/12/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,046 times Debate No: 28120
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

Credibility

Pro

I wholeheartedly believe that the universe that we live in is infinite.

To understand why exactly I believe this way lets take a look at the small, rather than the large.

I think that it is relatively safe to say that no matter how good our microscopes get, we will never really find "the smallest thing in existence". As long as we find something smaller that we can give a name, there will be something that it is made up of that will eventually be defined as substance and given a name as well. There is no limit to how small something can be.

Branching from this ideology, who is to say that there is a limit to how big something can be? If the universe that we live in is infinitely small then who is to say that it is not infinitely big? One could argue that the idea of infinity is a complete human conception, but I believe that the further and further we explore in modern science our idea of infinity is turning into a reality.

The fact that there is nothing that can be observed as infinite in our universe leads people to believe that it has some sort of end, but if it does what is that end? Do you honestly believe that there is some sort of material wall that prevents us from leaving our universe?

I do, however, believe that there could potentially be something out there bigger than what we would call "Space". "Space" is a funny term because it is defined as "A continuous area or expanse that is free, available, or unoccupied" under this definition, I would say that space could be defined as infinite, but if you define space as the known universe then I think that there just might be a whole new layer composed of something that we do not have the means to observe now.
RationalMadman

Con

To be infinite is to have no limit or boundary. To have no limit or boundary is to have nothing by which to define something. Hence, similar to God, the theory that the universe is infinite is BOTH unfalsifiable and unprovable. Thus is it natural to assume that this is not the case since assuming it would be based on pure assumption.
Debate Round No. 1
Credibility

Pro

I would argue that something can be defined and have no limit or boundary. This is the purest idea of infinity, a representation of something with no limit or boundary. We can definitely define things without boundaries. While yes, I cannot prove that the universe is infinite, can you prove that it is not? Your argument is just as unable to be proved as mine is. While yes, I am making an assumption in saying that the universe does not end, you are making just an assumption by saying that it does. My argument is based primarily around the fact that because things become smaller and smaller forever, they must become bigger and bigger the further you go out. Hence the positive and negative infinity. Perhaps these sizes exist on some alternate plane that we have yet to discover, however there is definitely some correlation between the two.
RationalMadman

Con

Okay... To be able to grasp the concept. To concieve the idea of a universe makes it automatically limited. If you then choose to describe your concept, or conceived entity, as 'unstoppable' or 'unshrinkable' or 'infinite' you are bound to enter a paradox. The moment you try to justify your idea, you will eternally be justifying it. The moment you stop justifying it, the universe has appeared to have a limit; the limit of your subjective imagination of it.

Tell me this:

Why is it that if energy (hence mass) is never created nor destroyed that we are not already separated. How are you, and the computer you are typing on staying in tact?! Why isn't it all being ripped apart and pulled apart into infinite expansion? Because the universe is not infinitely expanding. The bubble theory makes sense.
Debate Round No. 2
Credibility

Pro

Can you understand the idea of infinity? Then you can understand the idea of an infinite universe. I am not binding the term "infinite universe" by simply defining it. Infinity is a tricky concept because there is nothing that we can compare it to. We cant just look at something and say "this is infinity". Just because the human mind cannot currently fully comprehend the idea of infinity does not mean that it cant exist anywhere in our universe. I never stated, nor do I believe that the universe is constantly expanding, I believe that the universe is a static whole that is all already there.

I particularly do not show any belief in the bubble theory, what is it that is holding it all in? The idea that there is some wall that is the end of the universe is far less probable, lets say that our human race is around for another 20 million years? What happens when we hit that wall? Is that simply the inevitable doom of humanity?

In conclusion, there is no smallest thing in the universe therefore there is no biggest thing in the universe. We will never be able to define the smallest thing in existence, therefore we will never be able to define the largest.
RationalMadman

Con

Nothing is infinite. IF it is infinite, it can't be defined.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
RationalMadman
this isn't your debate johnlubba.
Posted by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
Appranetly Nasa have stated that within 0.5% of error, the universe is flat and that strongly suggets it is infinite..

The recent Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) measurements have led NASA to state, "We now know that the universe is flat with only a 0.5% margin of error."[1] Within the Friedmann"Lema"tre"Robertson"Walker (FLRW) model, the presently most popular shape of the Universe found to fit observational data according to cosmologists is the infinite flat model,[2] while other FLRW models that fit the data include the Poincar" dodecahedral space[3][4] and the Picard horn.

shape of the universe

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by sdwiuhsdfiou 4 years ago
sdwiuhsdfiou
Hi buddy :

HOT SELL Product Brand is below: ==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====
,nike shoes,air jordan shoes,nike s h o x shoes,gucci shoes ,true religion jeans, ed hardy jeans,coogi jeans,affliction
jeans, Laguna Beach Jeans,ed hardy T-shirts,Coogi T-shirts,Christian Audigier T-shirts,Gucci T-shirts,Polo T-shirts,coach
handbag,gucci handbag,prada handbag,chanel handbag .
free shipping
New to Hong Kong : Winter Dress
New era cap $9
Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33
Nike s h o x(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $33
Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $33
Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16
Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30
Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $12
Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $18
Come back tomorrow for another Daily Dose of Style! Bookmark this page >>
give you the unexpected harvest

==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====

==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====

==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====

==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====

==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====

==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====

==== ( http://www.scnshop.com... ) =====

Name:LeBron 9 low-3

http://www.fullmalls.com...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
CredibilityRationalMadmanTied
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: Pro conceded in the second round that he could not prove that the universe is infinite. He said Con couldn't prove it was finite, but the burden of proof was on Pro, not Con, so arguments to Con for Pro's concession.
Vote Placed by iamnotwhoiam 4 years ago
iamnotwhoiam
CredibilityRationalMadmanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Two sets of completely unconvincing arguments.
Vote Placed by AlextheYounga 4 years ago
AlextheYounga
CredibilityRationalMadmanTied
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: I think Con made better arguments. Nothing is infinite. There is always a beginning and an end.