All Big Issues
The Instigator
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

# a first cause is impossible

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0

Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
TheNamesFizzy
 Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point Started: 12/18/2014 Category: Science Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period Viewed: 1,048 times Debate No: 67264
Debate Rounds (5)

 Pro a cause that didn't cause anything, isn't a cause, therefore a first cause would be caused by a cause that isn't a cause, but any cause is caused by another cause, so a first cause is impossible, matter is eternal, and god Is impossible eternal=no beginning and no end, only nowReport this Argument Con Thanks for creating this debate."any cause is caused by another cause, so a first cause is impossible"On the surface, this logical conclusion makes sense as it's all we've ever known. Everything has a cause in the world we experience, but that's where we must make the distinction. The Law of Cause and Effect applies to what we can observe and perceive; however, it doesn't apply before creation of the actual observable world itself. One of favorite articles on metaphysics states, `"Suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there:I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever; nor would it,perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I found a watch upon theground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place. I should hardly think ofthe answer I had before given - that, for anything I knew, the watch might always have been there.Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone? When we come toinspect the watch, we perceive (what we could not discover in the stone) that its several parts areframed and put together for a purpose, e.g. that they are so formed and adjusted as to producemotion, and that motion is so regulated as to point out the hour of the day.Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch,exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater and more,and that in a degree which exceeds all computation. I mean, that the contrivances of nature surpassthe contrivance of art, in the complexity, subtlety, and curiosity of the mechanism."` [1] https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk... Report this Argument Pro machines have designers, and nature is the opposite of machine nature is random, and machine is intended natural cause=random specified cause=intent a cause that isn't caused by another cause didn't get caused as a cause that didn't cause anything, isn't a cause in other words, a cause that didn't cause anything, isn't a cause, as a cause, causesReport this Argument Con "machines have designers, and nature is the opposite of machine"No real basis for this claim nor is it actually relevant to the resolution. "a cause that isn't caused by another cause didn't get caused as a cause that didn't cause anything, isn't a cause"Incoherent.Opponent didn't refute my arguments. Report this Argument Pro machines are intended, nature is random, intend is specified, and specified is the opposite of random technology=taking the knowledge I put out machines are intended.. do machines come from trees, like apples come from trees? randomly?Report this Argument Con Hasn't refuted my arguments. Incoherent arguments made by my opponentReport this Argument Pro everything that exist has 2 sidesReport this Argument Con "everything that exist has 2 sides"Incoherent Report this Argument Pro intent can not exist without randomness, machine can not exist without natureReport this Argument Con ExtendReport this Argument
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
i have my reasons :)

if it wasn't entertaining i wouldn't do it
Posted by Atmas 2 years ago
Well at least you have a reason lol. It's pretty entertaining as well.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
i like to make it so simple that its to advanced for foks to understand at a first glance
Posted by TheNamesFizzy 2 years ago
I could see making these debates one or two times, but he literally has over 50. It's a little extreme.
Posted by Atmas 2 years ago
Vi-spex, it's easy to see the points you make once they're properly translated, but why do you go about explaining them in such a obtuse, some would say absurd, way? It's obvious winning isn't your goal, maybe you are just having fun?
Posted by TheNamesFizzy 2 years ago
Yeah, I noticed. I also did a trolly debate with him once xD.
Posted by Atmas 2 years ago
Yassine, please don't get too stressed with vi-spex, you'll only have a migraine. It's better to ignore him like most do or enjoy his antics like I do.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
I like your version thou :)
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
same, cause is effect and effect is cause
Posted by YassineB 2 years ago
Oh! you're two years older than me, my bad.
"any cause is caused by another cause, as a cause that didn't cause anything, isn't a cause"

Listen,
- A Cause generates an Effect. An Effect necessitate a Cause. The Cause comes before its Effect, not the Opposite.
- Cause by definition means: Something that Caused Something.
- Saying: 'a cause that didn't cause anything' is like saying: 'something that causes something didn't cause anything' <<< How can something cause something & at the same time causes doesn't cause anything?!!!
- Saying: 'any cause is caused by another cause' is like saying: 'anything that causes something is caused by another something that causes another something' >>> So, rather, we get rid of all the causes, & say: 'any effect is caused by a cause'.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.