The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheNamesFizzy
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

a first cause is impossible

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 2 votes the winner is...
TheNamesFizzy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/18/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 910 times Debate No: 67264
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (26)
Votes (2)

 

vi_spex

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 now
TheNamesFizzy

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 the
ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place. I should hardly think of
the 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 to
inspect the watch, we perceive (what we could not discover in the stone) that its several parts are
framed and put together for a purpose, e.g. that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce
motion, 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 surpass
the contrivance of art, in the complexity, subtlety, and curiosity of the mechanism."




[1] https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk...

Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

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, causes
TheNamesFizzy

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.
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

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?
TheNamesFizzy

Con

Hasn't refuted my arguments. Incoherent arguments made by my opponent
Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

everything that exist has 2 sides
TheNamesFizzy

Con

"everything that exist has 2 sides"

Incoherent
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

intent can not exist without randomness, machine can not exist without nature
Debate Round No. 5
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
i have my reasons :)

if it wasn't entertaining i wouldn't do it
Posted by Atmas 1 year ago
Atmas
Well at least you have a reason lol. It's pretty entertaining as well.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
i like to make it so simple that its to advanced for foks to understand at a first glance
Posted by TheNamesFizzy 1 year ago
TheNamesFizzy
I could see making these debates one or two times, but he literally has over 50. It's a little extreme.
Posted by Atmas 1 year ago
Atmas
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 1 year ago
TheNamesFizzy
Yeah, I noticed. I also did a trolly debate with him once xD.
Posted by Atmas 1 year ago
Atmas
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 1 year ago
vi_spex
I like your version thou :)
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
same, cause is effect and effect is cause
Posted by YassineB 1 year ago
YassineB
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.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
vi_spexTheNamesFizzyTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro dropped several arguments, so arguments to Con. Pro didn't capitalize, so s and g to Con. Only Con had sources.
Vote Placed by Tweka 1 year ago
Tweka
vi_spexTheNamesFizzyTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con actually makes some point.