The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
salam.morcos
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

cause and effect is logic

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
salam.morcos
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/28/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 705 times Debate No: 74370
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (25)
Votes (1)

 

vi_spex

Pro

if you are lost in the forest and hungry, and you pick up a mushroom and eat it, does it matter what you think is going to happen if the mushroom is poisonous? how could you eat the mushroom without adding, and how could you pick it up without minusing? and this equals, if you didn't pick it up and eat it there is no equal of you getting poisoned and a missing mushroom on the forest floor somewhere

cause=plus
is=equal
effect=minus

i determines where cause and effect begins and ends, but existence determines cause and effect as it is

minus is the effect of a cause

equal is where im holding my hand in front of me, plus is where i can move my hand to, and minus is how my hand got to where it is, and where ever my hand is, is equal. i equal because i can plus and minus

giving is taking, and taking is giving.

you cant give me an apple, without taking an apple from somewhere

salam.morcos

Con

Hi vi_spex,

Before I begin, I would like to state my approach in explaining why this argument is false:

  1. 1. The argument "cause and effect is logic" suggests that "Every effect has a cause. This also means that every cause has a cause." I will attempt in this debate to prove that "Not every cause has a cause". If I succeed in proving this point, my opponent’s argument would be refuted. vi_spex agreed to these rules. (see messages)
  2. 2. We both share the burden of proof. I have to prove that it’s not true, and my opponent has to prove that it’s true. Any claim that the argument is true because the other can't prove it to be false (or vice verse) is considered an argument from ignorance.
  3. 3. We must view this argument from a realistic, logical and rational perspective. We must put aside our assumptions, biases, presuppositions and world views.

Does every event require a preceding event causing it? I say no. Here's why.

  1. 1. Premise A: Every event either has a preceding event causing it or not (Null Hypothesis)
  2. 2. Premise B: There is a finite number of past events.

  1. 3. Let e(x) represent event x in set of all events E (i.e. Let E be a set of all events e(1), e(2), e(3) ... e(n))
  2. 4. Now choose any event in the set of events and make it e(x).

Using Recursive process (inductive logic)

  1. 5. Does event e(x) have a preceding event e(y)?
  2. 6. If no – i.e. e(y) doesn't exist? Then e(x) is an event without a preceding event. End of proof
  3. 7. If yes – i.e. e(y) does exist? Then take e(x) out from the set of event. So now the size of set E is reduced by 1.
  4. 8. Make e(x) now be the preceding event e(y).
  5. 9. Repeat steps 5 to 9.

If after a maximum of n-1 iterations we still didn't find an event without a preceding event, the size of set E will become 1. Now think of this for a second. If there's only one event left in the set, then there are no other events that could precede it. This proves my point that this final event will be an event without a preceding event. End of proof.

Conclusion: I used this exact logic in a different debate. The logic above, if the premises are true, concludes that there must exist at least 1 cause which was uncaused. There's no escape from this conclusion. This conclusion refutes your argument.

To explain what I did above in layman's terms... If you look at any event, and then go to its preceding event, to its preceding event, and so on... Because there's a finite number of events, you will definitely and necessarily reach an event that doesn't have a preceding event.

The only possible challenge that you can have against this argument, is to argue premise 2. Specifically, what if there's an infinite number of past events? I will defend premise 2 below.

Can there be an infinite number of past events? I say no. Here's why.

When we say past events… these are events that have already occurred. So to prove my point, I'll first assume that there is an infinite number of past events (Null Hypothesis) and show how that's impossible.

Please note that infinity ∞ doesn't really exist. It's only a potential abstract concept. Many make the mistake that it's a number, and that's not true. Here are some peculiar properties of ∞:

  • - ∞ + 1 = ∞
  • - ∞ x 786 = ∞
  • - ∞ + ∞ = ∞
  • - What's most important is that you can't say that ∞ = ∞, ∞ ≠ ∞, ∞ > ∞ or ∞ < ∞

But there's another way to illustrate this in laymen's term. (This was illustrated by German's great mathematician's David Hilbert).

Imagine that there is a hotel with an infinite number of rooms. And that the hotel was full. Every room was taken! Now someone comes to the hotel and says: "Excuse me. Is there a room for me?" The owner of the hotel will say "Yes of course!" How? Well, you ask the tenant of room 1 to go to room 2, tenant of room 2 to go to room 3...etc. Guess what! Room 1 is now vacant.

Let's say that an infinite number of new tenants want to enter the hotel. The owner again will say "Of course! Why not..." So he asks everyone in room 1 to go to room 2, room 2 to 4, 3 to 6...etc. Now all even numbered rooms have been taken, and all odd numbered rooms are available (Infinite of them)! Now the infinite number of new tenants have available rooms for them!

What's even more insane is that if there's another hotel, with also an infinite number of tenants. Which of the two owners have more tenants? Well... it's neither more, nor less, nor the same.

So basically, the basic laws of math fail with infinities. Because infinities are potential values, but can never be achieved. No matter how much you add to a number, you will never reach infinity.

Since past events actually occurred, then it's impossible that there is an infinite number of past events.

Conclusion

I was not trying to prove in this debate that every cause has an effect, or every effect was caused. I agree with this. What I argued was that the argument "cause and effect is logic" suggests that "Every effect has a cause, which also means that every cause has a cause." My opponent agreed that his argument would be refuted if I am able to prove that "Not every cause has a cause". The logic above confirms my assertion that there must exist at least one uncaused cause.

Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

a cause, causes, so a cause that didnt cause anything, isnt a cause, therfore any cause is caused by another cause, as a first cause would have to be caused by a cause that is not a cause

matter can only transform, this destroys all your little logic games above

í agree no infinity in the past

cause+(and)cause=(is)motion

chaos+order=the sum of all logic

cause+effect=logic

random cause+effect=chaos(any non intended change in eternity)

without 2 causes, motion cant exist

funny you mention these points about 2 causes, i naturally found that very fast
salam.morcos

Con

You stated in your response that "A cause that didn't cause anything, isn't a cause". I don't disagree! I never claimed that. What I proved in my argument is that "a cause is not necessarily caused". These are not the same. An uncaused cause must have caused something else... otherwise it would be, as you stated correctly, not a cause.

You also made this fallacious argument:

1. Premise A: A cause that didn't cause anything, isn't a cause. (I agree. It's not even premise, but that doesn't change the point)
2. Conclusion: Therefore any cause is caused by another cause.

This is a non sequitur (doesn't follow)! An uncaused cause would have caused something (which meets the criteria of your premises) but conflicts with your conclusion.

Your logic is similar to the following:

1. Premise A: Numbers 1 and up are real numbers.
2. Conclusion: Therefore all numbers are greater or equal to one!!

It's a non sequitur (doesn't follow).

You also stated that "matter can only transform". This is a presupposition. You're basically using a "Begging the question" or a "Circular reasoning" fallacy. You're referring to matter conservation (matter can neither be created nor destroyed) as you presupposed premise.

Does that mean that I don't believe in Newton's law? I do believe in it, but it has its limitations. For example, that law doesn't apply nor explain how matter was created from nothing (Regardless if you believe in God's hypothesis, M-theory or something else). Also consider this:

"The principle of matter conservation may be considered as an approximate physical law that is true only in the classical sense, without consideration of special relativity and quantum mechanics. It is approximately true except in certain high energy applications." - Wikipedia

Regarding your equations: cause + cause = motion, cause + order...etc: I won't argue those because you haven't shown how these statements (which I don't fully understand) refute my argument in any way. I can't say John + Jane = Love, therefore marriage exists.

Conclusion
In summary, your rebuttal doesn't refute my premises. In fact you agree with them. Also, you didn't challenge the coherence of my logic itself. Yet, you refuse the conclusion which follows necessarily from the premises. Also your rebuttal includes logical arguments which I demonstrated to be fallacious.
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

a cause is necessarily casued, because a first cause cant be caused by a cause, first cause is a fallacy in itself


if any cause is caused by another cause, a first cause is necessarily non sense, as there is no such thing as an uncaused cause


how could a beginning be uncaused?



there is no, your and my logic, logic is determined by existence as it is.


make the matter that is an apple nothing, matter can at best transform, is true, is logic, not circular, but absolute



creation takes a creator, nature is not created. anything the is created or constructed is a machine


´cause+cause=motion=i punch you in the face, you fall backwards, you wouldnt have if i didnt punch you, or unless something else caus you to fall





salam.morcos

Con

You're in trouble my friend! :-)

You stated that "a cause is necessarily casued, because a first cause cant be caused by a cause" This is self defeating and doesn't make any sense. This is similar to: I love you, because I don't love you!

You also stated that a first cause is a fallacy by itself. You didn't demonstrate how, but I think I can explain what you're trying to do. Your argument is like this: "Because every cause is caused, therefore first cause is a fallacy by itself". But why is your premise true? If you believe it's true, then this is a truth claim and you have the burden of proof. What proof do you have? On the other hand, I just proved that your premise is false by showing that there must exist at least 1 uncaused cause.

Regarding your statement "How could a beginning be uncaused?": This is a red herring (a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue). Why do I say that? That's because knowing or not knowing the answer to your question doesn't change anything. We don't have to know how the beginning was uncaused to come to the conclusion that there exists at least one uncaused cause. To illustrate this: Just because we don't know why we yawn, doesn't mean that we don't yawn.

Regarding your statement "creation takes a creator, nature is not created. anything the is created or constructed is a machine". This is a red herring. This is not a debate about God. Your statement has nothing to do with refuting my argument... Not to mention that you are presupposing your opinions and world views into the argument, which is another fallacy. If there's an issue in my argument, you have to show that either my premises are false or that my logic is incoherent.

Your last sentence is an ad hominem. I won't respond to it.

Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

a first cause cant be caused when a cause is something that causes.. is another way of putting it

its a first cause that is self defeating.

its simple really

the proof is, that a cause is a cause, not not a cause. the claim that there is a first cause is where you are in trouble :)

no uncaused causes can exist, thats the equevelant of being punched in the head out of nothing

i have no presuppositions

know=physical experience

there is no your and my logic, cause and effect is logic
salam.morcos

Con

I will address your points one point at a time.

You stated: "a first cause cant be caused when a cause is something that causes.. is another way of putting it"
Exactly my point. A first cause can't be caused.

You stated: its a first cause that is self defeating.
That doesn't follow from the above. You actually proved my point.

You stated: its simple really. The proof is, that a cause is a cause, not not a cause. the claim that there is a first cause is where you are in trouble :)
This is illogical. But I'll try anyways. Your argument is like this:

Premise A: A cause is a cause.
Premise B: A cause is not not a cause.
Conclusion: Therefore first cause can't exist

Do I need to explain why this is a non sequitur?

You stated: no uncaused causes can exist, thats the equevelant of being punched in the head out of nothing
This is inproper explanation. I didn't claim that nothing is caused. Almost all things are caused. But you can't use an example in this form, because the example doesn't cover all possible scenarios. Your argument is similar to this: No women exist, because there are no women in a men's washroom.

You stated: i have no presuppositions
Yes you did. Your presuppostion was "nature is not created" (See argument from round 3). And again, my argument is valid regardless if you believe in naturalism or believe in God.

You stated: know=physical experience
That's not true. We know that number 5 is greater than number 4. Don't get me started! :-)

You stated: there is no your and my logic, cause and effect is logic
Oh I see. I guess I lost the debate here. Here is effectively what you're trying to saying: Cause and effect is logic therefore cause and effect is logic!

I rest my case your honor!
Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

thats it man, a first cause cant be caused, therfore its impossible, it defeats itself


1=1, never 0


a cause that didnt cause anything, isnt a cause, therfore any cause is caused by another cause, you see?


all things are causal


anything this is created or constructed is a machines, nature comes first, nature is not a machine, supernaure also comes after nature, as an extension of nature, like super man


physical experience=absolute


math=absolute=not belief


you havnt adressed any of my examples of cause and effect



salam.morcos

Con


Once again, my opponent's rebuttal doesn't refute my argument in any way or form. It doesn't even weaken it! He again makes the same fallacious arguments. I won't go through all of them as they are self evident.

Also, my opponents made some comments that are not related to the subject matter (Red herrings) such as supernature from nature. I won't respond to these claims. Not to mention the formulas that are not logical in any sense (e.g. math=absolute=not belief!!?) I won't argue those too.

In summary, my opponent and I agreed before the debate that if I am able to prove that there could exist at least one uncaused cause, then his argument would be refuted. My opponent on the other hand had the burden to prove that his claim is true, but he failed to do so.

I believe that my argument is rock solid. As long as my premises are true, then the conclusion follows necessarily. Also, I've demonstrated how my premise (that there cannot be an infinite number of past events) is also true. My opponent didn't disagree with my assertion. But he's still not happy with the conclusion that follows.

I understand that the existence of an uncaused raises many questions. How could that be? What does it mean? What's the best explanation? But that's a different question and a discussion for a different debate. Theists state that the best explanation of this is God... Some naturalists say that this is best explained by M theory... Other naturalists state that they don't know the answer and leave it at that... And there's those who simply say logic is illogical in some cases.

Debate Round No. 5
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by salam.morcos 1 year ago
salam.morcos
Tyler, your comments are insulting. I actually had this debate before the one with you. My arguments are consistent. While I respect your opinion and your disagreement, you have to demonstrate why your claims were true and mine were not.

On a side note, I am very open minded. I've changed my stance on affirmative actions, capital punishment, religion, same-sex marriage and euthanasia.
Posted by Tyler_Lemke 1 year ago
Tyler_Lemke
salam, you're taking my argument against you in our debate and using it against another person. You really don't believe in anything do you...contradictions. The only reason you make my head hurt is your lack of ability to see anybody's version of logic but your own, I'd say you persist to live in a state of denial. When you grow up come back to me and I might debate you again.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
yes!

but effect cant exist without cause, an effect is an effect of a cause. if i never punch you, you will never get hit by my punches, cause and effect

1=1, not 0 and not 2
Posted by salam.morcos 1 year ago
salam.morcos
Can you clarify your argument? To say that "cause and effect is logic", are you claiming that "Every effect has a cause. Which also means that every cause has a cause." If I prove that not every cause has a cause, would you consider your argument refuted. If so, I will accept the challenge.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
maybe you have the noob slime until you actually comprehend my arguments :b
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
After he added me as a friend, that is.
Posted by Diqiucun_Cunmin 1 year ago
Diqiucun_Cunmin
I was blocked too :P
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
Hey, vi_spex, why have you blocked me?
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
a true troll is so clueless it has no idea its a troll, troll
Posted by pressplay010 1 year ago
pressplay010
No one is willing to take up your debate because your debates have no point, no structure and no argument.

You're just writing gibberish for no reason.

Science evolved from philosophy the two are not the same only a moron would think that.

I think you are just trolling.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
vi_spexsalam.morcosTied
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's arguments were all bare assertions and were self-contradicting. Con was able to demonstrate that there can be "uncaused" causes, and, in addition, Pro had an immense burden of proof to show every effect has a cause, as Con showed in their observations. Con used inductive logic via. a recursive process to refute the causal premise, which Pro continued to cling on to with no evidence. Con argues against actual infinities via. paradoxical theorems that reflect Hilbert's hotel, thus allowing for Con to refute Pro's weak assertions. Thus, arguments to Con. 3 points to the opposition. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.