The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

natural cause+effect=chaos

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 390 times Debate No: 72675
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




any non intended cause is chaos


the movement of leaves blowing in the wind is chaos, the branchs of a tree springs out in random directions is chaos, the waved pattern and shape of sand dunes in the desert are shaped randomly by the wind, chaoticly

an apple falling from a tree in a storm rolls down a hill, is chaos, where it lands is chaos, where it is is chaos, what happens to it that isnt intended is chaos



Pro, I always look forward in a mutual constructive learning experience in any debate. May we both enjoy the flow of ideas.

Since you posted no debate rules, I will start by stating my position.

Definition of chaos from

a state of utter confusion or disorder; a total lack of organization or order.

Pro stated in the title of this debate that “natural cause+effect=chaos.”

My position maintains, there is more order than chaos in the universe. For example, Pro was kind enough to give a few examples of what Pro considers to be a subset of chaos. Let's take the most plausible case of “an apple falling from a tree in a storm rolls down a hill, is chaos” according to Pro.

In fact, if this event was “chaos,” then there would be an equal probability that the apple will not only fall from the tree, but have the same chance of projecting upward towards the sky. Since both animate and inanimate are confined within the matrix of the Laws of Nature, and there are no exceptions, one of those Laws is Gravity. Therefore, before the apple separates from the tree, we have a 100% confidence level that the apple will fall towards the earth, and not having its final resting place somewhere in the sky. In addition, we know it will roll downhill, not uphill.

As for knowing the final resting place of the apple beforehand, is simply a reflection of our infallible primitive metrology technology in measuring all those vectors of force within the space-time window of interest. One day, we may have such technology, and on that day, we will know the final resting place the apple will fall during that storm.

Another example my opponent gave were “the branches of a tree springs out in random directions is chaos.” The tree pattern is common and found throughout the universe with a level of predictable parameters defined within the Constructal Law.

The following YouTube video is a simple overview of the Constructal Law:

Debate Round No. 1


chaos in no way demands confusion

order comes from chaos..there will always be more chaos, only

dude.. natural laws are there by chaos, no one put them in there you fool :)

you have your own little god there... ány natural law is by randomness

i dont see an argument, just extremly fallacious presuppositions


Thank you for your response. Apparently Pro disagrees with the definition of chaos where there is no “organization or order.” Pro claims there is order in chaos but offers no proof.

Definition of chaos from

a state of utter confusion or disorder; a total lack of organization or order.”

In addition, I'm confuse what “natural laws” have to do with chaos. Perhaps, my opponent could elaborate on chaos relative to “natural laws.”

Natural laws: describe the use of reason to analyze human nature, the rules of moral behavior, and the relationship of these elements to social values and civil law from a philosophical standpoint.
Debate Round No. 2


life comes from nature, machines demand intent

natural cause=random(not intended)

morality=contrasting self with others using thought and emotion


Life is a product of the physical Laws of Nature, these Laws represent order not chaos.

The Constructal lLaw, discovered in 1996, governs evolution in biology, physics, technology, and social organization. This law provides a unified depiction and order of evolution, describing the freedom of flow generates configuration, from the dynamics of morphing, guided by the matrix of the laws of nature through time, whether animate or inanimate.

As for “morality,” it is an outgrowth of life's Unalienable Rights, which are an outgrowth of the Constructal Law, which is an outgrowth of the Laws of Thermodynamics, a part of the physical Laws of Nature; not chaos.

The burden of proof (BoP) is on Pro to prove that the physical Laws of Nature comes from chaos.
Debate Round No. 3


reality is not intended

nature is not intended..



You call that a proof?

Let's try this. There are a known set of constants manifested from the physical Laws of Nature. If the Laws of Nature were chaotic, then we will have no universal constants; they would be randomly changing, having no constants at all.

Physical constants:
Debate Round No. 4


they are all of chaos.. non intended


Thank you Pro for a different debate that I'm accustom to.

You made no references to help your burden of proof (BoP). Perhaps, you are trying to preach some cult you believe in, since I notice this debate is in the “Religion” category.

And in saying that, I wish you luck in your crusade.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
so i need to prove the Words you read on your screen are truly there?

the opposite of random is specified, intent is specified
Posted by Nac 1 year ago
Since you framed these as four statements, I will respond as such.

1. In general, the one who makes a claim holds the burden of proof, so in that case, you possess it. However, many times, the burden of proof is desired to be shared, hence my question.

2. You define intent as the opposite of random?
a. Where is this definition from? What source?
b. Why do you state that nature is random? It seems to follow sets of laws.

3. I don't see how you reach that conclusion for the reason I stated in 2b.

4. If it is told to be true, then he who says this possesses the burden of proof.

If my interpretation of your clarification regarding burden of proof is accurate, I would be delighted to debate you.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
im saying, if its true, then who needs to prove its true, see a problem there?
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
all natural change in eternity*
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
if i tell you, these Words are light on a screen, who posesses the burden of proof?

random is the opposite of specified, intent is specified, it either by choice or not

all natural change in existence is Chaos
Posted by Nac 1 year ago
Who would possess the burden of proof in this debate?

Could you define some of the terms?

What do you mean by "intended?"

Are you stating this in all cases?

If you would answer these questions I would be interested in debating you.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
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 did not fulfill their BoP or defend their position in *any* way. Con refuted the resolution and rebutted *all* Pro's arguments, with strong semantic evidence to their definitions. Pro showed via. the Constructal Law how randomness and chaos were different, with chaos being a state of utter confusion and disorder [via. semantic proof], etc. Con also used the only sources.