The Instigator
Baphomet
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
lovedebate
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points

the existence of non-existence

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/16/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,847 times Debate No: 11184
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (38)
Votes (4)

 

Baphomet

Con

This would be my first debate here at debate.org. If I'm doing something wrong, please tell me.

Do you believe in the existence of nothingness?
here is my argument against it, along with a definition of existence;

EXISTENCE

(definition from Dictionary.com)

1. the state or fact of existing; being.
2. continuance in being or life; life: a struggle for existence.
3. mode of existing: They were working for a better existence.
4. all that exists: Existence shows a universal order.
5. something that exists; entity; being.

I. If I am to believe that I indeed exist, then I must also believe in the principal of non-existence, that of nothingness. Because the only way for human beings to concieve and understand existence is to place it in contrast with it's apparent opposite. In this way have all wordly theorems and formulae been proven, as expressions or facets of existence.

II. Nothingness, as the opposite of existence is an extreme paradox. When there is an "empty" space, and one is asked to describe it, they will of course respond; "there is nothing". Within that single statement lies the contradiction. There IS nothing. In using the word "IS" it is implied that there is, indeed, something there. Therefore, nothing or emptiness or void are not correctly applicable statements.

III. This goes beyond the grammatical contradictions which I have mentioned. Nothingness is, in actuality, something. If it was truly "nothing" then we, as humans, would not be able to understand it, nor describe it, and certainly not put a name to it.

IV. Therefore, the human kind will never be able to percieve of nor understand true nothingness or non-existence; because it does not exist. Human knowledge is confined to that of existence, when it is said "there IS something", it is not a contradiction. We cannot define existence either, nor can we prove "existence" exists. "I think, therefore I am" is a fundamentally flawed statement, and it is how most people would argue in order to prove their existence. They would say; "I percieve the universe, I think, I feel, I hear, I touch, I smell, therefore I exist." Saying this is akin to saying, in mathematical terms, X=Y, because X=Y. Using the answer as the only proof of the questions solution, while leaving out the formula which would be necessary to prove it.

V. I can "prove" that a book is indeed sitting on my desk. I do so by seeing it, and recognizing that it is there. I am what provides the basis for this proof, because I am what percieves it and states that it is there.

VI. There is no apparent external source of proof, no higher influence which may tell me that I exist, or recognize that I do so. Therefore I cannot prove that I exist, and subsequently I cannot prove that the world around me also exists; because if I do not exist then I do not have the ability to prove the existence of other things.

VII. Therefore, if something was to recognize my existence, then something would in turn be needed in order to recognize it's existence, and so on. Because of this, there would have needed to be something beyond existence or non-existence as a point of origin. Or, existence and non-existence do not, in fact, exist.
lovedebate

Pro

nothing in escence in exactly the same thing as everything so if every thing exists then so does nothingness
Debate Round No. 1
Baphomet

Con

please explain your reasoning.

Nothing and everything are most certainly not the same thing, if you want a literary definition look it up in the dictionary. They are completely different things...
lovedebate

Pro

okay, so you know how like you ask someone what is wrong with them and they say nothing but they usually mean everything or like with gossip what are you talking about? and the answer is usually nothing and also, where did we come from? where did this world come from? if i can say that i am actually here then i know that i came from somewhere everything had to come from something and that something is nothing
or unless i am not here and you are not there, and then there is nothing anywhere
where are we before we are "created"? are we in this heaven like abyss or where did everything come from?
i am saying that there has to be balance like god and satan there has to be counter parts so in order for there to be something, there has to be nothing.
Debate Round No. 2
Baphomet

Con

First of all, I don't see the relevance of your preliminary statement. In stating that when someone is asked "What is wrong?" and their reply will be "nothing", then this means that nothing is everything. This only applies to a persons thoughts, and therefore is irrelevant. By your logic, if one was to look at an empty space, and was asked "What is this?" or "What is there?", they would reply "Everything is there", which is not correct.

In saying that everything had to come from something, then this also implies that whatever everything must have originated from, must also have originated from something. Therefore, it could not be "something", nor, by my argument, could it be "nothing", as both would need something to originate from, and whatever they originate from would have needed something to originate from; creating an infinite sequence that rules out the possibility of a "beginning".

And you say that in order for there to be something, then there has to be nothing. How can you prove this? prove to me that nothing exists, and prove it's necessity.
lovedebate

Pro

okay, but something had to come from somewhere, where ded this planet, this galaxy, our gods,beliefs, people in general and every thing come from, as i said there must be counter parts, balance is necessary there for for there to be nothing or something then there must be the other, if there is a god, then there must be a devel, good vs. evil
nothing and something i am trying to prove that nothing exists , when you look at the sky at night and you see no stars
considering you cant see air you see nothing, or on a open plain there is nothing in the distance so you see nothing
space is a good example of what i am trying to explain not just outter space but like in a drawing or in reality space in a drawing is emptiness, there is nothing there and that can be shat makes a drawing is how well space is used (balance).
Debate Round No. 3
38 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
I weep for the future. Is this really what has become of nationals-level debate "skills"?

"nothing in *escence* in exactly the same thing as everything so if every thing exists then so does nothingness"

This had the potential to be at least a semi-interesting philosophical debate, as LDers (at least, competent ones) should be well versed in a wide variety of philosophical principles and arguments. Guess not...
Posted by lovedebate 7 years ago
lovedebate
who is to say that existince is really real if nothing is not real. jk haha
Posted by RaeTulo 7 years ago
RaeTulo
xD I don't get it.
The EXISTENCE
of NON-EXISTENCE.
Non-existence, simply cannot "exist"
That ruins the whole concept of "Non Existence"
GET IT??!
Posted by GodSands 7 years ago
GodSands
This debate is saying in other words, either: Nothing is really something or nothing is really nothing.
Posted by RaeTulo 7 years ago
RaeTulo
If non-existence is thought of as "existing" then non-existence must not exist.

Let me clarify.
Is existence the same as nothingness? The answer is no.
If nothingness, or non-existence has to be thought of as something that exists, then nothingness or nonexistence does not exist.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 7 years ago
GeoLaureate8
"nothing in escence in exactly the same thing as everything so if every thing exists then so does nothingness" - PRO

Let's put this into a syllogism:

P1. Nothing (semantically she means "no thing") is the same thing as everything
P2. Everything exists
:. Nothingness (non-existence) exists.

Problem: "no thing" =/= "nothing"

Equivocation.
Posted by Kinesis 7 years ago
Kinesis
Urgh, I wish I had done that now.
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
Yup, no denying it's cheese.
Posted by Kinesis 7 years ago
Kinesis
lol, I might do that. Seems cheap though. :/
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
Make a website/blog, call it non-existence. Win.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by tBoonePickens 7 years ago
tBoonePickens
BaphometlovedebateTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by cult-logic 7 years ago
cult-logic
BaphometlovedebateTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Awed 7 years ago
Awed
BaphometlovedebateTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70 
Vote Placed by lliwill 7 years ago
lliwill
BaphometlovedebateTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07