the 'unlimited paradox' - the unlimited is proven to be a false idea
Debate Rounds (3)
can the unlimited limit itself? if not, it is not unlimited. if so, it is not unlimited.
thus, we can see by probing a few questions about what it means to be unlimited, that it does not really exist.
The unlimited paradox has existed for a very long time, and there has been some development in the ideas associated with it.
The omnipotent and the unlimited are identical ideas, and so I'm sure that Stanford's research on omnipotence will be very relevant:
There are two types of omnipotent; those bound, and and those unbound logic. It goes without saying that the "unlimited" would be the latter. If that is the case, then I'm afraid that Pro's case is false by definition.
My opponent's case rests upon the conclusion that one can prove a god that is unbound by logic, logically impossible. This is plainly absurd. My opponent asks, "Can the unlimited limit them self?" And the answer is yes. The only criticism one could make about such an answer would be that it defies logic, but that is the point I am trying to make. To say that the impossible is impossible is fallacious. To say that the unlimited is limited by truisms is likewise fallacious.
There is a shared burden of proof in this debate. I must prove that the unlimited is possible, and Pro must prove that it is not. I hope that I have fulfilled my burden, as it is fairly easy to do so. Pro's burden is much larger, as she must prove that a being that can defy truisms is bound by them.
Unto you, Pro.
all we have to measure concepts by is logic. if we assume ilogic is possible, then perhaps con's points could make sense. but given we have no basis to accept that illogic is possible, we can't accept con's points.
also, con was starting to talk about "God" and this debate has nothing to do with God per se. it's an ancilliary argument.
The suggestion that the unlimited is not limited by logic is a perfectly reasonable one, and there is absolutely no reason to believe otherwise. This is an argument from ignorance, and quite plainly fallacious.
What reason does Pro have to think that the illogical is impossible? No concerns are brought up. The resolution has not been proven true, and I have raised legitimate points that refute my opponent's attempts to do so.
Has the unlimited been proven a false idea? No, as there has been no input to suggest that the unlimited is limited by logic.
If the floor follows the debate with any attentiveness, they will see that I have proved the resolution false. Please vote accordingly.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Romanii 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: BOP was on Pro, and Pro's only argument was that the unlimited is impossible because we as humans cannot picture a being defying logic. Con correctly called this out as an argument from ignorance, thus leaving the resolution negated.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.