The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Jeb_Relyeh
Con (against)
Winning
2 Points

"unlimited paradox" - an ever present unlimited force does not exist

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...
Jeb_Relyeh
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/25/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 351 times Debate No: 59538
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

"unlimited paradox" - an ever present unlimited force does not exist

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, at least in terms of being ever present.
Jeb_Relyeh

Con

I negate the following:" 'unlimited paradox' - an ever present unlimited force does not exist".

With the phrasing of the topic and the affirmative choosing to support the notion to support a negative, my stand is not that an "ever present unlimited force" does exist. Instead, my stand is that the statement "an ever present unlimited force does not exist" is false, implying that an unlimited force could exist.

To define the word force, I will cite the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:
"an agency or influence that if applied to a free body results chiefly in an acceleration of the body and sometimes in elastic deformation and other effects "

Firstly, using the above definition, there is no creation involved. This rids us of the paradox assumed by the affirmative.

Secondly, I will say that the paradoxical logic is meaningless to the betterment of this discussion.

Thirdly, I will assert that the proof in this situation is on the claimer, and the affirmative is claiming that an "ever present unlimited force" cannot exist, and there is no evidence to back this claim. The affirmative should also provide more proof than a logically invalid claim.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

con basically just argues at first, not that the unlimited does exist, but that it could exist. i see no point in bringing up this distinction. even were this a meritorious distinction to make, it doesn't say how 'the unlimited' can overcome the probed questions i gave. if it did exist, could it limit itself, thus showing it is not ever present unlimtied? and so on.

again con goes on for no discernable reason to define 'force'. he defines it, but doesn' say why it matters.

con ends with 'there's no evidence' to back my claim that the ever present unlimtied doesn't exist, but he just ignoes the questions i gave in the opening post. how does he address those questions? i indeed gave evidence, and he hasn't done anything to refute or address it.
Jeb_Relyeh

Con

I apologize for my confusion at the beginning of the argument, you set up the argument to argue "pro" to a negative statement, which leaves me, the negative, merely disproving your pro-negative statement and allowing the possibility that an "unlimited force" can exist.

Once again, let me define force:

"an agency or influence that if applied to a free body results chiefly in an acceleration of the body and sometimes in elastic deformation and other effects "

Note that in this definition the force never does anything to itself. A force is not a thinking and creative being, therefore it is meaningless to say "can a force limit itself?" An unlimited force would be such that it would apply unlimited velocity to any free body. If the affirmative wishes to argue that a force can "limit" itself, I would ask for an example of an ordinary force limiting itself in a closed system, with no other forces involved.

I will also bring up the case of the so called "four universal forces." These are the weak nuclear, strong nuclear, gravitational, and electromagnetic. Note that it is a possibility that they may be one unified force. The weak nuclear, strong nuclear, and electromagnetic forces have already been unified, and it seems gravity may be shown unified as well. Since a unified force will encompass all of the forces of the universe, the force in a sense would be unlimited. Therefore we already have evidence for an "unlimited force." Could this force stop itself? Using the definition of force, the unlimited action on a free body would in no sense stop itself.

I ask the affirmative to:

1) Provide an example of an ordinary force limiting itself in a closed system, with no other forces involved.

2) Defend his "paradox" with logical explanations, and offer evidence that his "paradox" is not just a logically meaningless statement. Proof is on the claimer.

3) Respond to my contention regarding the unified force.

4) This has nothing regarding the debate, but I am a grammar Nazi, and I would ask if the affirmative could make an attempt to use correct grammar, such as capitalization, punctuation, and thorough sentences. It is a distraction from the debate and makes me ponder whether or not the affirmative is taking his claims seriously. (Perhaps type up your argument in Microsoft Word or equivalent if you need assistance keeping capitalization? Many web browsers also do this for you.)
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
Jeb_Relyeh

Con

Jeb_Relyeh forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
The Cosmos may be infinite, but our universe is only an insignificant item in that infinite cosmos and our universe is finite, though expanding into that infinite cosmos, and some year, another universe may collide with our own.

The Cosmos is likely containing infinite universes.
Some larger than our own.

I saw the universe as infinite as a child and now I see an infinite cosmos outside our finite universe.
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
The Universe seems infinite only to those that do not understand why the Universe seems infinite, so I'll explain why it seems infinite with a statement I made some time ago:

"If you take away the picture, you still have the canvas - another way of expressing this infinity, that's not infinite in the sense that it, itself is infinite, but rather that everything is perpetuating, recycling, living and "dying"; and that the Universe will always end at a blank slate that is infinitely filled with possibilities - the possibilities, themselves, are rather finite however.

It is why as a child, everything seems infinite. As an adult, everything seems finite. The reason why is because a child is empty, a blank slate that is ready to become something - once they become that thing, they become limited and forget they can let go and become infinite again. As water is limited when placed in a cup, to take form of said cup."
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
dairygirl4u2cJeb_RelyehTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not define any force and neither did con to go on, so the argument made no sense either way. There may be an unlimited force in the universe that ties all universes and bodies together, sort of a string theory waveform or cosmic force, but such a force is as yet undefined. So I can see no argument from either side winning. Though Pro forfeited first giving Con a conduct point.
Vote Placed by gt4o2007 2 years ago
gt4o2007
dairygirl4u2cJeb_RelyehTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: pro forfeited and con had nothing to say because there was literally nothing to be said.