'the unlimited paradox' - unlimited does not exist
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
t-man
| Voting Style: | Open | Point System: | 7 Point | ||
| Started: | 7/20/2014 | Category: | Philosophy | ||
| Updated: | 7 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
| Viewed: | 775 times | Debate No: | 59233 | ||
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)
 Pro 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.  Con Can the unlimited limit itself? Yes. By definition it can. This capability does not make it limited. After it limits itself, it would no longer be limited, but that doesn't change the fact that it was unlimited before hand. There is nothing in the definition of unlimited that makes it incapable of becoming no longer unlimited. |
 |
|
Pro we've shown by a few questions we can negate the idea of 'the unlimited' Con "if the unlimited could limit itself, it wouldn't be unlimited." I've explained why this isn't the case. You have yet to rebut my point. You can't simply repeat yourself. Explain why that statement is true and why my reasoning is false. |
 |
|
Pro Con I don't disagree that the it wouldn't be unlimited once it limits itself. That is obvious. However, that doesn't change the fact that it was unlimited once. I'm not completely sure what you mean by "the unlimited as an ever present infinite in time possibility." Whatever the case, we are arguing about the possibility of the unlimited in general, not a particular type of unlimited that can't stop being unlimited. That would indeed be impossible. The bottom line is that Pro never demonstrated why the unlimited can't stop being unlimited. Vote Con. |
 |
Post a Comment
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 7 years ago
Report this Comment
Posted by t-man 7 years ago
Report this Comment
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 7 years ago
| dairygirl4u2c | t-man | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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: Pro's main argument was that the unlimited could not choose to limit itself without ceasing to be unlimited--Pro argued that meant it wasn't unlimited in the first place. Con successfully showed that that did not mean that it had never been unlimited, and that if it CAN do the thing, that doesn't mean its capability to do so limits it. Arguments to Con. But an interesting, short debate. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
