- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
And one more thing since anti matter is generally nothing then is it acceptable that matter is uncaused? and that it is possible for something to be caused without a cause preceding before it? for if antimatter is nothing then how can nothing or is completely opposite what is real create something tangible?
"according to one scientific theory matter came into existence by destroying and replacing anti-matter"- and what theory is that I suppose and before you would accept such please expound your argument and illustrate or explain vividly how ? and by what process is it with? and by what rules is it supervised? I cannot accept that small sentence to say that your claim is true.
I Thank my opponenet "Cuaroc" for posting his insight about the topic
The first round is opening statement and that the second would be the rebuttal
For this moment I shall argue with simplicity and brevity with that I shall focus my any of my responses to my rebuttals. I would not be in citation and in clinging to that of the term god and all its man-made attributions, which are religions. I shall not argue in a deistic fashion but in manner that would imply only a being of greatness away, for this moment, to religious implications.
Here I shall give an argument all knows about:
I - The universe is physical, thus is a product of something before it.
II - An infinite set of preceding causes is improbable and unthinkable.
III - Therefore there should be a cause which is the first, this is the greatest being.
The first part implies that the universe is physical, which is only acceptable, as materialists always assert, therefore if it so and motion as to make change is its requirement, it requires not to be eternal, for if every thing is caused by something else then what would have started this, if a Great being does not exist and eternality is to be given to matter then this violates one of the pinnacles of science, the law of causality, that every thing should be caused with regards to entities concluded to be tangible and is observable, if so it requires a cause not to be Physical since if so then the contention has not change at all. Eternality is impossible to physical entities, which is described in the second line, if matter has been continuously moving and changing then where did it get such energy to do so and if matter is not and has only began moving at some point in time, thereby creating something out of its first movement then what inspired it to move? I do agree that existence requires observation which can be done in two manners direct and indirect, and it is true that the proofs for that being is indirect, but does not imply is immediate dismissal for its possibility for realness for a number of impossibilities one could not explain if it is to removed. The other one being direct, in this case every thing is tangible, however if every thing is tangible and is of course equal there should be an ultimate being of such greatness. For if the mind, as I would accept to be an influence of St. Anselm to me, can conceptualize a being of such greatness it can only satisfy such mind conceptualization if it exists in both the mind and to reality, Therefore it is the greatest for if it only in the mind then how come it is ? I do agree with the points held by different irreligious schools, to which I may be classified as well, however if all schools of thought have reasonable arguments for their claims is it still better to consider only one? it is then much acceptable to create commonality to these two ideas otherwise contradictory.
One cannot argue about existence, none can prove it, The way Jose Rizal (Philippine National Hero) cannot be defend to have existed at some point in time by merely depending to this being alone but there are his deeds, to whom should they be credited? the same way as there is the universe, how did it come about? My question would be simple; How can something come from nothing? explain how it may be possible before creating a criticism that may be irrelevant to my points by giving his own statement/s, for if this is unanswered then how can one assert that a Great being have never existed? Just by giving his points and leaving these unanswered, can that prove that God has never come to reality?
First, all camps should not make general conclusions that; All teachers would be ineffective with cellphones and that cellphones would not affect their teaching habits.
Every person, in this case teachers, is totally different to that of the others, however this is my contention or perhaps also a question; what of the two should be disciplined a lazy teacher or an effective teacher, of course the first one, now let us attach it to this topic" should the teachers be allowed to use cellphone" because there are two kinds of teachers, the first one will become even more worse while using it and the other being unaffected even while using it but a law cannot be approved stating that all lazy teachers are pervaded to use cellphones only those who are effective are allowed" this is illogical because if one teacher is not allowed all should follow in such a way that equality can be seen. One cannot interview all teachers and delineate their personality whether they are good or bad so that they may be allowed to bring such gadgets, then referring to the first contention if all are allowed then bad teachers would be even more worse fir their focus would be different and if only good teachers are allowed, then inequality issues will arise, So to make an egalitarian society let none of them bring it.
However this should not be strictly so one cant use his or her gadgets while teaching but for emergency purpose it can be.
Cuaroc(108), I support you in this. As a meta ethical philosopher, One always has free will, by which it means that he is of his own choices and judgment, if a particular person has chosen such path, whatever it may be, none of the others should and shall judge it for the act is personal, none of the others would be affected by a personal act. Say that for example one thinks that eating chocolates are bad for it is somehow derived from pigs, doesn't prove that you will contradict others who eat them or in other words what your beliefs are, are yours for the keeping, if you do not like one thing, do not pursue it to others to dislike and contradict it the same way you do, and of course the same applies to religion.
Well I agree with my allies here that big bang is more likely to have occurred than our opponent's view but here I will make clarification. I will explain this as a philosopher, The universe- The totality of existence or everything that here exists, for this moment my focus is not to specify the features of existence. So if God exists and is credited for the first cause then Creationist view is the super group under which the big bang belongs to, such that "Nothing comes from nothing, a universe which is physical then requires an all powerful being of which a motion can be instantiated therefore God made the universe but by how what best explains it more specifically - perhaps the Big Bang Theory does. So in other words Creationist does not contradict the this theory for it asserts that all motion is of God which is broad and that more specifically the process by which this physical realm has been created is thru the big bang, maybe.
Notice that I use the words of uncertainty, maybe or perhaps, for no matter how man becomes more intelligent every moment, nobody can a pinpoint what exactly happened back at that time where all matter has exploded, one can only assert that it is somehow created in a vague sense, but by how, more specifically? then no exact evidence can be given but MORE LIKELY. So in this case, since the question is what more likely have occurred, then I go for the Big bang, for the question is more specific than broad. If this debate is How is it possible to create the universe in absolute nothingness, then since the question is vague, I go for the other side for it does not ask how did that being created that product whatsoever.
About CreateDebateThe CreateDebate Blog
Take a Tour
Sharing ToolsInvite Your Friends
RSS & XML Feeds
Basic StuffUser Agreement