CreateDebate


Debate Info

8
23
Yes No
Debate Score:31
Arguments:22
Total Votes:32
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (7)
 
 No (15)

Debate Creator

Srom(12207) pic



Will humans ever fully understand the universe?

Yes

Side Score: 8
VS.

No

Side Score: 23

Achieving understanding of the universe is easy. All you have to do is understand that you will never fully understand.

For every state of evolution we survive past, we will encounter new answers, new questions, and new problems. Even if we become supposedly 'perfect' I think we will simply then have a new level of living to deal with that could only be comprehended once we are 'perfect'.

So in that retrospect, we will never fully understand the universe, and yet, it's quite easy to fully understand the universe.

Side: Yes
kountakine(88) Disputed
1 point

For every state of evolution we survive past

Did we use to be pigs in the past? Or monkeys? Surley this is the must naiv believe and the dumbest also. If you accept what charles darwin said decades ago, and most of his theories are getting refutet day by day.

We will never be Smart inoff to understand the hole universe, cant you see allready the mess in which human being is, always the same, he is individualist,arogant,brutal,destructive...therefore I believe the human being will destroy the world, and as anyway the suns light will shut down one day, we will face the end of this world

Side: No
chatturgha(1630) Disputed
1 point

Excuse me if my following disputations don't accurately address your points, because your English is positively atrocious and I may have misunderstood the things you said.

Also, there is a 'too long; didn't read' at the bottom of this response (tl;dr).

Did we use to be pigs in the past? Or monkeys? Surley this is the must naiv believe and the dumbest also.

Our earliest, truly mammalian ancestors actually were sort of like piglets. The dug around in the ground and ate roots of plants.

Naive and dumb? How so? It's obvious that the animals closest in appearance and anatomy to humans are simians. Scientists long ago asked why this was, and now today, we have evidence suggesting a direct evolutionary connection in our recent past to simians.

If you accept what charles darwin said decades ago, and most of his theories are getting refutet day by day.

Natural selection is nowhere near being debunked, you mongoloid. It and the extended theory of evolution are still considered the primary, unchallenged scientific theories of the origin and advancement of life. You cannot simply make up things to say to make your argument valid, fool.

We will never be Smart inoff to understand the hole universe, cant you see allready the mess in which human being is

You apparently did not read what I wrote.

I said understanding the universe is simple in because all it requires is that you understand that you will never understand it.

I don't know if you're a foreigner or simply an idiot, but if you plan to debate with an English speaking adult, I suggest you learn how to read and write the language properly. Communication is hard enough between two powerful minds without someone like you being incomprehensible and blinded by an inability to even properly use and interpret the language the debate is in.

always the same, he is individualist,arogant,brutal,destructive...therefore I believe the human being will destroy the world, and as anyway the suns light will shut down one day, we will face the end of this world

The nature of evolution is that we grow and change so that we may survive. Do you think it's logical for a species to destroy itself? Of course not. Lesser creatures the humans scramble frantically to survive catastrophes and predation and starvation. They kill each other to survive and are territorial with each other to survive. Why would humanity be any different, when we are as much nature's children as any other life form?

Humanity could have destroyed itself by now five times over, because of nuclear weapons of mass destruction. So why hasn't it? Because we are adverse to destroying each other, like every species is. We separate ourselves into nations and other social groups because it's within our nature to act like lesser animals and compete with one another, territorially. But to eliminate each other to the point of threatening our dominance on the planet? Are you a fool?

This isn't to say it's impossible. I suspect that one great challenge of our current state of evolution is culturally growing past the need for violence. If we cannot make that adaptation, surely, we may destroy ourselves, perhaps into extinction. But, destroy the world? It may be possible, but I am more optimistic then you.

You say humanity is the same and unchanging. Wrong. Every generation born is more empathetic and social then the last. Every generation strives more for peace and less for war. Isn't such a thing obvious? 3rd world civilians in totalitarian states have been rebelling, 1st world citizens challenge cultural and societal injustices. Human society is changing, even in places where you wouldn't expect change. People want wrongs to be right. If humanity is a constant evil, then good would not exist, but it does. If evil was a constant, it would be the majority, but it's not. What is the point of good then? Why are we changing?

Because unlike lesser life forms, we don't need to kill each other. We are the dominate species upon this planet. So, like any other creature, we are changing, adapting, to survive better. Humanitarianism is something people turn to because it's logical for us to survive together as a species then attempt to kill one another and thin the population out of all the bad genes.

If humanity was a constant evil, then we wouldn't be adverse to murder. We would be okay with people being stoned to death. We would be as brutal as lions, a species whom will kill their runty young and enforce pecking orders among it's males and females without any care over the suffering of members of their prides. But it's obvious, we are not as brutal as they, because we are an ever-changing creatures, like bacteria whom adapt to medicines in a few mere generations so they do not go extinct.

Thus, we change in the short-term, now evolving culturally and through technology so that we may adapt more quickly and reach better states of survival more quickly then simply waiting upon our DNA to change. (In fact, there's no need for our DNA to change much right now because we already have the intelligence to solve almost every natural problem on Earth that would otherwise make us extinct, like harsh climates, predation by other species, famine, disease, etc. The only thing we can't totally solve yet would be global climate change or world wide natural disasters, like a super volcano eruption or a mass drought/ice age)

So. You are not totally wrong to think it possible that humanity could destroy itself or the world, thus causing it's extinction. But, my argument is that, we are like every other creature, and we can adapt to changes when we need to. So, like every other creature, we will either adapt to survive new challenges, or we will go extinct.

Since we don't want to go extinct, like any other creature on Earth, I'm putting an optimistic bet upon us surviving. ;) After all, the only global things we need to survive now would be:

1. Each other. I think will be easy, just because we are not totally illogical at base, and desire to survive as a species, like any other species. Since we naturally desire to survive, I think we will continue to culturally adapt until we learn to stop being territorial and violent with one another. If this doesn't happen quickly, it will either happen very slowly, over some odd centuries, until we survive to solve number two and three, or until number two or three causes us to revert back our evolutionary progress or go extinct.

2. Global catastrophes; massive volcanoes, climate age change, asteroid/comet impact. I think solving number one will render these things easy to solve, and the best part is that things like these are rare to happen in the first place, so them happening during our relatively short time here on this planet is unlikely, giving us PLENTY of time to solve them, and since our intelligence is unlimited due to our ability to discover and store new information, and thus improve technology.

3. Overpopulation, which would lead to starvation, which would lead to mass death, which would lead back into overpopulation again, which would lead to starvation, etc... this would be easy to solve, just like number two, if we are able to solve number one.

Tl;dr: If you want to make up stupid excuses out of thing air to say that an argument is invalid, you shouldn't be debating. 'Evolution is being refuted by scientists' is made up excuse to dispute my position, because it's not true, and thus invalid as an argument. If you want to spend your next disputation arguing for on the position that natural selection is incorrect, you better be prepared to make an argument that is not contrived, unless you intend for there to be a shitstorm of logic and reasoning sent your way by me.

Side: Yes

Not now but maybe a thousand years from now they may. There most likely be technology that will make the universe much more understandable.

Side: Yes

No since there are limits to human capabilities. An example would be emotion, observing the way we manage the earth, humans tend to hesitate in action due to our emotions thus leading to underachievement. Humans have their limits too and one cannot fully understand the universe unless we get over such weaknesses.

Side: No
chatturgha(1630) Disputed
1 point

Humans have their limits too and one cannot fully understand the universe unless we get over such weaknesses.

This implies, therefore, that evolving past these weaknesses will yield greater ability to understand the universe, no?

This reply is half disputation and half support, since I'm arguing on both sides, but I decided to dispute just in case you don't agree with me. That way, you wouldn't end up disputing me towards a position you don't agree with, ha ha.

Side: Yes
2 points

I really hope you are not becoming a sunialpani.

Side: No
2 points

Nope I am not I didn't know there was another debate like that because I don't pay attention to him anyway.

Side: No

Srom is strictly better then sunialpani. Sunialpani is one-sided and totally close-minded when he creates debates. Srom, while a devout Christian, actually has learned (in my experience) to thoughtfully consider others views, at the very least.

Side: No
2 points

While they're still alive? Nope.

Side: No
Gokumohan(334) Disputed
2 points

"It is the sure mark of a fool to put anything outside their experience as impossible"

- Farengar Secret-fire

Side: Yes
Elvira(3446) Disputed
2 points

It's a fact. To understand every insignificant thing in the entire universe, to know all entirely, you die.

Side: No

For every state of evolution we survive past, we will encounter new answers, new questions, and new problems. Even if we become supposedly 'perfect' I think we will simply then have a new level of living to deal with that could only be comprehended once we are 'perfect'.

So, achieving understanding of the universe is easy. All you have to do is understand that you will never fully understand.

In that retrospect, it's quite easy to fully understand the universe, and yet, we will never fully understand the universe.

Side: No
1 point

Universe is so large that no one can even expect that it consists of the same galaxies which were in the space detectable to us. Its so huge and never ending phenomena

Side: No
1 point

Nope, and it's hilarious that there are people out there who believe the "science community and agenda" will be to understand everything in the universe, one day.

It's obviously impossible.

Side: No
chatturgha(1630) Disputed
1 point

Science won't necessarily allow us to eventually understand the whole of universe's details, but basic philosophy already does. ;)

Side: Yes

Probably Not, considering humans are basically a needle in a billion hay fields, our insignificance is in the universe is astounding.

Side: No
1 point

In my viewpoint, it is impossible to fully work out about the universe. I believe that universe was created with immense knowledge and power which beyond the human's understanding. But that doesn't mean people have to stop to discovery about the universe. Each passing day, people's knowledge increases dramatically. We as human beings need to work and discover with perseverance. Universe is the art of work which impossible to measure and modelling. It symbolizes the immense power and wisdom of God. Something have to be secret from human.

Side: No

The universe is infinity, so, humans will never be able to understand the full scope of it.

Side: No