The Universe has always existed

" A sophist is spotted under the table. He has two big magnets and the pool balls had steal cores. He had been moving one ball and the next they weren't knocking" I was hoping you wouldnt see that! I was only trying to help one of them win! Anyways. .. C1: What IS IS and what is not does not exist. (law of non-contradiction) I don't see a contradiction between there being a point where there was no universe though. If Nothingness was, then there was no universe(existence) to contradict it. .. C2 The universe is the whole that is all. (via explanation of elementary fallacy) No problem with this one, its right, as its just rephrasing the given accepted definition of universe. C3 Time is not a part of the universe. (via untimely fool) Yes, yes it is. You speak of change, how everything is "changing. " So change is a part of the universe, well change is time, and time is change. As in, over the course of time, things change. Change wouldnt be happening without matter/energy there to change, so you cant say that exists either by your own standards. Nor can you say that for space, and no I'm not speaking of the "cosmos" because that actually not space at all, I'm talkin of the distance between two objects. I suppose space doesnt exist either by that same definition. To say that time is not a part of the universe is absurdity. Change is a part of the universe, motion is a part of the universe, space is a part of the universe, and all these things existing= time. Just because something is dependant upon something else for its existence doesnt mean it doesnt exist. In reality, at the moment of the big bang, space, time, and matter were all created simultaneously. 1. Matter or energy is never created or destroyed. (Law of conservation, and by law of non-contradiction) Pssst, it can be created, and it can be destroyed. I know, we dont see that on a large scale, but on the microscopic quantum level, it happens all the time. In this case our logic is wrong. 2. Energy is, un-stabilization (definition of energy) It is often understood as the ability a physical system has to do work on other physical systems. But you are right, when matter unstabilizes, energy is created. Atomic bombs, yeah. 3. The universe is always changing. (un-stabilization is change) Yes it is. This just plays back into the existence of time. 4. New things are forming and un-forming. (un-stabilized change of relations of matter and mind) Now see heres this thing about the mind again. Our mind is just our brain, our brain is physical, so throw that in with matter. "Except try doing it………ON WEED. It was fun, I smoked but I didn't inhale. " You didnt inhale? So wasteful, shame on you. "The Fool: Nor did I have sexual relations with that woman…. . RoyalPaladin. RoyalPaladin: yes he did it was awesome, were having a baby. The Fool: It wasn't me! ;)" Oh now this is turning into a soap opera :O, so juicy and dramatic, please tell me more. "1) Heat Death shows that it can't be infinite in age and size because there would be no stars or light. " ;) See you misunderstand this, there would be light, light is a form of radiatiom, radiation=heat. Either everything must be as hot as stars, or there must be no stars. Because there is stars, and there is not thermal equilibrium, the universe cant be infinite in age sir. If its not infinite in age, it cant have always existed. .. "Everything in the universe has a cause. Aka something cannot come from nothing. x->y conditional" Now see this just plays right into the universe not always existing. Imagine if you will a block. This block is all that exists. So for illustrative purposes this block is the universe as it is the only thing that exists. What was the cause of that block? The only conclusion is that the block ultimately was created from nothing. Whether it was always a block or not, eventually you regress back and what makes up that block(matter) had to be created from something. If the matter that composea that block hasnt always existed, because it requires a cause for existence, then the universe has not always existed. Extens that to everything that exists now, everything that exists ultimately has a cause. But what is that cause? Energy? Well the total energy is zero. Nada, zilch, ultmately there is no energy. If you regress far enough back to the singularity, there was no matter, supposedly just energy right? Yet there is no energy, so that energy had to come from nothing! "Sophist: WTF is going on here. The Fool: Exactly how things would be if logic was breakable. For it would not be logic at all now would it. " There we see the grand point, for all our attempts to logically explain what happens in the universe, we come to the realization that the universe is utter chaos. There is no logicality on a microscropic scale. Just utter and complete randomness or chaos. The orderly macroscopic universe we percieve is just an illusion. A mere approximation of what is happening. When what is really occuring? Chaos, randomness, logic ultimately fails when you get down past the macroscopic level. Logic is merely our attempt to create order out of the chaos and that is where logic ultimately fails. Because its logically contradictory to say that chaos can be orderly, or that order can be chaotic. "RANDOM IS IGNORANCE. " On the note of logic. Funny that you equate random with ignorance. When proclaiming that logic as it stands presently is infallible, is an even grosser statement of ignorance. As you said, and I've shown logic is merely our attempt to make order out of chaos, from what we observe in nature. Science is the study of nature, in an attempt to explain why/how things work. If we observe in nature something that contradicts current logic, it is not nature thats flawed. Say its our senses(we have ways around that though) so essentially you are saying that it is nature thats wrong and logic that is correct. Methinks this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. To explain this clearly and concisely, LOGIC IS AN EXTENTION OF SCIENCE. Logic is not independent of science, no it is quite dependant upon science, for without an understanding of nature, we would have no logical conclusions to draw. Yes, eventually we might find an answer to everything, and what we have discovered thus far is by no means a definitive answer, but at least science is able to come to terms with this. You sir, obviously have not, and that is where your argument fundentally breaks down and fails. So to summarize, the universe cannot have always existed, eventually you regress far back enough and the same question remains, how did it all begin? This debate sadly, is not about that topic. Its about whether or not the universe has always existed. Olbers, and Zero-Entropy paradoxes sufficiently show why this cannot be the case, and sadly my peer only brushed them off as non-applicable despite my multiple explanations of why they are. Beyond that my peer contradicts the resolution itself by stating that time does not exist(then always cannot be) as well as the given definition of the universe. Given these factors, and the refutations of not only part of his main points(the ones that really mattered) and thusly his conclusions, it must be concluded that the universe has not always existed. Thus the vote must go to Con. I thank my peer for such a fine debate and wish him/her the best of luck with the voters. Thank you for this debate and ill end with this, ". . common sense(logic) is nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down in the mind before you reach eighteen. "