Seriously. "The mind" was just the word for "the brain" before humans understood where it was located and what its function was. CON's syllogism tries to explain why some immaterial supernatural world exists. I clearly proved why such a supernatural world, if it exists, could not even interact with this physical world. Your vote mentions none of the arguments from my side, and does not even try to explain what "the mind" is. How can you claim CON proved the existence of the mind if neither you nor RM defined its properties.
Why are you always so unlucky with you science debates? You want to debate YEC or FET, but some dude like me or Intelligence comes and brings in another field of science. Quantum mechanics or general relativity are used against you all the time it seems.
Imagine you have a hotel with an infinite number of rooms. All of the rooms are occupied.
From every room with an odd number, the inhabitant leaves. Now, you have an actual infinity minus an actual infinity. The result? infinity-infinity=infinity.
Another scenario is that all rooms with a higher number than 3 are left by their inhabitants. In this case, infinity-infinity=3
In other words, such a hotel can never exist, because the same equation (infinity-infinity) gives us different results (infinity or 3 or any number)
This clearly is logically absurd. An infinite hotel with an infinite number of rooms could never exist.
Now, swap the hotel with spacetime instances, and the same problem emerges: if infinite, a universe becomes logically absurd.
If the universe is the word for God, then matter warps God, and God is expanding, and God is composed of other things.
Honestly, asserting that the universe has innate existence contradicts all logic, as an eternal universe is ABSURD.
Watch this video to learn why a universe cannot be infinite: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vybNvc6mxMo
My definition of God is sound. You claim it to be nonsense, please elaborate.
Wrong. God of the gaps is using God to satisfy our seeking for knowledge when in reality God did not fill those holes. For example, I could claim "God sends the rain", but we know the sun drives the rain, not God. It is a God of the gaps theory, it contradicts rather than being supported by, loci. With creation it is different. God can be defined as "the thing that exists by necessity rather than contingency". Therefore, God existed eternally by definition. And anything that starts to exist has a cause. Therefore, the only logical conclusion I will now present.
Any existing thing falls into the following categories:
1. God
2. Things caused by God
3. Things caused by things from category 2 or category 3
Therefore, if something starts to exist, it must by definition exist BECAUSE of God.
Now, one can complain about the religious view of God, but his logically necessary nature makes "IT" an unavoidable conclusion.
The fallacy of comparing God to unicorns is that they, by definition, fit into categories 2 or 3, not category 1. If they truly fit into category 1, they would not have the properties of what we popularly attribute to a unicorn, it would just be to exchange the WORD God with unicorn.
In other words, a better wording of you complaint is this:
"Calling the immaterial creator God is equally uninformative as calling him Zeus, Allah, or even ofajieojfaoifmdwcqoiqoiwqeoicewuq"
God's nature is up for dispute. His existence is not.
The video you sent me, that I also watched yesterday, says that the geodesics come out on another side, in an earlier universe. This continues the impossibly long chain of causes that my video debunks as logically possible.
How can something whose existence is independent, have a beginning? In BB, you claim spacetime started to exist so that expansion and causality could happen. Doesn't that mean that the existence of spacetime is dependent on a real event, BB, and a real cause, energy?
I have already watched that video. It doesn't account for the problem of infinity. Even a cyclic universe breaks basic logical laws by proposing infinite change.
If the fan doesn’t need any external support but can support other things, then that fan is indistinguishable from the roof. However, if the universe can change and be altered by its environment then it cannot have this property of being eternal, as PRO proved. Thus, any objection against the "illogic" of God/first cause would apply even more so to a universe that doesn’t need God.
""
You never argued that Matthew mark like and John considered God the divine author of the bible, and you had an opportunity in round 2 to provide evidence for that and refused.
""
Exactly -- the purpose of the debate was YEC vs Naturalism, not YEC vs OEC.
I properly debunked naturalism. Just because there is a slight chance of OEC doesn't remove the absolute undermination of naturalism that I did.
The new testament treats God as the divine author of the entire Bible. Again, disallowed. Furthermore, why do you not apply that same logic to PRO. Yes, he showed that the earth looks old but never proved that the conservation of energy proves that it IS old.
That kind of appeal to division (like mentioning OEC) is not fair game. That's why PRO disallowed quantum mechanics arguments.
I also showed some sources that prove time doesn't exist - which PRO never rebutted. Those alone should win me the debate -- except if we assume that time exists for science and that God's existence and Jesus miracles prove YEC.
""
The first law of thermodynamics asserts that energy must be conserved [britannica.com]. This means that energy cannot be created or destroyed - only switch from one form to another. So without a first cause, the universe is infinite in time in both directions - and both before the Big Bang and after the heath death is the universe filled with nothing but endless entropy. But God is the first cause, he is omnipotent, and he can create energy from nothing. He is the necessary creator of the universe as the cosmological argument proves. Science cannot provide a first cause, because science does not allow an immaterial force to create energy. The Big Bang Theory does not provide a sufficient explanation that is not God. The Big Bang was not random but highly fine-tuned to the power of 10^10^50-100 => for EVERY cosmological constant [source]. Thus, the Big Bang would still require God to happen.
THUS ==> Science is NOT the final authority with regards to WHEN the universe starts and stops -- GOD IS.
Now, the question still remains: why did God create the world 10.000 years ago rather than 14 billion years ago?
But is there any difference at all? In fact, no. There is no difference between a universe that was created 10.000 years ago and a universe created 14 billion years ago. Both universes have popped into existence with no cause but God. If PRO can think that the BIG BANG created the universe, then he asserts as a truth that a first cause exists. But in doing so, he also admits this fact: that it is arbitrary which moment the universe pops into existence. And since God created the universe, an act science cannot explain, then GOD knows when that happened. And God tells us that it happened 10.000 years ago. Since science cannot operate beyond that initial creation, only God knows the correct answer to when the earth was created.
""
This was in my first post -- it clearly proves that only God knows when the universe was created. The only objection at all PRO raised was a theological one, but that was not allowed. Since PRO never debunked this simple logical evidence ^ I clearly won.
""
Weighing entails analyzing the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments and their impacts against another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
""
This is what the voting policy states as necessary for giving the point of the argument. Yes, if we assumed naturalism then PRO would easily win. But I completely undermined Naturalism and proved Christiantiy. Therefore, my set of arguments far outweigh his.
CON's argument:
-- any world would look old, science cannot decide the age of the earth
-- naturalism is internally contradictory
-- only God could create the universe, and the universe is created, so God created the universe
-- God himself says he created the universe 10.000 years ago
I have no clue how the single argument from PRO should win him the point of the arguments. Yes, I wasted some space and his structure was nicer (because of his unfair rules), but I completely undermined his argument and proved why Christianity is correct and Naturalism incorrect. You literally stated that I lost because I did not connect Jesus and YEC. But I couldn't -- the Bible was disallowed. It is common knowledge:
"For anyone wondering, yes the bible does say it is true anyway. The age of the Earth is derived easily using the geneology of Adam and Eve that takes us all the way to Jesus Christ. I am not taking that into consideration this debate, because nobody argued it, but it is a tidbit for anybody curious."
My argument that the Bible is the word of God was never rebutted. Thus, I won. I completely undermined the entire worldview that PRO's argument relies on, and proved why the worldview that supports YEC is correct. You cannot vote PRO simply because of my structure - there is no structure point. I actually showed multiple times why God, whom I proved to exist and talk to humans, would know when the universe was created but science would not.
Essentially, giving the argument point to PRO would be against the rules, my arguments CLEARLY outweigh his.
The only way that PRO made a better case than me was by having a more reliable source, science.
Thus, You cannot possibly give PRO the argument point, you must give him the sources point and me the argument point.
Yes.
Click the "arguments" button, it is left to the "comments" and "votes" button.
What do you mean?
How am I lying?
I am simply stating an opinion, its the comment section.
About the brain and the mind.
Seriously. "The mind" was just the word for "the brain" before humans understood where it was located and what its function was. CON's syllogism tries to explain why some immaterial supernatural world exists. I clearly proved why such a supernatural world, if it exists, could not even interact with this physical world. Your vote mentions none of the arguments from my side, and does not even try to explain what "the mind" is. How can you claim CON proved the existence of the mind if neither you nor RM defined its properties.
FLWR aspires to rival me in casting abysmal votes.
Is it playing dirty to use Einstein against Newton to prove the Earth is flat?
Why are you always so unlucky with you science debates? You want to debate YEC or FET, but some dude like me or Intelligence comes and brings in another field of science. Quantum mechanics or general relativity are used against you all the time it seems.
Imagine you have a hotel with an infinite number of rooms. All of the rooms are occupied.
From every room with an odd number, the inhabitant leaves. Now, you have an actual infinity minus an actual infinity. The result? infinity-infinity=infinity.
Another scenario is that all rooms with a higher number than 3 are left by their inhabitants. In this case, infinity-infinity=3
In other words, such a hotel can never exist, because the same equation (infinity-infinity) gives us different results (infinity or 3 or any number)
This clearly is logically absurd. An infinite hotel with an infinite number of rooms could never exist.
Now, swap the hotel with spacetime instances, and the same problem emerges: if infinite, a universe becomes logically absurd.
I assure you that my definition is correct.
If the universe is the word for God, then matter warps God, and God is expanding, and God is composed of other things.
Honestly, asserting that the universe has innate existence contradicts all logic, as an eternal universe is ABSURD.
Watch this video to learn why a universe cannot be infinite: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vybNvc6mxMo
My definition of God is sound. You claim it to be nonsense, please elaborate.
Just the part of the vote that is written directly is enough to make the vote valid, on par with your vote.
Please elaborate on what went wrong in my vote, I thought the entire point of voting was using your own reasoning to analyse the debate.
Regardless, my vote still fits the criteria, and I analyse it thoroughly. I
Wrong. God of the gaps is using God to satisfy our seeking for knowledge when in reality God did not fill those holes. For example, I could claim "God sends the rain", but we know the sun drives the rain, not God. It is a God of the gaps theory, it contradicts rather than being supported by, loci. With creation it is different. God can be defined as "the thing that exists by necessity rather than contingency". Therefore, God existed eternally by definition. And anything that starts to exist has a cause. Therefore, the only logical conclusion I will now present.
Any existing thing falls into the following categories:
1. God
2. Things caused by God
3. Things caused by things from category 2 or category 3
Therefore, if something starts to exist, it must by definition exist BECAUSE of God.
Now, one can complain about the religious view of God, but his logically necessary nature makes "IT" an unavoidable conclusion.
The fallacy of comparing God to unicorns is that they, by definition, fit into categories 2 or 3, not category 1. If they truly fit into category 1, they would not have the properties of what we popularly attribute to a unicorn, it would just be to exchange the WORD God with unicorn.
In other words, a better wording of you complaint is this:
"Calling the immaterial creator God is equally uninformative as calling him Zeus, Allah, or even ofajieojfaoifmdwcqoiqoiwqeoicewuq"
God's nature is up for dispute. His existence is not.
If time didn't exist before BB, then why do you reject the existence of an immaterial creator? Nothing else could create the universe.
If the universe is not created, it must have existed before the BB. In other words, spacetime is either infinite or it has an external cause.
The video you sent me, that I also watched yesterday, says that the geodesics come out on another side, in an earlier universe. This continues the impossibly long chain of causes that my video debunks as logically possible.
The inflation model goes like this:
1. Energy exists very densely
2. Spacetime starts to expand rapidly, then slowly
3. Current physical laws starts explaining the universe
I see no reason to baselessly assert that causality didn't exist before BB simply because our perception of time falls short of describing it.
Tell me, if we define "time" as the rate at which change occurs, did time exist before BB?
How can something whose existence is independent, have a beginning? In BB, you claim spacetime started to exist so that expansion and causality could happen. Doesn't that mean that the existence of spacetime is dependent on a real event, BB, and a real cause, energy?
I have already watched that video. It doesn't account for the problem of infinity. Even a cyclic universe breaks basic logical laws by proposing infinite change.
If the fan doesn’t need any external support but can support other things, then that fan is indistinguishable from the roof. However, if the universe can change and be altered by its environment then it cannot have this property of being eternal, as PRO proved. Thus, any objection against the "illogic" of God/first cause would apply even more so to a universe that doesn’t need God.
The law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created only changes from one form to another. Any closed system would be eternal.
If something like a multiverse is where the energy before BB comes from, then that only widens our closed system.
To truly create energy out of nothing, aka initiating a closed system, one would need a cause that could release energy while still not changing.
Theists believe that thing to be God, but one cannot simply discard the idea as absurd because of the association with religion.
Where do you get your assumption from? Nothing cannot create something. Only something can create something.
But,,, isn't that realm the same as "god", in that it is
1) timeless,
2) unchanging,
3) causes the universe
You are merely asserting God is the energy before BB.
Reading your debate led me to watch this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vybNvc6mxMo
It claims that an infinite number of events cannot possibly have happened.
Ok, you assume time doesn't exist, neither does causality, before BB.
In other words, nothing *happened* before BB?
Thank you for a brilliant debate.
Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar right indeed.
Lol. I confused PRO and CON.
I hope I don't screw up against you for a change.
Very interesting debate indeed. I think of voting in the near future.
Very well. You claim that age is not a factor in mental maturity. Let's see how you fare against a slightly older opponent.
Just because it is round, doesn't prove it isn't flat.
Flat has more than one definition : )
vote bump
Your vote is not legal. You ignored the definition of "Obsolete: outclassed by another idea or proven to be wrong."
PRO never showed us why his idea of an immaterial mind was not outclassed, he simply asserted it was not wrong.
Did you even read my logical proof that an immaterial world could not interact with a material body.
You simply ignore most of my arguments to give the win to CON, your vote has been reported.
thank you.
""
You never argued that Matthew mark like and John considered God the divine author of the bible, and you had an opportunity in round 2 to provide evidence for that and refused.
""
Exactly -- the purpose of the debate was YEC vs Naturalism, not YEC vs OEC.
I properly debunked naturalism. Just because there is a slight chance of OEC doesn't remove the absolute undermination of naturalism that I did.
And that God is the necessary first cause, and that Jesus was resurrected.
Well, I presented solid evidence for it in round two -- exactly when PRO argued that the Bible could support an OEC
Also, the fact that PRO accepted the Bible, just attacked theology, proves that I didn't need to connect Jesus and YEC.
Well, I presented solid evidence for it in round two -- exactly when PRO argued that the Bible could support an OEC
Also, the fact that PRO accepted the Bible, just attacked theology, proves that I didn't need to connect Jesus and YEC.
The new testament treats God as the divine author of the entire Bible. Again, disallowed. Furthermore, why do you not apply that same logic to PRO. Yes, he showed that the earth looks old but never proved that the conservation of energy proves that it IS old.
That kind of appeal to division (like mentioning OEC) is not fair game. That's why PRO disallowed quantum mechanics arguments.
I also showed some sources that prove time doesn't exist - which PRO never rebutted. Those alone should win me the debate -- except if we assume that time exists for science and that God's existence and Jesus miracles prove YEC.
Again, we had as a basic assumption that YEC is the position of Christianity. And I proved Christianity and disproved naturalism.
You cannot give PRO the point of the argument simply because I could not post 2-3 verses from the Bible to complete my argument.
""
The first law of thermodynamics asserts that energy must be conserved [britannica.com]. This means that energy cannot be created or destroyed - only switch from one form to another. So without a first cause, the universe is infinite in time in both directions - and both before the Big Bang and after the heath death is the universe filled with nothing but endless entropy. But God is the first cause, he is omnipotent, and he can create energy from nothing. He is the necessary creator of the universe as the cosmological argument proves. Science cannot provide a first cause, because science does not allow an immaterial force to create energy. The Big Bang Theory does not provide a sufficient explanation that is not God. The Big Bang was not random but highly fine-tuned to the power of 10^10^50-100 => for EVERY cosmological constant [source]. Thus, the Big Bang would still require God to happen.
THUS ==> Science is NOT the final authority with regards to WHEN the universe starts and stops -- GOD IS.
Now, the question still remains: why did God create the world 10.000 years ago rather than 14 billion years ago?
But is there any difference at all? In fact, no. There is no difference between a universe that was created 10.000 years ago and a universe created 14 billion years ago. Both universes have popped into existence with no cause but God. If PRO can think that the BIG BANG created the universe, then he asserts as a truth that a first cause exists. But in doing so, he also admits this fact: that it is arbitrary which moment the universe pops into existence. And since God created the universe, an act science cannot explain, then GOD knows when that happened. And God tells us that it happened 10.000 years ago. Since science cannot operate beyond that initial creation, only God knows the correct answer to when the earth was created.
""
This was in my first post -- it clearly proves that only God knows when the universe was created. The only objection at all PRO raised was a theological one, but that was not allowed. Since PRO never debunked this simple logical evidence ^ I clearly won.
Even in my first argument, I prove that God must have created the universe and that only a theological dispute (disallowed) could destroy YEC.
Thus, it's not correct that I did not connect Jesus and YEC.
""
Weighing entails analyzing the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments and their impacts against another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
""
This is what the voting policy states as necessary for giving the point of the argument. Yes, if we assumed naturalism then PRO would easily win. But I completely undermined Naturalism and proved Christiantiy. Therefore, my set of arguments far outweigh his.
PRO's argument:
-- the earth looks old
CON's argument:
-- any world would look old, science cannot decide the age of the earth
-- naturalism is internally contradictory
-- only God could create the universe, and the universe is created, so God created the universe
-- God himself says he created the universe 10.000 years ago
I have no clue how the single argument from PRO should win him the point of the arguments. Yes, I wasted some space and his structure was nicer (because of his unfair rules), but I completely undermined his argument and proved why Christianity is correct and Naturalism incorrect. You literally stated that I lost because I did not connect Jesus and YEC. But I couldn't -- the Bible was disallowed. It is common knowledge:
"For anyone wondering, yes the bible does say it is true anyway. The age of the Earth is derived easily using the geneology of Adam and Eve that takes us all the way to Jesus Christ. I am not taking that into consideration this debate, because nobody argued it, but it is a tidbit for anybody curious."
My argument that the Bible is the word of God was never rebutted. Thus, I won. I completely undermined the entire worldview that PRO's argument relies on, and proved why the worldview that supports YEC is correct. You cannot vote PRO simply because of my structure - there is no structure point. I actually showed multiple times why God, whom I proved to exist and talk to humans, would know when the universe was created but science would not.
Essentially, giving the argument point to PRO would be against the rules, my arguments CLEARLY outweigh his.
The only way that PRO made a better case than me was by having a more reliable source, science.
Thus, You cannot possibly give PRO the argument point, you must give him the sources point and me the argument point.
This debate seemed to interest you. Would you mind casting a vote? I would appreciate it.
Maybe you will be interested in this debate. Maybe you can read it, vote, and possibly learn how to improve your machines can think argument.
Thank you, I appreciate that you are going to vote.
What do you think about the debate? Have any suggestions?
vote bump
They don't
vote bump