Yes, well done, by simply indicating which sources were used and how they were effectively used makes a source point sufficient up against no sources. Thank you very much for the vote, and thanks Virt for creating a community where newer voters can improve and you're willing to support them on their way.
Hahahah thank you for appreciating my hyrdrogen humor, that was my favorite part of the debate as well, and you did quite an excellent job explaining exactly why Pro should win this thing, even if the definitions are undesirable/unfair and even if Pro is kind of a gigantic dick, which in fairness, I kind of am. Thanks for the honest vote, and I think you may have a better vote than Virt...just sayin'...Virt's vote's good too.
Yes. We both agreed without human opinion and my case was objective morality exists sans god. Please be fair here, I know you put up good votes, please be fair.
Don't worry, there will be a voter who thinks your interpretation of the resolution is enough to afford you argument points, even though you'll precisely be arguing against the resolution as Pro.
You argued for the resolution as Con, why not argue against the resolution as Pro?
"No, I can't show you a thought that is not dependent on the physical."
Thank you.
So anytime you are dealing with thoughts you must necessarily be dealing with something physical, is that right?
"the fact that I can't show you a thought that is not contingent on the physical doesn't prove that a thought is physical."
This may prove we're done here.
That's exactly what it shows man.
No physical thing, no thought.
" "Show me a person that is not contingent on air."
Right, but air doesn't produce people.
But if I said show me a person that is not contingent on cells, you'd have to admit that in order to deal with a human, you will have to deal with cells right?
"I agree totally that thoughts, ideas, dreams are dependent (contingent) on the physical."
I mean that's enough for me, we're good.
And I agree that thoughts are not the same substance as brains and neurons, I'm fine with that.
Ok, well it's all kind of irrelevant to the resolution, and yes while constructs are contingent on the physical they are not made of the same material, i.e. not made of matter, I'll agree, but they are still physical because, you cannot provide an example of a thought WITHOUT its contingency matter.
Can you show that please?
"Contingent means to be dependent on. Nothing more."
contingent on/upon - occurring or existing only if (certain circumstances) are the case.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/contingent
You knew that though, right?
"Dreams, thoughts, might be contingent on physical things, but that doesn’t mean they are themselves physical things"
Now, that you've seen the dictionary tell you you're wrong, maybe you'll change this ridiculous idea.
Due to thoughts "existing only if" a brain and neurons existing "are the case."
Admit it.
You didn't know this, now you look silly.
For me:
1. any moral action is reducible to the homeostasis of those towards whom we are acting.
2. god is not needed for homeostasis to be an objective standard for morality.
3. the universe wasn't created, therefore the homeostatic principle doesn't need god to exist to be objectively moral.
Here's the definition of home, from Oxford dictionaries.
home - the place where one lives permanently, ESPECIALLY as a member of a family or household.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/home
Even if one did not live as a member of the household or family, one could still live permanently somewhere and this would satisfy "home."
Do you agree?
If you agree, then you also agree that an entity could be real, as Con conceded to be the case already in the debate, even though it's not especially an intelligent one.
So, the qualifier "especially an intelligent one" does not negate the sun being a real entity, just like not especially being a specific member of a household or family does not negate your dwelling being your home.
"While the study in the article looks very interesting, and having the subjects multi-task was very interesting, does it say what they were thinking about as they did the tasks (pushing a button, talking, etc)."
Yes, it does, and I also linked the video with it, I guess you didn't watch it.
"Contingency doesn't determine whether or not something is physical or not."
Then we're done here, because you don't understand contingency.
If something is contingent on the physical it CANNOT EXIST WITHOUT THE PHYSICAL.
It is because of this inextricable link that constructs, though not made of matter, are contingent on the matter of neurons and brains.
No matter, no thoughts, period.
"Just because a thought is contingent on the brain, doesn't mean the thought is a physical thing"
Yes it does, because there is no thought without the physical brain.
I agree it's not made of matter, but it's physical all the same because it is a product of matter, you cannot point to a thought without a brain or neural substrates or you would have done it already.
Contingent on the physical means it can only exist if the physical exists, so it's effectively physical.
Quantum particles, gravity...come on.
"it just means it depends on the brain"
You like so many people online don't understand that contingent means CANNOT EXIST WITHOUT...it doesn't mean dependent...you're wrong again.
"I believe your last few sentences are you conceding that there indeed exists things that are not physical"
There are things that are physical and there are things that are contingent on the physical...now that you know what contingent actually means, this should make more sense to you.
"So your use of the word "contingent" is a red -herring, not relevant to whether or not something is physical"
No, your misunderstanding of the word contingent doesn't solve your problem.
When things are contingent on the physical, they are physical themselves, though not made of matter.
"The section you highlight refer to auditory and visual cues...not thoughts."
The first section I highlighted referred to multi tasking.
Multi tasking takes a series of thoughts, and with every subject, these activities were "all found a universal signature of activity."
All who were multi tasking activated the same part of the brain in the same way.
Learn by reading.
"Wow-- you are really reading something into that activity."
Yeah, like what it actually says about universal brain activity.
"I think you've painted yourself into a corner"
Yeah, it's the correct corner, where all who are correct about what they're saying go.
"where it says they are able to detect types of thoughts?"
Read about multi tasking in that study...those types of thoughts are universally indicated.
"You basically cannot provide physical dimensions for something like "thought", "idea" or "concept".
Listen, all of those things are constructs, they are merely contingent on physical things, but are not physical themselves.
If the physical things didn't exist, they would not exist.
Stop asking me about physical dimensions of constructs CONTINGENT on the physical.
"No where in that article did I find anything that hinted at science being able to tell what the content of a thought is by analyzing brainwaves."
That's not what I said, straw man maker.
I said that we can tell the TYPES of thoughts people are thinking given the areas that light up.
"Here we have eight different experiments, and all found a universal signature of activity centered in the prefrontal lobe that links perception and action. It’s the glue of cognition."
"Initially, sensory areas of the auditory and visual cortex activate to process audible or visual cues. Subsequently, areas primarily in the sensory and prefrontal cortices activate to extract the meaning of the stimulus."
You should read more.
"what color is a thought?"
Well, being that thoughts are contingent on the physical they do not emit electromagnetic radiation, thus no color.
"What is the length of a thought"
Depends on how long the neurotransmitter can sustain transmitting the signal.
"Width?"
Contingent.
"Volume?"
Being that thoughts have no air, they have no vibrating air.
"How much space does an idea take up?"
The amount of space all of its contingent components take up.
Hey, spacetimeis a physical thing, can you run your obnoxious questions about spacetime?
What color is space...length...volume?
"Science has not been able to determine the content of a thought based on brainwaves. Science at best says because of the brainwaves, this COULD BE a thougNice try. If you are so sure, perhaps you can point to the specific scientific research that proves this."
"Do you believe there are things that exist that do not have physical existence?"
I have no reason to believe that there are things that exist that do not have physical existence UNLESS they are contingent on the physical.
I have no reason to believe anything NOT CONTINGENT on the physical exists.
"For example, you have the free will to stroll across the street, but you do not have the free will to jump to the moon, because...well, that is simply not possible"
Right our free will is not unbounded.
" Who's definition of closed system are you using-- is that your own? "
You're right, I meant isolated system. My bad.
"you said it is possible for something to last forever. Can you please provide an example and/or explain how you came to this conclusion?"
I'm just saying if the universe is an open system and is not ISOLATED (my bad again) it could theoretically burn on forever as long as there are multiple universes feeding the system.
"I want you to describe for me, in physical terms, your thoughts. Here's a simple experiment to illustrate what I"m asking you. Imagine I gave you a black and white photo of the Titanic. And then I ask you, describe the picture for me. Now, instead of the picture of the titanic, i want you to have an idea or thought of the titanic."
"Now, instead of the picture of the titanic, i want you to have an idea or thought of the titanic.Describe for me in physical terms this thought."
Ok, so because the titanic is from the past and I know of it, it naturally must be in my memory, so to access the relevant facts associated with the titanic, I will need to activate my frontal lobe, and if my dopamine levels are where they need to be for me to accurately be able to communicate that memory from the frontal lobe to my language acquisition device, I can verbally indicate that I can recall images, books, and even movies I've seen that contain those relevant facts about the titanic.
This thought is a construct of the processes my brain and neurons go through with respects to that particular memory.
"But here's the deal, since isn't measuring/observing the thought itself, is it?"
Since each thought is contingent on the brain activities and neurotransmitter balance, types of thoughts exclusively associated with particular brain activity and particular neurotransmitters can be measured, and so you can accurately predict the types of thoughts someone is thinking by measuring the physical source from which the thought is an emergent construct.
"If I were to ask you to go give me the physical attributes, to observe/measure scientifically, that surfer over there, you wouldn't go to his footprints in the sand"
Well, are there any surfers that don't make footprints in the sand?
If it's the case that all surfers make footprints in the sand, then we could find a standard surfer footprint and more reasonably conclude the surfer's physical attributes from the series of footprints given the depth of each print, the incline there within, and the shape and size of the imprint from each part of the surfer's foot from their push-off while walking.
I could give you an estimate on height, weight, speed, gait, and overall body shape of the surfer that just walked or ran out to the ocean to surf from a standard of surfers' footprints and the measurement of the series of footprints in the sand.
"While science can measure brainwaves, it doesn't guarantee or prove these are your thoughts."
Well, if you have hunger thoughts, sexual thoughts, or thoughts from anxiety, there's really not much other brain activity going on than the activity exclusively associated with each of those particularly carnal functions during those exclusive thoughts.
"1. How does science measure that which is contingent on the physical?"
Well, the ideas, thoughts, and constructs that we create are not physical, but could not exist without brains/neurons, so by measuring the physical, that which is contingent on the physical can also be measured.
" Isn't the contingent still physical"
No.
If I think of a purple and orange striped mammal bird, this is not physical, it's a construct that I created with my physical brains/neurons.
"Or....are you implying that science measures (or can measure) that which is not physical?"
Science can measure brain activity, therefore indirectly thoughts.
"2. I'm curious-- why do you think that if God is to exist, it must be a physical being?"
See the debate unfold...
"Do you believe there are things that exist that do not have physical existence?"
Things either physically exist or exist contingent on the physical.
"3. Why do you believe that this Thing (God) must follow the laws of physics?"
Watch the debate unfold.
"4. Unbounded Free Will--"
We are limited by physics, but within physics we may act freely, so it's not unbounded free will, I can't read your mind.
"5. What do you mean by an "open system" and a "closed system"?"
Closed systems are not being fed energy...like the sun.
The sun will eventually burn out because it's a closed system.
The earth is an open system, because it's being fed energy from the sun.
If the universe were being fed energy from other universes, then it'd be an open system.
If not, the universe is a closed system.
"1. Do you believe that science measures/observes only the physical-- i.e. those things that have physical attributes?"
I believe that science measures the physical and that which is contingent on the physical.
Thoughts are not physical but contingent on neurons/brains which are physical.
"2. When you speak of "God", are you speaking of an entity/being that has a physical existence (i.e. physical attributes that can observed via the scientific method)?"
You got it buddy...I'm what you might call a science guy, check my tattoo avatar.
"3.. When you speak of "God", would you consider "God" as a being that must follow the rules of logic? In other words, do you perceive this God (or the theist's View of God) as someone that can even do the illogical, such as make a square circle?"
Why does it have to be someone?
It's an existence that follows the laws of physics.
It can do everything within its nature of physics.
"4. Do you believe in Free Will?"
Yes, but it's not unbounded will.
"I'm simply asking, do you believe in free will-- i.e. do you have the ability to choose what you think, say, do, type (even on a debate website)?"
Yeah, I think there's enough evidence to show that we have some kind of free will.
"One last question, I promise...well, for now, anyway:"
Uh huh.
"5. Do you believe that physical/material things can last indefinitely (i.e. forever)?"
In a closed system no, in an open system yes.
"Please keep in mind the distinction between "very long time" and "forever."
Yeah, to me if you outlast the heat death of the universe, then you can say you lasted forever.
"Forever means without end-- no beginning, no end."
Ehhh.
Couldn't something have a beginning, but then last FOREVER?
This is great. Someone who enjoys harassing one debater because they are in such envy of them, posts another comment to a debate they wish they'd thought of.
Look.
You're running a circular argument, almost an argument tautology, that is just saying:
P1 God is the truth.
C1 If you claim truth, then you claim god.
The problem is that no one's buying that god is truth, i.e. your P1 in your circular argument is not automatically made sound by adding truth to the definition of god in the debate.
Neither debater indicated god is truth, so saying that if we accept truth or agree with truth then we necessarily accept god's existence or agree with god's existence is irrelevant.
"Are you asking if God can make such device outside this known physical universe or within this known physical universe?"
Within.
"God, being all powerful....wouldn't it be possible for an all-powerful being to make themselves susceptible to such laws"
When this all powerful being makes themselves susceptible to such laws do they relinquish their power to infinitely remain not susceptible to anything.?
Explain how that works.
Yes, well done, by simply indicating which sources were used and how they were effectively used makes a source point sufficient up against no sources. Thank you very much for the vote, and thanks Virt for creating a community where newer voters can improve and you're willing to support them on their way.
That's ok, put up another vote with the correct source points allocations, the rest of the rfd is fine
Wow that was a very well balanced RFD...thanks
Come on people now, let's get some votin' goin' on.
Can you provide a definition for the word "theist" and the word "god?"
Thanks for fixing it.
If you put a reasonable definition of witch hunt up, I will accept this.
I will be voting on this, I'm reviewing it.
It's a false dichotomy, you should change the resolution.
Hahahah thank you for appreciating my hyrdrogen humor, that was my favorite part of the debate as well, and you did quite an excellent job explaining exactly why Pro should win this thing, even if the definitions are undesirable/unfair and even if Pro is kind of a gigantic dick, which in fairness, I kind of am. Thanks for the honest vote, and I think you may have a better vote than Virt...just sayin'...Virt's vote's good too.
Thanks for the vote, you sufficiently explained your argument points and how it related to the resolution. Nice work.
This is an epic battle of explanatory power!
Yes. We both agreed without human opinion and my case was objective morality exists sans god. Please be fair here, I know you put up good votes, please be fair.
Don't worry, there will be a voter who thinks your interpretation of the resolution is enough to afford you argument points, even though you'll precisely be arguing against the resolution as Pro.
You argued for the resolution as Con, why not argue against the resolution as Pro?
Great voters here.
I got the concession I wanted so whatevs.
"No, I can't show you a thought that is not dependent on the physical."
Thank you.
So anytime you are dealing with thoughts you must necessarily be dealing with something physical, is that right?
"the fact that I can't show you a thought that is not contingent on the physical doesn't prove that a thought is physical."
This may prove we're done here.
That's exactly what it shows man.
No physical thing, no thought.
" "Show me a person that is not contingent on air."
Right, but air doesn't produce people.
But if I said show me a person that is not contingent on cells, you'd have to admit that in order to deal with a human, you will have to deal with cells right?
"I agree totally that thoughts, ideas, dreams are dependent (contingent) on the physical."
I mean that's enough for me, we're good.
And I agree that thoughts are not the same substance as brains and neurons, I'm fine with that.
Ok, well it's all kind of irrelevant to the resolution, and yes while constructs are contingent on the physical they are not made of the same material, i.e. not made of matter, I'll agree, but they are still physical because, you cannot provide an example of a thought WITHOUT its contingency matter.
Can you show that please?
"Contingent means to be dependent on. Nothing more."
contingent on/upon - occurring or existing only if (certain circumstances) are the case.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/contingent
You knew that though, right?
"Dreams, thoughts, might be contingent on physical things, but that doesn’t mean they are themselves physical things"
Now, that you've seen the dictionary tell you you're wrong, maybe you'll change this ridiculous idea.
Due to thoughts "existing only if" a brain and neurons existing "are the case."
Admit it.
You didn't know this, now you look silly.
Can't say I agree, but excellent RFD
For me:
1. any moral action is reducible to the homeostasis of those towards whom we are acting.
2. god is not needed for homeostasis to be an objective standard for morality.
3. the universe wasn't created, therefore the homeostatic principle doesn't need god to exist to be objectively moral.
You have to determine, from your reading of the debate, what the main arguments relevant to the resolution are, then justify awarding points for each.
Do you agree that the sun is a real entity, a deity, and an existence/being?
Ok.
Here's the definition of home, from Oxford dictionaries.
home - the place where one lives permanently, ESPECIALLY as a member of a family or household.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/home
Even if one did not live as a member of the household or family, one could still live permanently somewhere and this would satisfy "home."
Do you agree?
If you agree, then you also agree that an entity could be real, as Con conceded to be the case already in the debate, even though it's not especially an intelligent one.
So, the qualifier "especially an intelligent one" does not negate the sun being a real entity, just like not especially being a specific member of a household or family does not negate your dwelling being your home.
What am I missing here that the sun does not satisfy?
god - a superhuman BEING worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/god
being - A REAL or imaginary living creature or ENTITY.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/being
entity - a thing with distinct and independent existence....existence; being.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/entity
Um, ok, but you realize that the sun satisfies "real entity" just as much as it satisfies, "existence" right?
Is the sun "A real entity?"
That's in the definition you said should be there.
So if it were there, the sun would still satisfy it, no?
Eh...inconsequential.
A real entity, an existence...who's counting, right?
"While the study in the article looks very interesting, and having the subjects multi-task was very interesting, does it say what they were thinking about as they did the tasks (pushing a button, talking, etc)."
Yes, it does, and I also linked the video with it, I guess you didn't watch it.
"Contingency doesn't determine whether or not something is physical or not."
Then we're done here, because you don't understand contingency.
If something is contingent on the physical it CANNOT EXIST WITHOUT THE PHYSICAL.
It is because of this inextricable link that constructs, though not made of matter, are contingent on the matter of neurons and brains.
No matter, no thoughts, period.
"Just because a thought is contingent on the brain, doesn't mean the thought is a physical thing"
Yes it does, because there is no thought without the physical brain.
I agree it's not made of matter, but it's physical all the same because it is a product of matter, you cannot point to a thought without a brain or neural substrates or you would have done it already.
Contingent on the physical means it can only exist if the physical exists, so it's effectively physical.
Quantum particles, gravity...come on.
"it just means it depends on the brain"
You like so many people online don't understand that contingent means CANNOT EXIST WITHOUT...it doesn't mean dependent...you're wrong again.
"I believe your last few sentences are you conceding that there indeed exists things that are not physical"
There are things that are physical and there are things that are contingent on the physical...now that you know what contingent actually means, this should make more sense to you.
"So your use of the word "contingent" is a red -herring, not relevant to whether or not something is physical"
No, your misunderstanding of the word contingent doesn't solve your problem.
When things are contingent on the physical, they are physical themselves, though not made of matter.
"The section you highlight refer to auditory and visual cues...not thoughts."
The first section I highlighted referred to multi tasking.
Multi tasking takes a series of thoughts, and with every subject, these activities were "all found a universal signature of activity."
All who were multi tasking activated the same part of the brain in the same way.
Learn by reading.
"Wow-- you are really reading something into that activity."
Yeah, like what it actually says about universal brain activity.
"I think you've painted yourself into a corner"
Yeah, it's the correct corner, where all who are correct about what they're saying go.
"where it says they are able to detect types of thoughts?"
Read about multi tasking in that study...those types of thoughts are universally indicated.
"You basically cannot provide physical dimensions for something like "thought", "idea" or "concept".
Listen, all of those things are constructs, they are merely contingent on physical things, but are not physical themselves.
If the physical things didn't exist, they would not exist.
Stop asking me about physical dimensions of constructs CONTINGENT on the physical.
"No where in that article did I find anything that hinted at science being able to tell what the content of a thought is by analyzing brainwaves."
That's not what I said, straw man maker.
I said that we can tell the TYPES of thoughts people are thinking given the areas that light up.
"Here we have eight different experiments, and all found a universal signature of activity centered in the prefrontal lobe that links perception and action. It’s the glue of cognition."
"Initially, sensory areas of the auditory and visual cortex activate to process audible or visual cues. Subsequently, areas primarily in the sensory and prefrontal cortices activate to extract the meaning of the stimulus."
You should read more.
"what color is a thought?"
Well, being that thoughts are contingent on the physical they do not emit electromagnetic radiation, thus no color.
"What is the length of a thought"
Depends on how long the neurotransmitter can sustain transmitting the signal.
"Width?"
Contingent.
"Volume?"
Being that thoughts have no air, they have no vibrating air.
"How much space does an idea take up?"
The amount of space all of its contingent components take up.
Hey, spacetimeis a physical thing, can you run your obnoxious questions about spacetime?
What color is space...length...volume?
"Science has not been able to determine the content of a thought based on brainwaves. Science at best says because of the brainwaves, this COULD BE a thougNice try. If you are so sure, perhaps you can point to the specific scientific research that proves this."
https://news.berkeley.edu/2018/01/17/recording-a-thoughts-fleeting-trip-through-the-brain/
and
https://youtu.be/sU8SZwNK9QE
"Contingency is irrelevant to my question. I’m simply asking if you believe if there are things that exist that do not have physical existence."
Ok, then no, all things that exist in the universe are spatiotemporal and physical, including contingent constructs.
Well, god doesn't do that at all.
God gives you life sir.
Um, ok , I'll bite, what did you say that turned out to be just like it?
when I said dopamine, I should have said glutamate, I'm not a fucking neurologist, but that was to be my point.
"Do you believe there are things that exist that do not have physical existence?"
I have no reason to believe that there are things that exist that do not have physical existence UNLESS they are contingent on the physical.
I have no reason to believe anything NOT CONTINGENT on the physical exists.
"For example, you have the free will to stroll across the street, but you do not have the free will to jump to the moon, because...well, that is simply not possible"
Right our free will is not unbounded.
" Who's definition of closed system are you using-- is that your own? "
You're right, I meant isolated system. My bad.
"you said it is possible for something to last forever. Can you please provide an example and/or explain how you came to this conclusion?"
I'm just saying if the universe is an open system and is not ISOLATED (my bad again) it could theoretically burn on forever as long as there are multiple universes feeding the system.
"I want you to describe for me, in physical terms, your thoughts. Here's a simple experiment to illustrate what I"m asking you. Imagine I gave you a black and white photo of the Titanic. And then I ask you, describe the picture for me. Now, instead of the picture of the titanic, i want you to have an idea or thought of the titanic."
"Now, instead of the picture of the titanic, i want you to have an idea or thought of the titanic.Describe for me in physical terms this thought."
Ok, so because the titanic is from the past and I know of it, it naturally must be in my memory, so to access the relevant facts associated with the titanic, I will need to activate my frontal lobe, and if my dopamine levels are where they need to be for me to accurately be able to communicate that memory from the frontal lobe to my language acquisition device, I can verbally indicate that I can recall images, books, and even movies I've seen that contain those relevant facts about the titanic.
This thought is a construct of the processes my brain and neurons go through with respects to that particular memory.
"But here's the deal, since isn't measuring/observing the thought itself, is it?"
Since each thought is contingent on the brain activities and neurotransmitter balance, types of thoughts exclusively associated with particular brain activity and particular neurotransmitters can be measured, and so you can accurately predict the types of thoughts someone is thinking by measuring the physical source from which the thought is an emergent construct.
"If I were to ask you to go give me the physical attributes, to observe/measure scientifically, that surfer over there, you wouldn't go to his footprints in the sand"
Well, are there any surfers that don't make footprints in the sand?
If it's the case that all surfers make footprints in the sand, then we could find a standard surfer footprint and more reasonably conclude the surfer's physical attributes from the series of footprints given the depth of each print, the incline there within, and the shape and size of the imprint from each part of the surfer's foot from their push-off while walking.
I could give you an estimate on height, weight, speed, gait, and overall body shape of the surfer that just walked or ran out to the ocean to surf from a standard of surfers' footprints and the measurement of the series of footprints in the sand.
"While science can measure brainwaves, it doesn't guarantee or prove these are your thoughts."
Well, if you have hunger thoughts, sexual thoughts, or thoughts from anxiety, there's really not much other brain activity going on than the activity exclusively associated with each of those particularly carnal functions during those exclusive thoughts.
Yes, in this debate, god follows logic.
"1. How does science measure that which is contingent on the physical?"
Well, the ideas, thoughts, and constructs that we create are not physical, but could not exist without brains/neurons, so by measuring the physical, that which is contingent on the physical can also be measured.
" Isn't the contingent still physical"
No.
If I think of a purple and orange striped mammal bird, this is not physical, it's a construct that I created with my physical brains/neurons.
"Or....are you implying that science measures (or can measure) that which is not physical?"
Science can measure brain activity, therefore indirectly thoughts.
"2. I'm curious-- why do you think that if God is to exist, it must be a physical being?"
See the debate unfold...
"Do you believe there are things that exist that do not have physical existence?"
Things either physically exist or exist contingent on the physical.
"3. Why do you believe that this Thing (God) must follow the laws of physics?"
Watch the debate unfold.
"4. Unbounded Free Will--"
We are limited by physics, but within physics we may act freely, so it's not unbounded free will, I can't read your mind.
"5. What do you mean by an "open system" and a "closed system"?"
Closed systems are not being fed energy...like the sun.
The sun will eventually burn out because it's a closed system.
The earth is an open system, because it's being fed energy from the sun.
If the universe were being fed energy from other universes, then it'd be an open system.
If not, the universe is a closed system.
"1. Do you believe that science measures/observes only the physical-- i.e. those things that have physical attributes?"
I believe that science measures the physical and that which is contingent on the physical.
Thoughts are not physical but contingent on neurons/brains which are physical.
"2. When you speak of "God", are you speaking of an entity/being that has a physical existence (i.e. physical attributes that can observed via the scientific method)?"
You got it buddy...I'm what you might call a science guy, check my tattoo avatar.
"3.. When you speak of "God", would you consider "God" as a being that must follow the rules of logic? In other words, do you perceive this God (or the theist's View of God) as someone that can even do the illogical, such as make a square circle?"
Why does it have to be someone?
It's an existence that follows the laws of physics.
It can do everything within its nature of physics.
"4. Do you believe in Free Will?"
Yes, but it's not unbounded will.
"I'm simply asking, do you believe in free will-- i.e. do you have the ability to choose what you think, say, do, type (even on a debate website)?"
Yeah, I think there's enough evidence to show that we have some kind of free will.
"One last question, I promise...well, for now, anyway:"
Uh huh.
"5. Do you believe that physical/material things can last indefinitely (i.e. forever)?"
In a closed system no, in an open system yes.
"Please keep in mind the distinction between "very long time" and "forever."
Yeah, to me if you outlast the heat death of the universe, then you can say you lasted forever.
"Forever means without end-- no beginning, no end."
Ehhh.
Couldn't something have a beginning, but then last FOREVER?
This is great. Someone who enjoys harassing one debater because they are in such envy of them, posts another comment to a debate they wish they'd thought of.
You know you're arguing against god, right?
I meant see the debate as it unfolds...lol
My answer to all of your questions is the same...see the debate.
Keep on rollin'
"What is gravity"
An attractive force caused by mass distorting space.
"2) What is air resistance?"
Drag forces acting opposite to oncoming flow velocity.
Your response to your premise being flawed is:
"you are wrong."
Noted.
Come all ye unfaithful...and debate against god.
Look.
You're running a circular argument, almost an argument tautology, that is just saying:
P1 God is the truth.
C1 If you claim truth, then you claim god.
The problem is that no one's buying that god is truth, i.e. your P1 in your circular argument is not automatically made sound by adding truth to the definition of god in the debate.
Neither debater indicated god is truth, so saying that if we accept truth or agree with truth then we necessarily accept god's existence or agree with god's existence is irrelevant.
Your P1 is rejected sir.
"Are you asking if God can make such device outside this known physical universe or within this known physical universe?"
Within.
"God, being all powerful....wouldn't it be possible for an all-powerful being to make themselves susceptible to such laws"
When this all powerful being makes themselves susceptible to such laws do they relinquish their power to infinitely remain not susceptible to anything.?
Explain how that works.