you have other means to prove the existence of Ryan Remolds. And the aspect of possibilities is noy the the point of the debate. The whole point of requesting tat god show themselves is based on the abilities claimed by this entity. They should be able to do so. But again we are not validating possibilities,
I was not able to provide a response to the last comment from the pro. But here is what was thinking
1. Math
This means that every book that has ever been written already exists encoded in math somewhere, and in fact every book that could possibly ever be written already exists in math
o This makes no sense – jumping to conclusion
if we use numbers as code for particles and their locations, then you could theoretically say that there is an exact copy of our universe encoded in math, but there are even more things in math, so that is why math cannot be contained just within our universe.
o Assumption – validate your claim
There is also a lot of evidence showing that math has a designer. A great example of this is the Mandelbrot Set. The equation looks like this:
z=z(squared) + c
o where’s the proof – again another assumption
Basic common sense would say that someone designed this, but no human designed it. Like we said:
• Math only exists in the mind so its origin must also be a mind.
• Math does not exists – it is a concept of reality. It describes things nothing more. Your are making huge assumptions here – prove your statement
• Math contains infinite information, so this mind must be all knowing.
• Again another assumption and do not see the correlation – how do you know this
• Math does not contain information – it provides the means to understand things with concrete modeling of those things
• Math controls the universe and must also be all powerful.
• And the proof to this claim
• Math is beyond and outside of our natural world, so this mind must be supernatural.
• This is one huge assumption – this is this way so that must be the explanation
• NEED PROOF OF THESE CLAIMS
And right here, we have just described God.
• Not looking for a description – which is completely false – require valid / verifiable evidence
The Principle of Causality
• Will not accept philosophical principles as proof
• The principle of causality says that everything that has a beginning must have a cause.
• Provide clarity of this statement. What’s it’s purpose
• You can't get something from nothing.
• Nobody ever said this
• Now science and logic has proven that the Universe does have a beginning.
• It does not say that – it indicates that the point at which we can say things is observable is the big bang. We indicate time as a start here – just so that we have a point of reference. There is no knowledge of what was there before and is why the scientist say “WE DON”T KNOW”
• I mean it's not proof. But its more logical than saying, "This hump of matter and energy, that doesn't contain a speck of life in it, evolved to become something so complex, that we don't even understand or comprehend it."
• Because we don’t understand does not make it invalid. And your conclusion is incorrect. You should take some biology and evolutionary science and learn what the experts understand. It is clear that chemical reactions do occur and that complex structures can result because of it. Because you don’t understand how or why does not mean it did not happen – just that you do not know why it happened.
Intelligent minds have to have an intelligent creator.
This is not proof – it’s a claim. Your statements in no way validate this massive assumption.
I'll make sure the next one is more clear on how the debate will run
The concept of Infinite Regress was detailed as a basis for the existence of a god. This in no way validates the existance of a god. Just the asumption that some thing depends on a predecessor. Which is a huge assumption. Atheiest like to use this as a means to decalre validity in their thinking. It doesn't. It in general is a phlisophical statement and I want to have concrete explanations. Something everyone can understand and validate for themeselves. I put it in your hand and you can see it.
Didn't forfeit the last one - I was not checking the time and ran out - it was not an explicit forfeit - it was one because of the time limits
you have other means to prove the existence of Ryan Remolds. And the aspect of possibilities is noy the the point of the debate. The whole point of requesting tat god show themselves is based on the abilities claimed by this entity. They should be able to do so. But again we are not validating possibilities,
I was not able to provide a response to the last comment from the pro. But here is what was thinking
1. Math
This means that every book that has ever been written already exists encoded in math somewhere, and in fact every book that could possibly ever be written already exists in math
o This makes no sense – jumping to conclusion
if we use numbers as code for particles and their locations, then you could theoretically say that there is an exact copy of our universe encoded in math, but there are even more things in math, so that is why math cannot be contained just within our universe.
o Assumption – validate your claim
There is also a lot of evidence showing that math has a designer. A great example of this is the Mandelbrot Set. The equation looks like this:
z=z(squared) + c
o where’s the proof – again another assumption
Basic common sense would say that someone designed this, but no human designed it. Like we said:
• Math only exists in the mind so its origin must also be a mind.
• Math does not exists – it is a concept of reality. It describes things nothing more. Your are making huge assumptions here – prove your statement
• Math contains infinite information, so this mind must be all knowing.
• Again another assumption and do not see the correlation – how do you know this
• Math does not contain information – it provides the means to understand things with concrete modeling of those things
• Math controls the universe and must also be all powerful.
• And the proof to this claim
• Math is beyond and outside of our natural world, so this mind must be supernatural.
• This is one huge assumption – this is this way so that must be the explanation
• NEED PROOF OF THESE CLAIMS
And right here, we have just described God.
• Not looking for a description – which is completely false – require valid / verifiable evidence
The Principle of Causality
• Will not accept philosophical principles as proof
• The principle of causality says that everything that has a beginning must have a cause.
• Provide clarity of this statement. What’s it’s purpose
• You can't get something from nothing.
• Nobody ever said this
• Now science and logic has proven that the Universe does have a beginning.
• It does not say that – it indicates that the point at which we can say things is observable is the big bang. We indicate time as a start here – just so that we have a point of reference. There is no knowledge of what was there before and is why the scientist say “WE DON”T KNOW”
• I mean it's not proof. But its more logical than saying, "This hump of matter and energy, that doesn't contain a speck of life in it, evolved to become something so complex, that we don't even understand or comprehend it."
• Because we don’t understand does not make it invalid. And your conclusion is incorrect. You should take some biology and evolutionary science and learn what the experts understand. It is clear that chemical reactions do occur and that complex structures can result because of it. Because you don’t understand how or why does not mean it did not happen – just that you do not know why it happened.
Intelligent minds have to have an intelligent creator.
This is not proof – it’s a claim. Your statements in no way validate this massive assumption.
I'll make sure the next one is more clear on how the debate will run
The concept of Infinite Regress was detailed as a basis for the existence of a god. This in no way validates the existance of a god. Just the asumption that some thing depends on a predecessor. Which is a huge assumption. Atheiest like to use this as a means to decalre validity in their thinking. It doesn't. It in general is a phlisophical statement and I want to have concrete explanations. Something everyone can understand and validate for themeselves. I put it in your hand and you can see it.