I can prove that to be false. According to Einstein, time exists but it is a part of the universe.
Therefore, the amount of spacetime that the earth covers is:
- 1,083,206,916,846 cubic kilometers
-4.3 billion years
If we are strictly applying regular scientific methods, then the earth is at least (4.3 x billion x insane number) CkY (cubic kilometer years) XD
Your resolution only works for particles, even Undefeatable understood that your nonexistent "time" is only nonexistent to particles smaller than atoms
Your reference to Einstein seemed wrong to me. Time was not disproved, just claimed to be a part of the universe like space. It's called spacetime.
You could literally say just the same way:
Since a line is made out of an infinite amount of points with no extension, therefore length does not exist.
This is ridiculous. I could even be 100% wrong and easilly win the debate at this point. He undermines the authority of the Bible and validates science.
Thank you for teaching me how to possibly defeat you. This is from your description.
"""
My Rules of Debating:
- Think of three good reasons why you are correct before accepting
- Hold onto as many ideas as possible
- Thoroughly crack opponent's exact stance, through clarification and comparison
- Evaluate impacts of each idea
- Never give up
- Always spell check before posting
"""
I did not say that illogical things cannot exist - Pro claimed that such a thing cannot exist.
Pro's argument is internally contradictory - premise1 and premise2 cannot be true at the same time. Therefore your "argument" point cannot be based on that.
Your entire reason for voting Pro is that you did not understand what we said. You must explain why the arguments from either side is better than the other.
1. Machines can impossibly extract more energy from human brains than it costs to keep them alive
2. In fact such a simulation would be impossible to escape - even if you knew about it your brain is connected to the virtual body, not the real one
3. There is no need for adding any layer of deception - humans do not know about the real world and thus cannot know they live in a simulation
However, by "universe" I mean everything that exists. Everything did not exist before everything was created. If God created the earth from existing material one cannot justify YEC:
"believe the earth was created from existing matter, but still not accept the perfect scientific explanation for said process." - that would be stupidity.
By saying "Christianity is the correct religion" I positively affirmed the absolute religious authority of the Bible. Who wrote it is not important when we assume it to be correct and valid. But since you insist, I can explain:
"The Bible is the definitive written text containing everything God wants all humans to know"
There is no "errors" in the Bible, because there is no "better version" to compare it to. The difference between views is not on its validity but its meaning.
We assume the Bible is a message from God to humans, and we test different interpretations of it, for example YEC.
If I wrote: "Hitler was a monster" - is that an "error"?
Human history is at maximum 10.000 years old. YEC states that the creation of the universe took 6 days. Therefore the universe is 10.000 years + 6 days old.
Fruit_inspector: "Do you believe in an inspired and inerrant text?"
This has nothing to do with the debate - we debate based on the Bible annyways, so the authority of the Bible is irrelevant for this debate.
But yes, the Bible is the word of God to humans, and reading it is to listen to God - afterall "Christianity is the correct religion".
Is this a trick question? Obviously killing is wrong, but if an armed group is attacked by the military then obviously they have a right to defend themselves.
You do not specify what exactly must be proven. What if oppression is immoral, would that justify a revolution? What about the Nazzies?
I actually agree with you on the posibility that sometime in the future, an AI could be structured like the brain. The only problem I have with your claim is that a brain is not thinking, rather it is organising information - the mind is thinking. In other words, an AI could simulate a brain, but if the mind does not exist, neither humans nor machines can think. When it comes to whether or not machines can have a mind, it is not up for debate as it would be a religious or pseudoscientifical claim.
Nobody gives a vote until you have read the entire argument.
Please
I am not even trying until my last argument, and there I prove that Pros argument is internally contradictory.
I do not want to lose because only the first arguments are read.
At least read the last argument?
Or rather, the experiments that prove my point has already happened.
I am sorry, but the experiments that support your case never happened.
I can prove that to be false. According to Einstein, time exists but it is a part of the universe.
Therefore, the amount of spacetime that the earth covers is:
- 1,083,206,916,846 cubic kilometers
-4.3 billion years
If we are strictly applying regular scientific methods, then the earth is at least (4.3 x billion x insane number) CkY (cubic kilometer years) XD
Your resolution only works for particles, even Undefeatable understood that your nonexistent "time" is only nonexistent to particles smaller than atoms
Maybe I would have been a better match for you. I have some understanding of your sneaky tactics.
You proved that "time" does not exist objectively. Yet you said humans experience it. Time exists - as a social construct.
And you yourself admitted that social constructs are applicable to human problems.
Therefore, time is worthy of being proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" in legal terms.
Your reference to Einstein seemed wrong to me. Time was not disproved, just claimed to be a part of the universe like space. It's called spacetime.
You could literally say just the same way:
Since a line is made out of an infinite amount of points with no extension, therefore length does not exist.
Time does not exist. What a theory. Maybe not for a photon XD
This is ridiculous. I could even be 100% wrong and easilly win the debate at this point. He undermines the authority of the Bible and validates science.
Thank you for teaching me how to possibly defeat you. This is from your description.
"""
My Rules of Debating:
- Think of three good reasons why you are correct before accepting
- Hold onto as many ideas as possible
- Thoroughly crack opponent's exact stance, through clarification and comparison
- Evaluate impacts of each idea
- Never give up
- Always spell check before posting
"""
Undefeatable is talented, but not Undefeatable.
He definitely had an easier time writing his arguments.
Should I be proud if I won this debate? Do I even have a chance?
In fact, I did that to him.
There has been a mistake
I am supposed to be Con
I did not say that illogical things cannot exist - Pro claimed that such a thing cannot exist.
Pro's argument is internally contradictory - premise1 and premise2 cannot be true at the same time. Therefore your "argument" point cannot be based on that.
Your entire reason for voting Pro is that you did not understand what we said. You must explain why the arguments from either side is better than the other.
They are willing to pay the price - EVEN with the risk of losing what little they have.
What do you think about these statements:
1. Machines can impossibly extract more energy from human brains than it costs to keep them alive
2. In fact such a simulation would be impossible to escape - even if you knew about it your brain is connected to the virtual body, not the real one
3. There is no need for adding any layer of deception - humans do not know about the real world and thus cannot know they live in a simulation
It would be interesting to hear your thoughts.
"The citizens don't care either way"
Why do revolutions happen, then? The thing is, they DO care - they ARE willing to pay the price for liberty - even if the price is bloodshed.
I honestly expected a detailed breakdown of the arguments.
You forget that I successfully and entirely won my case regarding policy - while I admitted in the beginning that Trump was a terrible person.
Therefore, as far as actually debating goes, I clearly won.
So you think.
That is a theological dispute.
However, by "universe" I mean everything that exists. Everything did not exist before everything was created. If God created the earth from existing material one cannot justify YEC:
"believe the earth was created from existing matter, but still not accept the perfect scientific explanation for said process." - that would be stupidity.
I do not intend, in any way, to discredit the Bible or its validity. We discuss interpretations, not the Bible itself.
By saying "Christianity is the correct religion" I positively affirmed the absolute religious authority of the Bible. Who wrote it is not important when we assume it to be correct and valid. But since you insist, I can explain:
"The Bible is the definitive written text containing everything God wants all humans to know"
There is no "errors" in the Bible, because there is no "better version" to compare it to. The difference between views is not on its validity but its meaning.
We assume the Bible is a message from God to humans, and we test different interpretations of it, for example YEC.
If I wrote: "Hitler was a monster" - is that an "error"?
Human history is at maximum 10.000 years old. YEC states that the creation of the universe took 6 days. Therefore the universe is 10.000 years + 6 days old.
Fruit_inspector: "Do you believe in an inspired and inerrant text?"
This has nothing to do with the debate - we debate based on the Bible annyways, so the authority of the Bible is irrelevant for this debate.
But yes, the Bible is the word of God to humans, and reading it is to listen to God - afterall "Christianity is the correct religion".
As Christianity is the correct religion, the Bible is the word of God.
This debate is about what that means.
If somebody wants to say that the Bible is a scientific article, they can argue for that - using the text in the Bible.
I stated that "Christianity is the correct religion" - Thus Jesus died on the cross to save humanity.
So there are not a rule #8543904835?
#74???
What about # 8543904835
What is the "conduct" point then?
I have revoted.
Sorry, this was my first vote. I am not used to voting.
It seems like seldoria neither read the whole debate nor understood what we said.
Could you remove the vote? We would also be happy if you left a reasonable vote instead of the bad one present now.
You are welcome.
Is this a trick question? Obviously killing is wrong, but if an armed group is attacked by the military then obviously they have a right to defend themselves.
You do not specify what exactly must be proven. What if oppression is immoral, would that justify a revolution? What about the Nazzies?
Thank you for this debate - it was a nice experience.
" I should probably put down a definition of veganism so my opponent will be confused. "
Why do you want to confuse me XD
I actually agree with you on the posibility that sometime in the future, an AI could be structured like the brain. The only problem I have with your claim is that a brain is not thinking, rather it is organising information - the mind is thinking. In other words, an AI could simulate a brain, but if the mind does not exist, neither humans nor machines can think. When it comes to whether or not machines can have a mind, it is not up for debate as it would be a religious or pseudoscientifical claim.
Yes.
Correct. I have no reason to doubt my own existence. Therefore, "I" exist. If I did not exist I could not debate you.
Ok - tell me now how you prove your own existence.
Yes
If you do not believe that statement, one cannot prove ones own existance.
Thank you too.
I have learned a thing or two from you this debate.
Buddhism is a non-theistic Religion. It therefore doesn't require religious faith because it doesn't posit a god's existence. This is a mute point.
COULD YOU NOT HAVE TOLD THAT EARLIER? YOU USE "RELIGIOUS FAITH" AND THEISM INTERCHANGIABLY.
Well then I assume atheism is not religious the same way Buddhism is not religious. This is definately a fallacy
I want to point out that no actual burst of rage happened during my last argument.
I just achieved the most significant writing mistake in history:
"The Paris agreement could perhaps turn out to like the Muchen treaty made with Adolph Hitler"
I will never recover my pride after this XD
Oh, it's you.
I don't know
Thank you.
Nobody gives a vote until you have read the entire argument.
Please
I am not even trying until my last argument, and there I prove that Pros argument is internally contradictory.
I do not want to lose because only the first arguments are read.
At least read the last argument?
Thanks as well.
Sorry for the criticism I must give in my final verdict, you gave me no choice :(