But didn't I say in my A2 that I would reinvent it so good could exist without evil? I then showed how good can exist without evil in my A3. I don't want you to change your vote. I don't really care, but yeah. Con didn't prove evil to exist. He only proved evil to exist if you already agree that burning pandas is bad. We may all subjectively agree it's bad, but no one has ever proven it's bad in an objective manner. I think many readers will bring in way too many presuppositions within this debate, such as subjectively agreeing with con that burning pandas is morally wrong, im a moral realist in a sense and i certainly didnt buy any of cons arguments to his perception of morality being objective.
I believe I did address the gratuitous evil argument. If you cannot show evil exists, how can you define what is "unnecessary" evil in the first place? Thank you for your vote nonetheless. Most people don't even do that much, it seems. I believe my A3 in round 1 should have shown why I think good exists (or can metaphysically exist) without evil necessarily existing, even with an omnipotent God.
I'm not the most knowledgeable when it comes to politics, especially things to do with the structure of the US government and law, but I'll try and put a vote on this one. It would be a shame for so much effort to feel like it went unappreciated from both parties.
I don't mind debating you. I tend to only put the 1501 limit to stop the most amount of trolls from accepting as possible. I'll send you a private request.
I'm not too busy, more so too unmotivated. I believe you deserve the win simply for putting so much effort into your argument. It would be unfair to delete it. Potentially, I'll regain some desire to debate the topic in the future, so I won't forfeit just yet.
why are you trying to throw shade that i don't respect descriptions, like you're not 10x the ego debater as i? debate me on your virtual reality bullshit and i will destroy it simply for your disrespect and hubris to the greatest mind ever lived for your nonsense.
Physicalism is the metaphyiscal theory that ultimately everything is physical. Both string theory and field theory are part of physicalism. Do you want to debate it or nah? most Gods can be ruled out in physicalism except pantheist conceptions. Although if it makes you feel better i wont argue for a pantheist god at all. Put all this in the description.
Didn't I say I would argue for physicalism, rationalmadman? We can plaster it all over the description. If you think that's rigged, then I don't know what to say to you. You're simply in denial in case your philosophy is proven absurd. I would enjoy hearing about your 5D chess philosophy, which in your own words is "a genius way of comprehending the world and will let you comprehend the world in ways religions and other philosophies could not do." You also claim it will blow my mind, especially if I'm on psychedelics. I'm quite skeptical of these claims, and would enjoy to see you prove me wrong. If it were a truly revolutionary philosophy you shouldn't have to be scared about a poor resolution or the unlikelihood of it. All you're telling me is that you know other competing theories are better but this one "sounds cool and makes me feel unique and special to believe"
Its also funny to note that your entire Discretionary rules are based upon the stipulative definition fallacy. Meaning the entire framework of your argument is based on illogical nonsense.
Am I really being told by the most openly bad-faith debater on the site that he's scared of my semantics games? I'm unsure what semantics games can be pulled on a simulated universe debate. The fact that you're not even opening the debate due to fear of a lack of votes shows where your priorities are. It's obviously not to challenge your own beliefs. All i see is you making excuses.
"all the top 10 debaters are scared to debate me" - RM
I wouldn't even have to appeal to Occam's razor to beat your simulated universe theory. We know physicalism has checked all its ontological commitments and is possible. We don't know if consciousness can even exist in non bio life (machines). Even if physicalism possessed more ontological commitments than a simulated universe theory (it doesnt). It still has less unknowns.
I wonder how you can overcome the issue of information. If you claim we're all in a simulation, i cant imagine what type of machine they're using to simulate all our brains and experiences. 1 single brain stores 2.5 petabytes of information. That is simply just ones memory which is far weaker than our processing speed. Which can do within 1 second what takes a computer 40 minutes to do. Now on top of this add all the trillions of neurons and cells of every living being being simulated at once. Then also add in simulations within simulations. I honestly have no idea how the machine doesn't simply blow up. How much storage capacity do they have. If they have this storage capacity it cannot be limitless can it? so when we make a new universe inside a universe where is the more storage coming from? it should all be on one hardrive and anything on its own hardrive is an illusion.
https://neurotray.com/how-many-calculations-per-second-can-the-human-brain-do/
All the simulation theory does is regress the problem. If we're not base reality, we could be made within a simulation. This problem keeps going on and on to the point where you have so many ontological commitments its probably going to be the least likely metaphysical reality from an Occam's razors perspective - simply because of this.
-
At a certain point some reality must be real, no?
I think its hard to reconcile the conscious experience of certain dimensions with simulations. You also possess a lot of ontological commitments i would probably wager are unnecessary to a more simpler explanation.
I get the sense anyone would struggle to rebut RM in this debate, not because his argument is particularly strong - but Simply through his overwhelming volume which makes it impossible to respond to everything he is saying.
With that being said, I don't believe I proved reincarnation to happen in this debate. I think I demonstrated it to be very likely. A topic of this brevity would have to include lots of other ideas of mine to be incorporated. Maybe I'll open something similar in the future, but do it much stronger and less lazily.
No, not at all. My arguments weren't weak enough to warrant a forfeit. I simply mean dropped, as in continuing on with future arguments. I lose interest rather fast if I think a debate has lost all its productive value.
You shouldn't of quit! i thought you could of won this debate. In fact, i think you did beat me. My last round was grasping at straws, i'm surprised if you didnt catch it.
Its really not that complex. Everyone before reading a debate already has some sort of opinion on the resolution - everyone also has other underlying beliefs which necessitate their current viewpoint on a resolution too, as Wittgenstein taught. Its not that whiteflame or I are too mentally deficient to understand your arguments. You seem to think you're playing 4D chess while we're all stuck playing checkers. The real issue is that its going to be impossible to win all voters for the reasons i cited, except in the case of a forfeit or you destroy all possible axioms going into the debate, which wont happen. Its not that "90% of the population are vile sheep that could never comprehend my genius mind" but more so that's just how debating goes most of the time.
-
I'm also unsure what you have to lose - the problem of evil is considered one of the most debated and contended upon philosophical concept with no realistic resolution in site. I imagine it would be safe for you to accept if your goal is to win.
I will naturally be explicitly talking about an omnibenevolent god within my own argument anyways. You're going to see it plastered all over my round 1.
You did not demonstrate that the orthodox church supports or even allows anyone to believe Jesus is Lucifer. As far as I can tell, you never actually rebuked him on saying we should look at it from an orthodox perspective, so I'm stuck looking at it from that perspective until you comment on it. Nowhere in the description or round 1 did misterchris say we ought to look at it this way. You just never directly confronted it so i have no other choice.
You simply stated that mister Chris saying something does not make it true, but I lack evidence on how or why it is not true for him to tell us to look at it that way, which was your burden of proof to do. Instead all you do is leave it up for the voter to decide for you if we should agree with misterchris or not on taking a orthodox view.
"Regardless, again, voters should prefer orthodox Christian doctrine over CON’s strawmen. "
"On this basis, CON’s “alternate scenario” of “Jesus is not God and instead is an independent messiah and preacher that is the chosen son of God” can be dismissed outright without further discussion. No orthodox Christian holds (or ought to hold) that position (Colossians 2:9 states that “whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” within Jesus)."
He says it a number of times littered all through the debate that we should look at it from an orthodox Christian perspective.
Mister Chris's greatest strength in this debate wasn't even any of his arguments. but how beautifully he twisted the burden of proof to be in his favor, despite the fact that if anyone else argued the same point, the outcome would be the opposite for most.
The debate was going on based on what Christians believe, in particular the Orthodox Church. I don't think any of them believe Jesus was Lucifer. I also am pretty sure the orthodox church supports belief in the trinity. Show me the part where you show the sacrifice was fake. Is it even relevant to the discussion if you interpret the sacrifice as fake? within the debate we had to assume a Christian framework. No Christians believe the sacrifice was fake.
But didn't I say in my A2 that I would reinvent it so good could exist without evil? I then showed how good can exist without evil in my A3. I don't want you to change your vote. I don't really care, but yeah. Con didn't prove evil to exist. He only proved evil to exist if you already agree that burning pandas is bad. We may all subjectively agree it's bad, but no one has ever proven it's bad in an objective manner. I think many readers will bring in way too many presuppositions within this debate, such as subjectively agreeing with con that burning pandas is morally wrong, im a moral realist in a sense and i certainly didnt buy any of cons arguments to his perception of morality being objective.
I believe I did address the gratuitous evil argument. If you cannot show evil exists, how can you define what is "unnecessary" evil in the first place? Thank you for your vote nonetheless. Most people don't even do that much, it seems. I believe my A3 in round 1 should have shown why I think good exists (or can metaphysically exist) without evil necessarily existing, even with an omnipotent God.
yeah never mind, im not smart enough to vote on this, it seems.
I'm not the most knowledgeable when it comes to politics, especially things to do with the structure of the US government and law, but I'll try and put a vote on this one. It would be a shame for so much effort to feel like it went unappreciated from both parties.
i get the sense that quicksilver is more alike to the flash than Spiderman.
Benjamin is the most slept on debater on this site. He has vs'd some of the most stacked opposition on the site, alongside undefeatable.
thank you! good luck to you sir.
I don't mind debating you. I tend to only put the 1501 limit to stop the most amount of trolls from accepting as possible. I'll send you a private request.
i define god as the intelligent conscious creator of the universe.
Thank you and good luck!
I decided I would pass it up. I have other topics I would prefer to spend my energy on.
I'm not too busy, more so too unmotivated. I believe you deserve the win simply for putting so much effort into your argument. It would be unfair to delete it. Potentially, I'll regain some desire to debate the topic in the future, so I won't forfeit just yet.
The debate challenge is there for you 4D. It should be no problem for you since you're a mastermind tactician and inventor.
Alright 4D, stop trying to insinuate that I'm other members in DM's, thanks. It's obvious what you're trying to do, you're a snake and a drama Queen.
why are you trying to throw shade that i don't respect descriptions, like you're not 10x the ego debater as i? debate me on your virtual reality bullshit and i will destroy it simply for your disrespect and hubris to the greatest mind ever lived for your nonsense.
Physicalism is the metaphyiscal theory that ultimately everything is physical. Both string theory and field theory are part of physicalism. Do you want to debate it or nah? most Gods can be ruled out in physicalism except pantheist conceptions. Although if it makes you feel better i wont argue for a pantheist god at all. Put all this in the description.
Didn't I say I would argue for physicalism, rationalmadman? We can plaster it all over the description. If you think that's rigged, then I don't know what to say to you. You're simply in denial in case your philosophy is proven absurd. I would enjoy hearing about your 5D chess philosophy, which in your own words is "a genius way of comprehending the world and will let you comprehend the world in ways religions and other philosophies could not do." You also claim it will blow my mind, especially if I'm on psychedelics. I'm quite skeptical of these claims, and would enjoy to see you prove me wrong. If it were a truly revolutionary philosophy you shouldn't have to be scared about a poor resolution or the unlikelihood of it. All you're telling me is that you know other competing theories are better but this one "sounds cool and makes me feel unique and special to believe"
Its also funny to note that your entire Discretionary rules are based upon the stipulative definition fallacy. Meaning the entire framework of your argument is based on illogical nonsense.
Am I really being told by the most openly bad-faith debater on the site that he's scared of my semantics games? I'm unsure what semantics games can be pulled on a simulated universe debate. The fact that you're not even opening the debate due to fear of a lack of votes shows where your priorities are. It's obviously not to challenge your own beliefs. All i see is you making excuses.
"all the top 10 debaters are scared to debate me" - RM
the likelihood of it in comparison to other potential metaphysical realities.
thank you for the advice, have it shall be then. I would really like to debate your simulated universe theory, please. Lets see the sophist magic.
You wouldn't of even posted that argument if my account wasn't banned. You would of just kept your kritik story going.
I wouldn't even have to appeal to Occam's razor to beat your simulated universe theory. We know physicalism has checked all its ontological commitments and is possible. We don't know if consciousness can even exist in non bio life (machines). Even if physicalism possessed more ontological commitments than a simulated universe theory (it doesnt). It still has less unknowns.
I wonder how you can overcome the issue of information. If you claim we're all in a simulation, i cant imagine what type of machine they're using to simulate all our brains and experiences. 1 single brain stores 2.5 petabytes of information. That is simply just ones memory which is far weaker than our processing speed. Which can do within 1 second what takes a computer 40 minutes to do. Now on top of this add all the trillions of neurons and cells of every living being being simulated at once. Then also add in simulations within simulations. I honestly have no idea how the machine doesn't simply blow up. How much storage capacity do they have. If they have this storage capacity it cannot be limitless can it? so when we make a new universe inside a universe where is the more storage coming from? it should all be on one hardrive and anything on its own hardrive is an illusion.
https://neurotray.com/how-many-calculations-per-second-can-the-human-brain-do/
I would wager physicalism is certainly more likely than a simulation. We can open up that debate sometime in the future then.
All the simulation theory does is regress the problem. If we're not base reality, we could be made within a simulation. This problem keeps going on and on to the point where you have so many ontological commitments its probably going to be the least likely metaphysical reality from an Occam's razors perspective - simply because of this.
-
At a certain point some reality must be real, no?
I think its hard to reconcile the conscious experience of certain dimensions with simulations. You also possess a lot of ontological commitments i would probably wager are unnecessary to a more simpler explanation.
I see, i never took note of the high character number. Potentially you would indulge me in this debate sometime in the future?
I get the sense anyone would struggle to rebut RM in this debate, not because his argument is particularly strong - but Simply through his overwhelming volume which makes it impossible to respond to everything he is saying.
Then someone can just talk about a country where it is indeed illegal to say their state religion as evil.
I completely forgot that i had my argument time so short.
With that being said, I don't believe I proved reincarnation to happen in this debate. I think I demonstrated it to be very likely. A topic of this brevity would have to include lots of other ideas of mine to be incorporated. Maybe I'll open something similar in the future, but do it much stronger and less lazily.
No, not at all. My arguments weren't weak enough to warrant a forfeit. I simply mean dropped, as in continuing on with future arguments. I lose interest rather fast if I think a debate has lost all its productive value.
Whiteflame gave me a choice of keeping this one or the other one. I decided to keep this one, im not really sure why. Simply a gut feeling i suppose.
You shouldn't of quit! i thought you could of won this debate. In fact, i think you did beat me. My last round was grasping at straws, i'm surprised if you didnt catch it.
Its really not that complex. Everyone before reading a debate already has some sort of opinion on the resolution - everyone also has other underlying beliefs which necessitate their current viewpoint on a resolution too, as Wittgenstein taught. Its not that whiteflame or I are too mentally deficient to understand your arguments. You seem to think you're playing 4D chess while we're all stuck playing checkers. The real issue is that its going to be impossible to win all voters for the reasons i cited, except in the case of a forfeit or you destroy all possible axioms going into the debate, which wont happen. Its not that "90% of the population are vile sheep that could never comprehend my genius mind" but more so that's just how debating goes most of the time.
-
I'm also unsure what you have to lose - the problem of evil is considered one of the most debated and contended upon philosophical concept with no realistic resolution in site. I imagine it would be safe for you to accept if your goal is to win.
Thank you! you found a way to keep it appealing while adding God to it.
If no one accepts this debate by the end of tomorrow, I would like to see you accept it.
Lets just hope novice and others get done with their votes as soon as possible.
I will naturally be explicitly talking about an omnibenevolent god within my own argument anyways. You're going to see it plastered all over my round 1.
You can just point that out to the voters then. It's as plain as day. Just spam it as a remainder every third sentence if you wish.
Its within the description. I'd prefer to keep the title as appealing as possible.
I only put the forfeiture rule when im actually going to put my all into a debate.
You did not demonstrate that the orthodox church supports or even allows anyone to believe Jesus is Lucifer. As far as I can tell, you never actually rebuked him on saying we should look at it from an orthodox perspective, so I'm stuck looking at it from that perspective until you comment on it. Nowhere in the description or round 1 did misterchris say we ought to look at it this way. You just never directly confronted it so i have no other choice.
You simply stated that mister Chris saying something does not make it true, but I lack evidence on how or why it is not true for him to tell us to look at it that way, which was your burden of proof to do. Instead all you do is leave it up for the voter to decide for you if we should agree with misterchris or not on taking a orthodox view.
"Regardless, again, voters should prefer orthodox Christian doctrine over CON’s strawmen. "
"On this basis, CON’s “alternate scenario” of “Jesus is not God and instead is an independent messiah and preacher that is the chosen son of God” can be dismissed outright without further discussion. No orthodox Christian holds (or ought to hold) that position (Colossians 2:9 states that “whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” within Jesus)."
He says it a number of times littered all through the debate that we should look at it from an orthodox Christian perspective.
Mister Chris's greatest strength in this debate wasn't even any of his arguments. but how beautifully he twisted the burden of proof to be in his favor, despite the fact that if anyone else argued the same point, the outcome would be the opposite for most.
The debate was going on based on what Christians believe, in particular the Orthodox Church. I don't think any of them believe Jesus was Lucifer. I also am pretty sure the orthodox church supports belief in the trinity. Show me the part where you show the sacrifice was fake. Is it even relevant to the discussion if you interpret the sacrifice as fake? within the debate we had to assume a Christian framework. No Christians believe the sacrifice was fake.
https://giphy.com/gifs/timanderic-tim-and-eric-wareheim-lXu72d4iKwqek
you right now. Contemplating everything.
You're mind will be blown novice, you're about to feel the weight of the syllogism of syllogisms. The syllogism of TRINITY.
I believe we must call the brothers to arms.