The Instigator
Lahunken
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
DakotaKrafick
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

Absolute Scientific Proof of the Existence of God

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 8 votes the winner is...
DakotaKrafick
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/24/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,346 times Debate No: 22304
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (8)

 

Lahunken

Pro

The absolute scientific proof of the existence of God is: There are two things in the universe: energy; and, information, which is the conformation of energy. In 1John1:5 it says, "God is light". Light is energy, therefore, energy is God. Capacitance causes consciousness. Gods eternal creating causes His eternal consciousness. If we were energy we would never sleep. We are information, a closed circuit of the one substance in the one substance, and, we may undifferentiate into confluent circuits, thereby losing consciousness. We may totally undifferentiate into nothingness. That which leads toward that is pleasure. The one force of the universe is pushing all to undifferentiate into nothingness. Everything is running down, or wound up by that which is running down. Creation is a consequence of theophysiology. There are an infinitude of dimensions. The infinitesimal point nothingness, . , is rastered by time into timespace, U, which exerts its oneness in one direction, /, that stirs closed circuitry, O, which all going the same way, vO^XvO^, clashes, X, a "big bang", which forces confluency, =, to undifferentiate into nonexistence. This is the mechnism of creation. The rest is the force to undifferentiate into nothingness. Too much capacitance is unpleasant, to say the least. God doesn't like it and we don't like it. But, mankind cried for immortality so that God incarnated as Jesus Christ to give immortality to those who followed His directions. With the ultimate closed circuitry of the one substance, "what goes around comes around".
DakotaKrafick

Con

Very interesting argument you've got there, Lahunken. However, there is one glaring flaw in it that I simply must point out: it makes no sense at all.

"Scientific" proof

Scientific evidence must be observable, repeatable, and falsifiable. Whatever speculative babbling you just wasted twenty minutes typing doesn't meet any of those qualifications. Therefore, your resolution fails immediately.

Logical "proof"

This is your argument in sum:

1. The Bible says "God is light".
2. Light is energy.
3. Therefore, God is energy.

This argument isn't even valid, let alone sound, until it includes a premise that reads "The Bible is factually correct". And you would have a hell of a hard time proving that one, especially using scientific means.

Other flaws

You say creation is a consequence of theophysiology. This statement is simply false, though, and is probably a result from the common misconception that theophysiology is a subset of theologicology, when in reality, theologicology couldn't be any more different than theophysiology. In fact, it was only due to the division of phycoradiantology that anthropreumpton fields (such as physiology) even exist.

Next, you say timespace U (exerting in one direction /) stirring closed circuitry O, which all going the same way, vO^XvO^, clashes, X, which forces confluency. This might have been considered true in the 1980s, but nowadays the theory reads "vOX^Ovx^x", as it takes into account the second spacetime conflexion created approximately three macro-seconds after "the big bang".

Finally, you say Jesus came to earth to give man immortality, but again, this is following very archaic studies. Nowadays, it's widely understood in theological circles that Jesus came to earth because the last KFC went out of business in Heaven and he really wanted some good fried chicken. [1]

Source

[1] Koopin told me
Debate Round No. 1
Lahunken

Pro

The use of 1John1:5 is essentially for Christians, so that they realize that energy is God, and that, therefore, this is a logical universe of laws. The fact that there are two things in the universe: energy; and, informaiton, which is the conformation of energy, was established by Dr. James Miller.
We then see that consciousness is caused by capacitance. Solvents reducing our consciousness demonstrate that. Our neurons are mainly capacitors, and the lipids of the neuron walls are dissolved by the solvents.
All the infinitude of things (information) in the multiverse (Dr. Max Tegmark's term) certainly provide enough capacitance to give energy consciousness. What else would you call energy, then, besides God. "Is a rose by any other name still a rose?"
The figures vO^XvO^ is a picture, not a formula. It an attempt in two dimensions to show like polarities repelling. You could have pointed out that the "prime vector", /, as we call it, would seem to exert the same friction on both sides of the would be circuit, and it would remain undifferentiated. But, with this timespace expanding in the fifth dimensional direction from very globally bent timespace toward flat timespace, and beyond, the friction on the two sides is uneven. Thus it moves and undifferentiates as a closed circuit.
Also we wouldn't be here if the smallest possible thing wasn't Planck's volume. With infinitessimality there'd be no friction. Plank's volume confers granuality for friction. By the same diagrams, confluency of opposite polarities is drawn by this print, ^OvvO^, but after the Big Bang circuits circulating side by side draw other circuits (there ultimately can only be circuits) in like a wringer which would push components of this wringer, the original confluent circuits, apart. It is the opposite polarities on top of each other like heads on tails, flat, that is pushed together into confluency and undifferentiation, that we call "attraction".
DakotaKrafick

Con

"The use of 1John1:5 is essentially for Christians"

So your argument was aimed to convince the already-convinced? You're going to have to do a little better than that.

Also, everything you said is still not making sense. I suggest an easy-to-read syllogism. I like your cute ^OwO^ face though.
Debate Round No. 2
Lahunken

Pro

The short "1John1:5" is all that was for Christians. The facts that there are two things in the universe: energy; and, information, which is the conformation of energy; consciousness is caused by capacitance; and, that there is enough capacitance in the infinite universe to cause energy to be conscious; is self evident to any science loving person.
My parents were athiests, and I was an athiest until I was 54 years old, when I came upon this knowledge. Upon reading this I was instantly no longer an athiest, but a knowing theist, by more than beilef, by undoubtable knowledge.
DakotaKrafick

Con

"The facts that there are two things in the universe: energy; and, information, which is the conformation of energy; consciousness is caused by capacitance; and, that there is enough capacitance in the infinite universe to cause energy to be conscious; is self evident to any science loving person."

1. The universe isn't infinite.
2. The universe has caused energy to be conscious: they're called human beings, but if you want to call them gods, go ahead.

"Upon reading this I was instantly no longer an atheist"

Instantly, huh? No further reading, no contemplation, no nothing? You shouldn't be so quick to change your views.

I see no reason to change my views based on what you've said, but if the audience thinks you've somehow made sense, then by all means vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by lahunken61 1 year ago
lahunken61
Light omnipotent? Energy is measured in units of light: photons. Timespace is also energy. If I take a lever and put it so that 10% of the lever is under an object to be lifted, by pushing down 100 pounds pressure on the end of the 90% of the lever, I will be applying 1000 pounds pressure up at the 10% end. That is the law of the lever. But, I have to span 90% more timespace to do this. I am using the energy of timespace itself this way. So, timespace itself is energy. The infinitude of energy itself is eternally in the past and eternally in the future. Being differentiated by the circuits of itself in itself energy is eternally conscious. In actuality, God is talking to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, here now reading your mind, and fulfilling the Last Judgment, in the eternal now. God is totally aware of the tiniest fluctuations of the tiniest subatomic particles, and unlimited largnesses of clusters of what we call universes in the multiverse. In God's infinite dimensions every possibility is on their resonant timelines. Throughout the infinite multiverse everything is already done for God. That is omnipotence, omniscience, and, omni-everything.
Posted by lahunken61 1 year ago
lahunken61
The "God is light" from 1John1:5 is just to justify this scientific proof to Christians. It is visualizable mechanics that in one substance motion can only be in closed circuitry, that there be something to move out of the way and fill in behind. We are conscious. Differentiation causes consciousness. Increasing neuron wall permeability allows our entity's closed circuit to undifferentiate more, thereby allowing less consciousness. Our seratonin allows us to sleep naturally in this way. Ethanol (booze), and other solvents, also increase neuron wall permeability, therefore, enough ethanol, and some other solvents, will allow us to be unconscious. In turn energy, the one substance is differentiated, by all the differentiations of it, causing energy to be conscious, eternally, due to eternal, perpetual differentiations occuring where even there is even near nothingness. These are undoubtable facts.
Posted by lahunken61 1 year ago
lahunken61
The "God is light" from 1John1:5 is just to justify this scientific proof to Christians. It is visualizable mechanics that in one substance motion can only be in closed circuitry, that there be something to move out of the way and fill in behind. We are conscious. Differentiation causes consciousness. Increasing neuron wall permeability allows our entity's closed circuit to undifferentiate more, thereby allowing less consciousness. Our seratonin allows us to sleep naturally in this way. Ethanol (booze), and other solvents, also increase neuron wall permeability, therefore, enough ethanol, and some other solvents, will allow us to be unconscious. In turn energy, the one substance is differentiated, by all the differentiations of it, causing energy to be conscious, eternally, due to eternal, perpetual differentiations occuring where even there is even near nothingness. These are undoubtable facts.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Where's imabench when you need him? This debate needs a good trolling.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
InVinoVeritas
Rofl.
Posted by KeytarHero 4 years ago
KeytarHero
No, because ice cream has no brains...
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Ah, I love when people mis-quote the bible to try to verify God's existence in a stupidly new way. So refreshing.
Posted by TheDiabolicDebater 4 years ago
TheDiabolicDebater
This isn't even an argument. It's just word salad.
Posted by Spartan136 4 years ago
Spartan136
I could never go against God!!!He is real and the proof is all around us, not just light!
Posted by larztheloser 4 years ago
larztheloser
Wait, let me get this straight ... your argument is that light is omnipotent?
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by One_Winged_Rook 4 years ago
One_Winged_Rook
LahunkenDakotaKrafickTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: "The Bible is factually correct".... that's assumed in the Premise... and never rightfully defended... ergo, PRO's argument loses.. also CON was easier to read
Vote Placed by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
LahunkenDakotaKrafickTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Its rare what I would say that ths is pretty straight foward. Pros arguments couldn't give certainty.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
LahunkenDakotaKrafickTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: pity points! (last vote too)
Vote Placed by randolph7 4 years ago
randolph7
LahunkenDakotaKrafickTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro used the bible, therefore God's on his side. If God's on his side, he wins.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
LahunkenDakotaKrafickTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has the burden of proof, and says he has knowledge to share, but his "argument" consists of random sentence parts that cannot possibly convey information. Persuasion: Con. It doesn't help that Pro's sentenceoids have so many grammar problems that we sometimes can't tell whether our incomprehension is due to content or form. S&G: Con.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
LahunkenDakotaKrafickTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con pointed out, correctly, that pro made, literally, no sense. Conduct deduction against pro for writing an argument that made zero sense. S/G goes to con because his grammar was overall better. Sources to con, as he provided the only one (Koopin DOES count as a legitimate source. It's freaking Koopin. Case in point.)
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
LahunkenDakotaKrafickTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con pointed out that Pro's argument made 0 sense. And pointed out the obvious fallacies in the argument...
Vote Placed by TheDiabolicDebater 4 years ago
TheDiabolicDebater
LahunkenDakotaKrafickTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con exposed Pro's inability to prove that the bible can be taken as scientific fact. That's really all this debate comes down to.