Everything or 100% Existence and, Life the subset of Everything is a Machine.
Debate Rounds (5)
This Everything collectively known as Single Entire World or just World is a Machine.
World is a Machine.
Life is a subset of this Machine.
Life is a Machine.
Entire World is one Changing World. Changes are localized or can be said to have Frames of reference.
So one World has many events or different parts changing or having different clocks.
Everything is a variation or picture or event. There are unlimited variations or pictures or events.
Life also has unlimited individuals differing is something chemical and also differing in patterns.
Life is a machine.
Some machines have logic, some reasoning and, some both.
Every word in dictionary is related to Life's patterns, stories, emotions, possibilities, memories, simply put variations.
Life is a machine.
Machines have variations.
You are a machine.
I am a machine.
We are machines.
Machine or Machines are constantly changing.
My final word: No no I'm not dieing... lol
Life is a machine.
Definition of a machine from https://www.google.com...:
"an apparatus using or applying mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task."
Pro must prove that the entire universe has several parts that work together to perform a particular task. Pro has not fulfilled any of these three burdens.
First, the blog post that Pro is referencing (http://sagargorijala.blogspot.in...) has 84,507 characters. It is impossible to post any arguments over 10,000 characters on Debate.org without breaking the rules. As such, I choose not to respond to Pro's blog post, because it would not be possible for it to appear on Debate.org. Instead, I ask Pro to provide a concise version of his argument.
Second, the blog post that Pro is referencing never gives an argument for the universe being a machine. The entire blog uses the word "machine" only 11 times, 2 of which are the titles of the blog post, and the other 9 of which occur in the statement "World is a machine. Life is a machine. Sagar Gorijala: I'm a machine and, I've to become a better one," which appears 3 times. As such, there's no argument for the universe being a machine in the cited source.
Pro: "What my theory proves is ... Gods can't exist."
This is irrelevant to whether or not the universe is a machine.
Pro: "You do agree non-life is mechanical in nature, don't you?"
No. If non-life is a machine, then non-life would have to work together to perform a function. I do not see any function that non-life is performing. Thus, I cannot say that non-life is a machine, though it is possible.
I remind Pro that the burden of proof is on Pro, not Con.
Pro: "Evolution is non-life turning into life."
No, that's abiogenesis .
Pro: "World is a machine"
Where was this demonstrated?
Pro: "and life which has a beginning unlike World and, Life being the subset of World is also a machine."
First, even if life is proven to be a machine, it is only a portion of the world, as Pro agrees. This debate is over whether "100% Existence" is a machine.
Second, life has not been proven to be a machine.
4. An intricate natural system or organism, such as the human body.
An intricate natural system - Everything
Pro states that the entire universe is a machine because a machine may be defined as "An intricate natural system or organism, such as the human body."
This definition fails in three ways.
First, Pro must prove that the entire universe is an intricate natural system, not just parts of the universe. Pro has not proven that everything is an intricate natural system.
Second, "intricate" is defined as " Third, this definition clashes with my definition of a machine, and we have no evidence that Pro's definition is any better.
Thus, Pro has not yet proven that the universe is a machine.
If you take a glass of sand, every sand particle below is responsible for the position of every sand particle above. This is our World, a machine.
My opponent likens the universe to a glass full of sand, where particles below hold particles above upwards. My opponent has proven neither that a glass full of sand is a machine, or that the universe is comparable to a glass full of sand.
Reasons to vote Con:
Grammar: Pro stated that, "No no I'm not dieing... lol," which has numerous grammatical errors.
Arguments: Pro has not made any unrefuted arguments, defended any attacked arguments, or even come up with a better definition of a machine. Con has refuted all Pro arguments. Since the BOP is on Pro, Con wins.
Sources: Pro has used 1 source. Con has used 3.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: pro's arguments make no sense. Also, fuzzy, there's like 177 days left so don't rush it too much.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.