The Instigator
QuadHelix
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
BlueDreams
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Heaven exists, not God; science of Quad Helix rotation.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
BlueDreams
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/22/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,724 times Debate No: 87009
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (60)
Votes (2)

 

QuadHelix

Pro

Quad Helix transcends nature, it cannot be verified through a communication method, but can be verified by wisdom.

It is the fundamental nature that all others are in the image of, image dei.

Quad helix consists of 4 equal and opposite attributes: a central, rotation, revolution and realm.

An image of Quad Helix (or realm) can be observed at the Sun and Planets in the solar system.

The central Sun rotates, which causes the Planets to rotate, and revolve around the Sun. The realm is lower than the original Quad Helix realm, what I'm referring to as "Heaven", above and beyond our comprehension.

The Sun and Planets realm is a fraction, and power of the Quad Helix realm, as it comes after, and is in the image of; it is lower in the hierarchy.

Earth is a special planet that had manifested a Demi realm of each of the four realms in the universe, and it has evolved wise mammals, or Demi-Quad Helix.

Humans may or may not transcend the Earth, and are wise of the transcended Quad Helix.
BlueDreams

Con


Actual picture of a "quad helix".

I accept this debate. For the record, I don't expect a very stimulating conversation with Pro, given the clear absurdity of his resolution and the framework he defends it with. But, I'll at least find some pleasure in entertaining Pro's notions.

The practice of philosophy defines the conditions in which an argument can be considered sound. First, there must be an actual argument to speak of. A position asserted without an argument is not convincing, and commits the fallacy of bare assertion [1]. Secondly, the premises of the argument must be true. In order for the premises of an argument to be true, one condition is that the premises of the argument must be free from ambiguity. If it is not precisely clear what the premises of the argument even mean, then it is by definition impossible to determine if they are true. How can a rational agent assert the truth of a proposition without understanding its meaning? We must avoid lexical and structural ambiguity in our arguments [2]. Thirdly, the argument must be logically sound--in other words, the conclusion follows logically from the premises via a means of logical inference. Without meeting these standards, an argument cannot be considered persuasive.

Pro's argument fails the first standard of a sound and convincing philosophical argument. Apparently, Pro has no argument for his proposed system whatsoever. Pro explicates his ideas, but does not try to defend them or show any logical relationship between them, instead merely asserting them as the truth and moving onto the next conjured up idea. This fact alone is essentially a deathblow to Pro's system, as he in no way provides any reasons to believe a single word he says, thus making him utterly unconcinving to myself and the audience.

Additionally, because Pro has no argument whatsoever, he fails the third standard of argument--logical soundness--, because there is no logical inference to speak of.

Other than having no real arguments at all, another mistake--fatal in its own right, is Pro's inability to clearly define his terms. Philosophy is all about precisely defining the meaning of terms, which is what philosophers do when we ask "What is love?" or "What is good and evil?". The pressure to make your ideas clear is especially strong when proposing a novel idea, as Pro is, considering our only way to evaluate the ideas fairly is if Pro articulates his ideas effectively. Considering the inherent ambiguity in his language, and everyone's failure to understand what Pro is talking about (assuming there is anything to understand), Pro has certainly failed to live up to this standard. We have no idea what quad helix theory is supposed to be. (By the way, a quad helix is a dental instrument an orthodonist puts in a patient's mouth, casting serious doubts on how Pro's ideas could possibly be coherent). We have no idea what Pro means by "wisdom" (he seems to have his own definition), we have no idea what he means by "image dei", and we have no idea what he means by "demi realm", "center", "rotation", "revolution", and "realm".

Pro's system, which presents us with no reasons for accepting it, and no clarity as to what exactly it is we're supposed to accept, utterly fails. It provides us with no real insights into anything intellectually significant. Thus, the resolution fails.









1: http://tinyurl.com...
2: http://tinyurl.com...
Debate Round No. 1
QuadHelix

Pro

The practice of philosophy is corrupted, and has always been, especially in cases where "Quad Helix theory" is not employed.

There was an argument presented to you but you have chosen, or have been forced to by 'word illness', to stand by the "Government-academic" doctrine of philosophy.

The doctrine portrays that any theory outside of its law, is invalid.

You and many others think, or are forced to by 'word-illness', that this law is sensible. You and others are submissive to laws, for no reason other than to negate positivity; to suppress the fluctuation of ideas outside of the realm of the academic body of knowledge, and against the academy mission.

Contending the law in the face of adversity is an impossibility, so I choose to ignore it, and those who submit to it.

The law makes sense, or is declared sensible, to an academic slave, but not to a human free of academia, and especially a human who theorises about freedom of word.

The behaviour of academic slaves is not as sensible and formal as the laws of academia sound. They're formal when they're following the academic mission, which is leading us to a barren Earth, but not half of the time- half of the time they're stupid.

Your non-argument consists of references to academic law, and lies. I have explained in the original post the Quad Helix theory.

You didn't quote any specific part of the original statements, so I'll dismiss the rest of your argument as submission to academy, or your kinds signature compulsive lies.

The whole original sentiment is a single idea by word, and lots of relating natures wordlessly.

You've made no sense here; I'd like to see a quote and scrutiny on its premises, otherwise your argument is baseless. You've chosen, or been forced to by 'word illness', to dismiss my theory and not argue against it. This isn't a debate, it's is your 'love for academia'.
BlueDreams

Con

Pro erroneously believes his dental instrument metaphysics is superior to all philosophy practiced up until this date. To the contrary, philosophy has provided important and influential insights into the real world, whereas Pro's hypothesis provides no insights into anything even remotely resembling the real world. The philosopher Karl Marx inspired revolutions spanning the globe with his communist ideals, even serving as a model to the governments of China, Cuba, and North Korea to this day. Kant's ethical notions about the dignity and sanctity of humanity has provided an intellectual basis for modern day medical ethics (Kant and Applied Ethics, Altman), adamently opposing cruel and unethical experiments which use humans as a means to an end. Contemporary philosophers of physics have worked tirelessly to clarify conceptual problems in quantum mechanics, and to distinguish between different, empirically equivalent versions of it. Philosophers of science have addressed fundamental questions about the nature of scientific inquiry itself. Through hard work and clear, meaningful thought, countless philosophers have made names for themselves by providing interesting insights into reality. Pro seemingly wants to join their ranks, but his hypothesis does not come within an inch of providing any insight into the world as it is. It's impossible to see how it could given the way it's phrased. Pro's hypothesis takes the easy way, dealing in shambolic pseudo-philosophical verbiage without any of the powerful thinking which has led us to herald thinkers before. Pro's argument is not superior to philosophy as it's been practiced, and to even begin comparing his sludge of nonsense to them is an insult to the thousands of thinkers who have stretched their brain beyond the limits of human comprehension to add a slither of knowledge to what we already have.

Pro refers to the laws of logic as mere "academic laws", specially exempting himself from having to be rational for some undisclosed and necessarily magical reason. Unfortuantely, Pro isn't an exception to logic. A logical rule of inference is a logical rule of inference, and that's all there is to say. They do not depend on academia to be true. If A leads to B, and B leads to C, then A leads to C, whether or not Harvard University is around to tell us so. Thus, Pro's attempt at circumventing the basic rules of thought by calling them academic will not fly.

Pro says that philosophers only adhere to logical rules because we want to " suppress the fluctuation of ideas outside of the realm of the academic body of knowledge, and against the academy mission." Actually, I want to adhere to logical rules in order to filter out BS like Pro's argument. Academia is not this hivemind entity that relentlessly enforces an orthodoxy. It has no "mission". It's capable of correcting its own errors objectively. If you don't believe me, during the 20th century, almost every philosopher thought the verification principle was true: that any claim must be empirically verifiable. Today, almost no philosopher believes in the verification principles because of sound arguments against its coherency, demonstrating academic consensus can change frequently, and is not the biased, dogmatic hivemind Pro wants us to see it as.

Pro believes that logical rules only make sense to 'academic slaves'. The video I posted shows this to be false. Logical rules aren't just for academic slaves. Deductive reasoning is used by normal, everyday people. If it wasn't, everyone in our world would start acting like Patrick Star, claiming "it's not my wallet". https://www.youtube.com...

Thus, it's evident the use of sound logic goes far beyond the world of academia.

Pro continues to propogate meaningless phrases as if they have meaning, like "government-academic" and "word illness". He's also failed to clarify any of the words I identified as meaningless in the last round.

Anyway, there really isn't much else going on with Pro's argument. His defense is to do nothing more than claim he's exempt from having to be logical.

Yeah, we'll see how "I don't have to use logic" will go over with the voters.






Debate Round No. 2
QuadHelix

Pro

The Quad Helix Theory
The Quad Helix is a fundamental nature that transcends the universe; all of the universe is in it's image, this is called image dei.

There are four primary images of Quad Helix, these are referred to as 'realms': the Quad Helix realm, the spatial realm, the planetary realm and the natural realm.

The four realms form a hierarchy, and each realm is a fraction and power of the realm above it in the hierarchy.

The Quad Helix has four attributes that are at opposite polarities: realm, centre, rotation and revolution.

For example, the Sun in the centre of our solar system rotates, and this rotation causes the planets to rotate then revolve around the central Sun; this is the spatial realm.

Sol is the central attribute of the spatial realm, it's rotation is it's process and the effect of that process is rotation of Orbis. Revolution is a process of Orbis, and the effect of that process is the revolution of Sol- what we call a "day".

There is rotation at opposite polarities- positive Sol and negative Orbis; there is revolution at opposite polarities- positive Orbis and negative Sol.

The day is more commonly known as Earth's rotation, but Earth's rotation is the effect of the Sun's rotation. To forget the rotation of the Sun is to abstract the perception of the Sun, and concentrate on the rotation of the Earth, which is what happens in human reality.

What is a day without the Sun revolving Earth in the sky?

To determine that the day is the planet rotating is to forget the perception of the day. It's a sophist ideology when the Sun is subtracted from the day, it's a belief that Earth is a singularity.

The point is, there is equality between the two revolutions, the Sun that rotates and revolves around Earth, is as significant as, Earth that rotates and revolves around the Sun- they both contribute to the day.

The problem is that words give authority to the literal and nil to the metaphorical; the sensed Sun in the sky is a metaphorical phenomenon.

For example, the illusion of the four wheels of a car appearing to rotate in reverse when the car moves at high speeds.

This is a perceived phenomenon, and although there is a scientific explanation, the phenomenon is as significant as the process that leads to it's occurrence. There are many metaphors in nature, our minds are metaphor receptors, we can understand the whole of the universe metaphorically.

We also have a heart, and it's important to stress the mind in the hearts favour- this is the true process of science. We cannot survive without science, it's for our own health and prosperity.

The day is not a tool but can be measured, measurement uses utility, the day is not the tool, it's the utility such as a clock or dial.

The day is equally the Sun's revolution of the planet as it's the planets rotation. These occur simultaneously and are opposites; the opposites cancel each others individual nature, meaning that their bond is vital as a neutrality and nil as one or the other.

The only way to concentrate on the connection between the Sun and planets is to be wordless and wise, word-illness is the abstracted circumstances of belief in a singularity Earth {i.e the Earth that revolves the Sun, minus Sun process}.

Words cause humans to focus on one at a time in a universe of opposites; humans have a word-illness and can't think in opposites, and can barely think opposite to what they are taught to think.

"Quad Helix" is the positive and negative rotations and positive and negative revolutions occurring simultaneously.

Humans can comprehend Quad Helix, a very powerful thought process with a very merciful effect, but only wordlessly with wisdom. There are a plentiful amount of Quad Helix implications, such as: the root of the human psyche, transcendence to heaven, hell, spiritual unity, and more- there is a lot to learn of Quad Helix that will help and not hinder the Earth.

I'm redefining all of academia; it's all wrong because it lacks Quad-Helix wisdom, and isn't wordless. Humans are word-ill who will annihilate themselves, who worship death facts and act childishly in the face of great danger.

Humans are very stupid.

I have concern for the animals that have to live under a blind, deaf and dumb humanity. To top it off, humans have little to no wisdom; their reality is boring unless you submit to it's vices, only to support the train-wreck rolling and ricocheting all the way to the barren Earth for our children to inherit.

Humanity are annihilating the planet and a majority are blissfully ignorant of this stupidity.

The only way to prevent this is to be wise and wordless; the rewards are endless- greater than any value or harmony of that unwise men could create with words.

Think of all the beautiful swirling colours of nature, the metaphors, the adrenaline; and as we ascend our current Government-academic reality in a perilous flight, we evolve and break free of the hierarchical stasis of word power.

Word-fiends take these colours, and make them acidic; they make them poisonous, so that when we express these colours, we harm ourselves, or are endangered by others. We must reinstate the amenability.

The dullards, cowards- shun them, they are an enemy of all mankind, and it's their presence that causes human nature to spiral to a point of self-extinction.

Presidents, super-powers and kings and queens of the past, they never had power; my word is as powerful as theirs, what I say now will pass through the whole of the world.

The dullards have an effect that is a little different, they are restricted to one perspective- they all spread the same message, but sugar-coat their words to retain an sense of self-security.

I sense how you affect the world and the species, dullards, you are more powerful than you think. However, you must evolve! We're close to end-times ,and nothing is done to try and prevent it. For those of you that think you're intelligent, tell me, what's intelligent about self-extinction? What's intelligent about egoism and insulting behaviour? What's intelligent about Government-academic science?

Con, you'll evade debate by all means and prove all of my points, yet you'll use so many insults and dismissals that people will become confused, they'll lose balance and will continue with their stupidity.

Metaphorically you are dominated, literally you are dominated, but you won't accept the harmony between them; because you're a literal man- "a literal man", a word-fiend who is insignificant and it's improbable you'll ever experience what's to be experienced by a sentient species.

Con, I've said it before, you live up to your name; the truth of this statement holds authority over any truth that you can present to me!

You could try a metaphorical approach, but it won't compare because I'm wiser and have acquired more natural wealth; you could try the literal approach but there's no chance in a righteous dismissal or contradiction; it's the theory of all.

That leaves you with one option, your dependence on Government-academic laws and the human stupidity fellowship. When you win this debate by unfair vote, that's an encore you didn't deserve, but I've an encore deserved, and it towers your victory dance and the laughter of your cooperatives, and illuminates the way to a greater good.

This is all wisdom of Quad Helix, in the face of great adversity. It may seem half off-topic, but that's the way of the word-mammals, and it's the contradiction that was provoked.

There will be a day where it all becomes clear, and I fear that's not of the blue sky, and the retreating clouds for the warmth of the Sun, or of the cool of an Earth abundant with untouched land. Instead, death.
BlueDreams

Con

Pro just repeats what he said in the first round without offering any reasons, which is the fatal flaw of his entire debate performance. Pro provides us with no reasons to believe in quad helix theory or any demonstration that it's important to us at all.

I challenge anyone to read this debate and determine how, in any way, Pro proved that both "god does not exist" and "heaven exists" as the debate resolution states.

"The Quad Helix is a fundamental nature that transcends the universe; all of the universe is in it's image, this is called image dei."

Pro provides no reason to accept this.

"There are four primary images of Quad Helix, these are referred to as 'realms': the Quad Helix realm, the spatial realm, the planetary realm and the natural realm."

Pro provides no reason to accept this.

"The four realms form a hierarchy, and each realm is a fraction and power of the realm above it in the hierarchy."

Pro provides no reason to accept this.

"The Quad Helix has four attributes that are at opposite polarities: realm, centre, rotation and revolution."

Pro provides no reasons to accept this.

"For example, the Sun in the centre of our solar system rotates, and this rotation causes the planets to rotate then revolve around the central Sun; this is the spatial realm."

First of all, there are no reasons to see the rotation of the Sun within the context of a "quad helix" theory. Contemporary scientific theories explain these events just fine. We have no need to use Pro's quad helix theory. Applying the terminology of quad helix theory to the rotation of the sun is an arbitrary and unnecessary move when we already have a terminology and theory that works, and when Pro provides no reasons for doing so.

Also, it's not a spatial realm, it's a spatio-temporal realm, given space and time exist as a continium in Einstein's theory of relativity.

"Sol is the central attribute of the spatial realm, it's rotation is it's process and the effect of that process is rotation of Orbis. Revolution is a process of Orbis, and the effect of that process is the revolution of Sol- what we call a "day".

Why is the sun the central attribute of the spatial (spatio-temporal) realm? The sun, in the context of the entire spatial universe, is tiny and meaningless.

Anyway, Pro is using a bunch of souped up pseudo-philosophical language just to tell us we need the sun to have day time, which neither proves god does not exist nor provides heaven is real at the same time.

"There is rotation at opposite polarities- positive Sol and negative Orbis; there is revolution at opposite polarities- positive Orbis and negative Sol."

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

"The day is more commonly known as Earth's rotation, but Earth's rotation is the effect of the Sun's rotation. To forget the rotation of the Sun is to abstract the perception of the Sun, and concentrate on the rotation of the Earth, which is what happens in human reality."

The Sun's rotation doesn't cause the Earth to rotate. The sun's gravity and rotation isn't even strong enough to significantly alter tidal patterns on planet Earth, nonetheless alter its entire rotation. In reality, the rotation of the planet Earth is due to early planetary formation, specifically, being hit by clumps of matter, not the rotation of the Sun. (http://tinyurl.com...)

"What is a day without the Sun revolving Earth in the sky?"


The Sun doesn't revolve around the Earth. The Earth revolves around the sun. This is basic heliocentric theory.

"To determine that the day is the planet rotating is to forget the perception of the day. It's a sophist ideology when the Sun is subtracted from the day, it's a belief that Earth is a singularity."

The perception of the day doesn't override the massive scientific evidence that the Earth revolves around the Sun and not the other way around.

"The point is, there is equality between the two revolutions, the Sun that rotates and revolves around Earth, is as significant as, Earth that rotates and revolves around the Sun- they both contribute to the day."

No. Daylight happens because the Earth spins on its axis, so the part of Earth you're on is only facing the Sun during part of the day (unless you live in Alaska or something). The Sun's rotation has nothing to do with day and night. If the sun was solitary, and did not rotate whatsoever, we would still have day and night, because the Earth would still rotate, causing sunlight to hit some parts of the Earth and not others.

It's pretty clear that the "science" of quad helix theory is actually based on outdated Heliocentrism and a misunderstanding of daylight and why the Earth rotates. Pro doesn't understand that the Earth revolves around the Sun, not the other way around. Pro doesn't understand that the Earth doesn't rotate because of the Sun. Because of this, Pro also doesn't understand that even if the Sun stopped rotating, we would still have night and day, because all that's required for night and day is for the Earth to rotate, causing different amounts of light to hit your part of the Earth at different times of the day.

Pro doesn't understand that none of this has anything to do with the resolution.

Pro has failed to provide any reasons to believe anything he says, and he is often completely wrong about what he says.

The resolution is not upheld.



Debate Round No. 3
60 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
Blade-of-Truth
Conduct - Tie. Both had adequate conduct in the debate.

S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar throughout.

Arguments - Con. Pro starts by explaining what the Quad Helix is, albeit in a hard manner to understand and without any supporting evidence. Con starts by pointing out how Pro's entire case is nonsensical; neither valid nor sound by general standards, and thus there's no argument to rebut.
At this point, Pro responds by arguing that general standards make arguments like his invalid, yet doesn't do anything to strengthen his case specifically in this round, which is still somewhat unclear to me due to the lack of evidence in R1. Con then strengthens his standard and shows, again, how Pro made no actual case.
In the final round, Pro clarifies each "realm" of the Helix, but still fails to tie it into the resolution regarding heaven existing and God not, which wasn't mentioned at all. Con points this out, as well as how Pro presented no evidence whatsoever. Since Pro failed to uphold his Burden of Proof, by the clear lack of any and all evidence to every claim he made, and Con effectively pointing this out in a clear way - Con wins arguments.

**Judge's note to Pro - You need to back unproven claims up with supporting evidence, otherwise - they are nothing more than mere opinions. You also failed to tie in Heaven or God into all of this. You need to make sure that your arguments effectively affirm the motion you are Pro for. Since you didn't do these things, Con was able to effectively rebut each claim you made. Please remember this for future debates: Supporting Evidence is necessary for your claims to be considered valid or acceptable.

Sources - Con. Pro did not utilize any sources within this debate. On the other hand, Con utilized three sources, two of which supported the validity of his claims they were related to and thus helped strengthen the impact of his rebuttals against Pro. Due to this, Con wins Sources.
Posted by QuadHelix 1 year ago
QuadHelix
No problem.
Posted by BlueDreams 1 year ago
BlueDreams
"A well deserved victory"

Thank you.
Posted by QuadHelix 1 year ago
QuadHelix
I'm not continuing anything, I'm merely stating an opinion of the debate.

A well deserved victory for you and cooperatives.
Posted by BlueDreams 1 year ago
BlueDreams
Stop trying to continue the debate in the comments section.
Posted by QuadHelix 1 year ago
QuadHelix
Con contradicts himself by arguing against the reason he said I didn't provide; and he also refers to incomplete scientific theories.
Posted by QuadHelix 1 year ago
QuadHelix
Can't***
Posted by QuadHelix 1 year ago
QuadHelix
Hello. We can help but think in words because our tongues were trained to; and my words make sense, they're just not the ideal. Not even I am wordless, but I try to be....
Posted by difference 1 year ago
difference
What I mean to say is that's why you need to clarify yourself. It isn't related to government scientists or word illness.
Posted by difference 1 year ago
difference
QuadHelix, what you said earlier about thinking in words is why no one can understand what you're trying to say. Like you say, the quad helix is known by wise sense, which I would think everyone has with wordlessness (correct me if not), so whatever you assert, we(I) probably know it too. We(I) just don't know what you're talking about. You might as well be speaking a different language.

..."in the sense of knowing that I can't help but think in words and laughing at this fact. Even though you don't know what I think or my thought patterns after the text."
We(I) don't know how your words and terms relate to my wise sense.

"Which is basically wordless."
So you'd be the only one who can understand your words.

Cruelty, and it's neglect of your own wisdom because you support the continuation of this communication method."
There isn't another way of communication. I mean, whether it's written, spoken or signed, it's all symbols that can be related to each individual's wise sense.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by n7 1 year ago
n7
QuadHelixBlueDreamsTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources: Hands down, Con. Pro makes ton of inductive claims without a single source to back it up. Arguments: Con. He points out that Pro fails to make a philosophically sound case. Pro states philosophy is corrupt and goes on about something to do with academia determining philosophy. Con showed how philosophy is diverse. There is no fundamental belief taught. It has no agenda. It was also shown that Pro's statement isn't superior by rejecting philosophy, but inferior because of it. Pro then ignores everything Con said and went on a completely unjustified and unsourced assertion campaign. Con refuted that which was unscientific (such as the Sun's rotation causing the Earth's rotation) and pointed out what was unjustifed. Pro never attempts to justify a single claim, he never provides a reason for belief and therefore makes no arguments. He doesn't actually define in coherent terms what the what the Quad Helix idea is in the first place. Arguments could only go to Con.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
Blade-of-Truth
QuadHelixBlueDreamsTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD located in Comment Section.