The Instigator
way12go
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Vi_Veri
Con (against)
Winning
38 Points

No God(s).

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/14/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,449 times Debate No: 9492
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (6)

 

way12go

Pro

Fundamental Theory Of Existence.
Let us consider x, y and z as any three numbers. If we take an equation such that x / y = z then x = y * z. 4 / 0 is said to be infinity. If 4 / 0 is equal to infinity, 4 / 0 = infinity then 4 = 0 * infinity, that is 4 = 0 but 4 is not equal to 0 therefore 4 / 0 is not equal to infinity. What is infinity? Infinity means not finite. If infinity means not finite then infinity can not be a number. Therefore infinity is not a number. When we divide a finite number with another finite number we get a finite answer but not infinity. Therefore any finite number divided by any finite number is equal to some finite number. For example 4 divided by 4 is equal to 1. The numerator is 4 which is a finite number. The denominator is 4 which is again a finite number. Now 4 / 4 is equal to 1 and once again 1 is a finite number. Therefore the result of dividing a finite number with another finite number is also a finite number. 4 / 0 is sometimes said to be undefined or not defined. If it is so then let us define it. We already know that 4 / 0 should give us a finite number. 0 / 4 means we are dividing the numerator 0 with the denominator 4. Zero means nothing. Dividing 0 with 4 means dividing nothing into 4 parts, it means we are not dividing anything. Therefore 0 in the numerator means we have nothing to divide. What does 4 in the denominator mean? 4 in the denominator means we are dividing the numerator into 4 parts that is we are converting the numerator into 4 parts. Now that we know what denominator means we will discuss 4 / 0. 0 in the denominator means dividing the numerator that is 4 into zero parts. Mind you, 0 in the denominator does not mean we are not dividing. Zero in the denominator actually means we are converting the numerator into zero parts. If we can divide the numerator into zero parts then each part is equal to zero. But sum of zeroes does not give us 4. Therefore 4 can not be divided by 0. In fact numerator can not be divided by 0. Therefore 0 can not exist as denominator. It is true that the numerator can not be divided into zero parts and it is also true that sum of zeroes does not give anything but zero. If we take Y = 1 / X ( Y = 1 / X is Rectangular Hyperbola ) then we get different values for both X and Y that are other than zero. The values of X and Y are never equal to zero and that means that the curves never intersect the X - axis and Y - axis. Therefore
1. Zero can not exist as denominator.
The fact that the numerator can not be divided into zero parts means anything that exists can not be destroyed into nothingness. And the fact that sum of zeroes gives us zero alone means anything that does not exist can not be given existence out of nothingness. Therefore
2. Anything can not be created out of nothingness, only change of form is possible and change is everywhere.
3. Anything can not be destroyed into nothingness, only change of form is possible and change is everywhere. Once again we need to know what infinite means. What does infinite mean? Infinite means not finite and not finite means unlimited. By now we know that creation and destruction are impossible. If creation is impossible then there is no other way new things can add up to the World that already exists. If new things can not add up to the World then there is no way anything that exists in this World can be infinite. Space can not be infinite. Therefore
4. Existence of anything can not be infinite.
Numbers are infinite but number of apples ( existence ) can not be infinite. Now, we know that creation and destruction are impossible and we also know that the existence of anything can not be infinite. We are part of the world we live in. In our world existence of anything can not be infinite. That is Space, Mass, Energy, Density, Gravity, Force,... etc; can not be infinite. Also, in our World creation and destruction are impossible. Creation is impossible means no new things can add up to the World that already exists and it also means what already exists can not come out of creation. Creation is impossible, creation is completely ruled out. We also know that destruction of the World is impossible. Space is timeless. Therefore
5. There is no beginning and an end to the existence of the World.
According to the fourth postulate space can not be infinite and according to the fifth postulate space is timeless.
We know what an equation means. An equation is a law of equity. If creation and destruction are possible then all laws have to fail. In a World where creation and destruction are possible laws can not exist, only Chaos exists. We know what infinity means. Infinity means not finite and it means infinity is something that is unlimited, something that is ever increasing. Positive infinity is ever increasing and negative infinity is ever decreasing. It is said that, infinity + 2 is equal to infinity, then 2 = infinity - infinity which implies 2 = 0 which is wrong, also 2 times infinity is equal to infinity and that implies 2 = 1 and 2 = 0 which is once again wrong. What is wrong with the above equations? Infinity is the answer. Infinity means unlimited and it can not be used in equations. If creation is possible, equations will fail. Therefore
6. There are finite absolute laws.
E = M C2 has another side to it. E stands for the energy of the electromagnetic radiation, M is the intrinsic mass of the electromagnetic radiation and C is the velocity of the electromagnetic radiation. Any ordinary body can be moved and therefore its velocity is relative at constant gravity. Electromagnetic radiation travels on its own, it can not be moved like any ordinary body by moving the source of the electromagnetic radiation. Therefore velocity of electromagnetic radiation is observed to be constant at constant gravity. When there is considerable change in gravity there is change in velocity of the electromagnetic radiation. Therefore velocity of electromagnetic radiation is relative to change in gravity.
We know that... Energy is equal to the product of mass and square of the velocity of light.
E = M C2
F = M g
E = ( F/g ) C2
7. Velocity of light is relative.
Everything is well defined in three dimensions. Space too is three dimensional. String Theory claims more than three dimensions. Time is an imaginary dimension. Existence of anything short of three dimensions is impossible since anything that exists can not be destroyed into nothingness. If more than three dimensions can exist, they have to exist everywhere and always. Since anything can not be created out of nothingness more than three dimensions can not be given existence out of nothingness. Therefore String Theory can not be true.
8. There are three dimensions and three dimensions only.
Therefore anything short of three dimensions and more than three dimensions is impossible. Time is an imaginary dimension. Time Travel is impossible since Time is an imaginary dimension.
9. Time Travel can not exist.
There are no infinite parallel Worlds with infinite parallel changes and we can not Time Travel. Time Travel is meaningless.
10. Tan 90 can not exist.
If two angles are 90 degrees then it is not a triangle. If any angle is equal to zero then it is not a triangle.Please visit the below website.

http://www.grc.nasa.gov...

The sum of all the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees. No two angles can be 90 degrees. Also no single angle can be zero. Tan 90 can not exist. If Sin 0 exists it means two sides are overlapping (without any angle between them) and it means that it is a straight line. We live in a three dimensional World where everything is three dimensional and three dimensions only. We neglect the third dimension for our convenience. Sometimes we neglect two dimensions and continue studying as if everything is occurring as a single dimension.In a right angle triangle one angle is 90 degrees and the sum of the other two angles is 90 degrees. The sum
Vi_Veri

Con

First, let me inform everyone that my opponent has no resolution.

Secondly, I will pick off each of his premises to show violations.

Mathematical errors:

1. 4/0 is not infinity. 4/0 is 0. You cannot divide a number into 0 parts, so each 0 group would have 0 numbers in it. This is basic mathematics that children learn in elementary school.

2. I'm hoping my opponent is referring to the conservation of energy.

3. Space doesn't possess energy.

4. Space itself is limitless, but there is a limit to the observable universe.

5. If the world is finite, how can there not be a start and an end? This is a clear contradiction of his premise 3. Also, *entropy*. Of course space (past the outer limits of our universe) is timeless as there is no gravity where there is no mass. My opponent needs to show how a system with a beginning and an end can not be organized (he also needs to describe how this doesn't contradict everything else he is saying). Also, infinity +2 is not an equation. Infinity is a property a set of numbers can possess, it is not a number itself.

6. Ok.... point?

7. Time is a measurement. So is length. So is width. Dimensions are measurements. I really have to ask my opponent here how he gets his conclusion. He just really...states it... with nothing to back him. How can there not be more than 3 dimensions or less than 3 dimensions? Here is a nice educational article my opponent can look at describing some other dimensions: http://www.pbs.org...

8. No.

9. Roy Kerr + Einstein's relativity. Time theory B. Thank you. Gravity, is, in short, a time warp. Space and time are directly linked - so henceforth, we will call it space-time. The more massive an object in space, the slower time travels for that object (and those pulled in to it). Picture a blanket held by two individuals perfectly taught. Now, if someone where to throw a ball into the blanket, it would dip the blanket (dipping space-time) and creating slowed down time for the object. So mass is directly linked to time. You and I experience time differently because our masses are different as well (though very very very minuscule differences because we aren't that different in mass -- compare a marble to the sun, for example - that would be a time change). Time is not like an arrow, as Newton would have guessed it (Newton's laws can not account for everything, that is why we have relativity). Time is relative. With relativity came the mathematician Roy Kerr and his work on black holes as time warps. (http://www.physics.fsu.edu...)

10. My opponent doesn't finish his premise.... I don't know where he's going with this.

My opponent has no conclusion. Without a conclusion, he has no real position. He has been negated.

Regards,

Vi
Debate Round No. 1
way12go

Pro

way12go forfeited this round.
Vi_Veri

Con

I'm guessing this isn't going to go anywhere.
Debate Round No. 2
way12go

Pro

way12go forfeited this round.
Vi_Veri

Con

............. right
Debate Round No. 3
way12go

Pro

way12go forfeited this round.
Vi_Veri

Con

keep it coming I guess...
Debate Round No. 4
way12go

Pro

way12go forfeited this round.
Vi_Veri

Con

let's just finish this...
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
I believe when you talk about black holes in physics, you divide by 0.
Posted by Sylux 7 years ago
Sylux
Actually, 4/0=catastrophic devastation on a supremely massive scale.
EX: http://halshop.files.wordpress.com...
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Vi_Veri, I took Pro's alternate posting of this debate, http://www.debate.org... He as defaulted uniformly on my debate as well. The interesting, well ... mildly interesting, thing is that I disagree with many of your rebuttals to Pro: 4/0 is undefined, not 0; the universe itself is expanding, not just the known universe; dark energy theory says that a vacuum has energy; etc. Since Pro assertions are random and self-contradictory there is no way they can be made sensible, but it does provide an opportunity to discuss some aspects of science.
Posted by Zetsubou 7 years ago
Zetsubou
I get most the points. 4/0 Makes mo sence. It is a "i" question and is lacking any answer within Maths. 1. Is an inconcludable, You can't answer it.

REread: tan 90 ???
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
Gravity IS a time warp! Ahh! Physics ftw :D <333

Anyway, good job, bb. At first I didn't think you provided enough information to counter your opponent (even though you're right); however, I realized that there are FIVE rounds in this debate, which should be more than enough for Pro to expand on his arguments (or at least provide a proper conclusion) and for you to refute his claim... whatever that may be. I won't wish you luck cuz I know you don't need it :)
Posted by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
I could take this.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
I wouldn't be too sure about that, Brian...
Posted by brian_eggleston 7 years ago
brian_eggleston
Er...not the easiest to read debate is it? Interesting, no doubt, but unless Prof. Stephen Hawking is a member of Debate.org and has a few spare hours on his hands, I have a presentiment that a challenger will not be forthcoming any time soon!
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
There is no resolution, hence nothing to debate. You make many ridiculous claims, like "string theory cannot be true."
Posted by Floid 7 years ago
Floid
Well, your major overall failure is that you do not relate any of the mathematical rambling back to the topic. Other than that, it seems you don't really understand fully that mathematics and "absolute laws" (which we don't even really know if they are absolute) are only our best approximation at describing nature. The mathematics doesn't tell nature how it has to be... we try to take the tools we have created (like mathematics) and use it to model nature as best we can.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by dazmo 7 years ago
dazmo
way12goVi_VeriTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
way12goVi_VeriTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
way12goVi_VeriTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
way12goVi_VeriTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by wonderwoman 7 years ago
wonderwoman
way12goVi_VeriTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
way12goVi_VeriTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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