Science is false
Helooooooo ddo. Your looking fabulous as always. Ima true genuis. I study all science over the mounth and came to conclusion that science IS wrong. Sicence IS false. First round for acceptence only and in second I explain how all of science is flawed and wrong and give explanation for the appearnce of science.
I pray that we will have a good debate.
The yum yum cod accept my debate. ohhh i pray he not get owned too bad.
Axiom 1; Something wit a contradiction is fasle
premise 1: Science has contradictions
Premise 2: science isn't true
Pos: Sciene is false
Scientists study real world and come up with models. But sciensts disagree and contradict. But evidence is still the same
The modern theory of matter rests upon such supporting theories as the Standard Model of Elementary Particles, Quantum Mechanics, and the Special Theory of Relativity. After decades of work by thousands of physicists, the theory has "grown" until it can explain a very large body of physical phenomena. This has made the theory very successful; but the theory is not adequate or true because:
Attempts by the modern theory to explain other features of elementary particles and atoms result in contradictions. Orbiting electrons in the atomic shells or nucleus must radiate energy into space according to well proven laws of electricity and magnetism and demonstrated daily by broadcasting radio stations. Atoms with orbiting electrons should suffer radiation death, but they are obviously stable! Originally, this inconsistency was simply postulated away by Bohr, though he well understood the contradiction. Bohr took the view that "A great truth is a truth of which the contrary is also a truth," and to remove all doubt, he argued that the two statements "There is a God" and "There is no God" are equally insightful propositions.
One day, "A visitor to Niels Bohr's country cottage asked him about a horseshoe nailed above the front door. `Surely, Professor Bohr, you do not really believe that a horseshoe over the entrance to a home brings good luck?' `No,' answered Bohr, `I certainly do not believe in this superstition. But you know,' he added, `they say it brings luck even if you don't believe in it.' "
Since atomism allows non-causal events and actions, the contradictions in atomistic theory are explained in terms of assumptions or a disconnection of cause and effect. In contrast, consistency is inherent in the law of cause and effect.
Scientst all look for the thory of everything. But it funny because they contradict each other so they looking for something to resolve contradcition. THe funny thing is a contradiction es contradiction it cant be resolved bc its a contradiction. We must throw it out.
Another augment. The universe not real! The world is fake then the scientific models that try explain word also not true and fake because the world es not true adn fake.
THe world looks to be a computer simulation. A secular argument say a civilazation will one day be smart enough to create a simulated universe. If they do they will sell billions of copies of the game to get lots of money. IF billions of copy sold then this universe is a billion more times likely to me a simulation than the real weorld.
Odds are 1,000,000,000 to 1 that universe is simulation. The universe es looks like a computer simulation
Digital Processing All events/objects that arise from digital processing must have a minimum quantity or quanta.
Maximum Processing Rate Events in a VR world must have a maximum rate, limited by a finite processor.
Non-local Effects A computer processor is equidistance to all screen “pixels”, so its effects can be “non-local” with respect to its screen.
Processing Load Effects If a virtual processing network is overloaded, its processing outputs must be reduced.
Information Conservation If a stable VR is not to gain or lose information it must conserve it.
Digital Equivalence Every digital object created by the same code is identical.
this not stupid science fiction.
Cosmic ray also could be proof.
Wat is these things we see? elections are gods will protons are gods thoughts, energy is gods focused power dark energy is gods raw power. The universe is in the mind of god it a simulation inside god being complete control. YOur computer not real its mental matter of god your d1ck aint real it a part of gods excavating immensant mind.
According to Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, science is:
“knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation.” 
And by the same source, a contradiction is:
“a difference of disagreement between two things which means that both cannot be true.” 
Axiom: A fact is true.
Premise: Science is knowledge based upon fact.
Conclusion: Science is therefore true.
Science itself cannot be disproven, but instead the scientific theories presented by scientists. For example, if evolution is falsified, that doesn’t mean that science is false, but instead that science has shown that evolution is false.
Assuming this argument is true, allow us to look at my opponent’s arguments. I’ll go into detail and classify my opponent’s arguments into their conditions of rebuttal.
A. My opponent assumes that if one scientific theory, (or many for that matter) is proven false, science is proven false. He implies so with his original position, ‘Science has contradictions and therefore cannot be true’, yet only backing it up with things similar to ‘Attempts by the modern theory to explain other features of elementary particles and atoms result in contradictions’. This is fallacious, and what I call a ‘non sequitur’ argument (a.k.a. missing the point, or not backing up the thesis).
For the theory to be false, science must be the one to disprove it. Scientific theories cannot disprove science because science is required for those scientific theories to be true.
B. Because my opponent cannot logically attack my position by disproving scientific theories, he tries a different approach, by stating, “The universe is not real!”. There is one massive problem with saying this, however. And that is that his argument is, again, non sequitur. The evidence that he has lined up for this have been simple comparisons between our universe and a computer simulation, and because science is the knowledge of our natural world based upon fact, even if it was true that the world is a computer simulation, it would remain to be science.
Science is not false, because science, by nature, is always true. It is man’s great quest to discover the truth. Truth cannot be false while still remaining true. Scientific theories cannot be proven false while still remaining science.
My opponent has not yet provided a logically intact case for the falsity of science. No further evidence is necessary to prove my point.
Anti-atheist forfeited this round.
|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||4|