The Instigator
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Neonix
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

The Proof of the non-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 6 votes the winner is...
Neonix
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/22/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,853 times Debate No: 20575
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (24)
Votes (6)

 

The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro

Yeah I said it.. Everybody would like there to be a god. Who wouldnt want to be sure we have some place to go after we die and have a purpose to life.. I think we have both but are current conception of god needs to be out of the way first. It is not religion that is the problem per say but rather fundementalist Ideas. These have always been the real problem.

That is salvation is through reason. Its the only form we could ever know it in.

The Fool says: I may be a fool, but I try my best.

What I claim is a simple as pi.
Must atleast be in college or university to challenge!!
Neonix

Con

The debate is entitled "The proof of the non-existence of God". Pro has the burden of proof. It is not my burden to prove God exists, but rather that Pro cannot disprove God.

I am currently enrolled as an electronics engineering major, although I find it quite arrogant for Pro to assume a layman could not challenge him/her on this topic.

Concerning the admission of foolishness on pro's behalf, I move that the debate is already over. A fool cannot prove anything. Fools make foolish errors. This debate is not fool-proof.

I expect a fun debate.
Debate Round No. 1
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro

The Fool says: The Fool knows he is a Fool because he has been fooled so many times before. It is by recognition of his mistakes that the fool becomes a master of Foolery. In this case I mean the art of the recognition of Illusions.
The Fool does recognize the popular belief that there is no proof for the existence of God. But what is popular is beside the point. For if the moon is made of cheese, and we believe it to be made of ice-cream it is still made of cheese. E.g. we all belief the earth was flat at one time. But we were all wrong.

On Truth
For there are many people who claim to know the truth, similarly there are many theories of truth.
But a theory of truth could never be the truth for a theory is a lesser claim then the truth itself.
But there are some truths that we know for sure, for example the fact that I am experiencing writing this right now is self-evidence by the thought alone. That is the thought is the experience and you could never be wrong about that you had a thought nor experience.
In another expression we may say that the truth seems always ahead of us. For when we try and speak for the truth, it is always true that we spoke, but not necessary that we spoke of the truth.
But one thing we do know for sure. Is that the truth is the truth and what is not true is not the truth. That is, what is not the truth is false.

Thus we have a necessary condition of truth. Which is really just a simple tautology, that is Truth=Truth.
But the Fool says: don't be fooled by simplicity. ;) For the truth= is and is synonymous with existence aka something (as appose to nothing) and an, a, the, is, it, entity, concept and 1. Why "1"? Because it follows from anything in particular. For example:
1 car = car or 1 bird = a bird or the bird or the existence of the word or ideas of bird.
We could even use math quantifiers:
1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*car = car similarity pure english a a a a a a a a a a car=car. or a*a*a*a*a=Car etc.
It is redundant to add lots of a's but the meaning is the same. And that is what I am demonstrating.

And similarly 0 = false , non- existence, illusion, is not,.
Why is that? Because it is something which is nothing at the very same time, in the very sense that it appears as something but it's really nothing. Don't be fooled.;) Thus the idea behind the symbol 0 is synonymous with idea of falsehood.
That is zero is the enemy. Its appears as something but it is really nothing and this is the very meaning of illusion aka false truth.

But I digress, too much teaching not enough Sophist fighting. I might not need this but it may come in handy later. It depends on how much trouble my opponent will give me.
The main principle here is what is is: therefore 1=1 but 0 is not or similarly what is not.
Even if we try and make it true it is always false. For example 1*1*1*1*1*0=0 similarly a*a*a*0=0 etc.
For it is self-evident that the fact that someone has faith is absolutely true by the thought of it. But it is not the case of what they have faith in is true. As demonstrated earlier all the belief in the world doesn't change what is. It might change what it look like(appearance) but never what is actually is. For example we may better trust that something is true because its popular but don't confuse TRUST with TRUTH.

For example we may trust a partner not to cheat or lie, but it doesn't cement the fact that it is true.
Here we go..Pay close attention.

For lets grant our opponent that faith alone is good enough for the truth of the thing we have faith in, in this case god. But the problem is that it then becomes equally true by faith alone that god is false aka not exist.
Thus if the truth of god is as true as the truth of the non-existence of god, that is, god is not. More particularly it is(the case) that god is not(the case) that god is true. That is, the truth of god is not true.
For let x represent god and the truth be 1.
(1*1x) –(1*x)=0 Therefore 1x – 1x = 0
Here is another formulation just for clarity: for let F=faith let G=god let E= existence.
For Let Faith be a sufficient condition of the existence of god.
Given:
1. F→EG
2. F→~EG
3. F
C. (EG&~EG)
Yes this is actually REAL and original. (you better quote me if you use my material)

End of round 2 for The Fool on The Hill. The Fool says: mind me English is not my second language.
Neonix

Con

Pro said: "But I digress, too much teaching not enough Sophist fighting"

Rebuttal: You hardly taught a single measure of understandable material. You have yet to bring forth proof to disprove God.

This "thing", that you've presented as evidence, is not revealing the absence of deity. I illuminates your insecurity. It's clear that you'd prefer God not to exist.

The burden of proof is still on you. What you've established in your rhetoric, is a formula for possibilities. Vague possibilities. That's not proof. Your summary (the logical portions) are best described as:"God possibly doesn't exist."

For the record, I think Pro is quite mad, and I deeply regret having to engage him on this topic. I thought he'd be a little more grounded.

By the way, nobody will ever quote your material. Pre-algebra is not a stroke of genius. If you really want to claim intellectual property on those three letters and their "sophisticated" arrangement, feel free.

In the next round, bring proof or forfeit.
Debate Round No. 2
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro

A Fool credit:

The Fool says: Firstly, let’s give credit where credit is due, he is right, I have been fooling myself. But have I been fooled again? Oh what now, problems I say, problems. For let’s take a closer look at my argument and see if it can be salvaged or if I have to come up with a new one. But I was sure I had previously thought out a necessary condition. Maybe I was just wrong from the beginning. :(

The fool says: But wait a minute I do have an informal proof and a mathematical proof, and if that is true. I must have made a wrong turn with the logical proof. So let’s try a more careful approach this time. I am running out of chances here. :(

The art of schoolery

A Fools clarification:

Part 1
This segment was to clarify what we all know about truth for sure. That is, we may disagree on many things but one thing for sure is that the truth is the truth. Why because If it is something else then it would be false. Which is just a tautology:

P1. Truth=Truth=1

And this is the proof of the law of non-contradiction. That is, a contradiction can’t be true, because it would break the law of tautology which is a law of truth. Therefore what is not is false. Further clarification can be show by looking at the presupposition of the expression “is not”. That is, it is the case that it is not the case, which we see is inherently a contradiction. Therefore:

P2. What “is not” =false

Even that is tricky because technically it doesn’t exist. That is the property of not-ness(really a lack of any property) So in this sense it is and illusion. Why, because an illusion appears as something, but it is really nothing. Not-ness analytically doesn’t exist, because it’s not there. See its all the same idea.

Ext
P2 false= does not exist=no-thing=contradiction=0=illusion

Part 2

Idea versus physical symbols:
The function of language is to communicate our ideas with other people. To master Foolery, it is a very important skill of to be able to tell the difference. For example there is a mental image of a tree and the physical symbol “tree” we use to communicate this idea. But what is important here is the mental concept of Truth and false. That is the mental concept true is the same as the mental concept of 1 and mental concept false is the same as the mental concept of 0. Why, because every particular or whole thing is 1 thing. For example:

Is if we substitute 1 in a sentence for other words that refer to the same idea as one it will not change the meaning of the sentence(the meaning is in your mind)

E.g. a bright star exist in a sky.
1 bright star 1 in 1 sky.

It is an unintuitive read because we need some multiplication symbols to smooth it out, but the meaning is the same.

The multiplication symbol asserts a property to something. For example; with numbers it asserts a property of quantity. In this case it can assert a quality.

For example “a car is red.”=“a car*red
In both cases we have “1red car”

Now we can fully realize P1 and P2

P1. True=1=existence=truth=is=a=the=an
P2. False= does not exist=no-thing=contradiction=0=illusion=is not

I am sure this is not an exhaustive list.

Now let’s see if we got enough knowledge to take on this Sophist.

Remember if we fail, it’s all hellfire and brimstone for eternity.

The fool says: that doesn’t sound very fun. :(


Exit Schoolery/enter Foolery.

The Fool says: That was weird it was like I was a sleep for a moment. Oh yeah, the argument.


Argument 1 (informal proof)

If faith is a condition of the truth of its content, in this case God. It follows that faith makes anything true. Therefore anything we have faith in is as true as god. That is Leprechauns, devils, and even foolish ideas. ;) That is, faith cannot distinguish between the existences of anything in particular. The inability to distinguish is ignorance. Thus the only existence that follows from faith is ignorance.


Argument 2 (mathematical proof)

For let’s grant the Sophist faith alone is good enough for the truth of something (I don’t think we even need to say god, because faith alone just fails as a criteria of truth). This is because it also becomes equally true that the existence of depends on belief alone. Thus if the truth of god is as true as the truth of the non-existence of god, that is, god is not. Then he can't exist. (Warning this is not to be confused with mental concepts(thoughts). e.g. we all have a mental conception of a leprechauns and gods but that doesn't mean we believe in god or leprechauns.)

P1&P2 (the fool’s special weapon)

For let x represent god;

(1*x) –(1*x)=0 Therefore 1x – 1x = 0


Argument 3 (Logical Proof):

Here is another clearer formulation: for let F=faith let G=god let E= existence

Given:

1. G→F
The existence of god is faith based.


2. F→EG

If something is faith based then it does exist.

3. F→~EG

But if something is faith based then it also does not exist.

4. G→(EG&~EG)

Therefore the existence of a faith based god is False.

A faith based god’s existence is a contradiction. That is IMPOSSIBLE.

Thus a faith based god does not exist.

QED



End of round 3 For the Fool with the chills.

The Fool says: mind ma English it is not my third language.
Neonix

Con

Pro argues that truth is quantifiable. Pro believes all true things can be counted and measured. Pro would reference examples of 1 visible star= 1 truth concerning the existence of the star.

His argument against God is thus:
0 visible aspects of God= 0 God, thus God is false.

I argue, that is not proof to disprove God. That is proof for limited Human sight. A powerful telescope will reveal countless more truths to you. You have assumed your search for God stops at your limited flesh.

I have added some wisdom from God. He knew you would argue this way. Look at the evidence, he even mentions Pro by name.

Thus "1*fool=fool". Apply your absolute truth to this writing.

Psalm 14:1-3 The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good. The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any that act wisely, that seek after God. They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt; there is none that does good, no, not one.
Debate Round No. 3
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro

The Death of fundamentalism:

I am afraid it is becoming that time to put the nails in the coffin for this Debate. A proof is a proof and it stands alone from agreement or believe, that is what makes it a Proof.


It takes along to adjust to something we all thought wasn’t possible. My point was made very clear. That is Salvation threw reason. Faith is would we should do when we got nothing else less. But I still have a lot left and when that time comes maybe I will pray as well. For now let the evolution of ideas continue. You see part of the demonstration of the evolution of ideas was to show that is through rational inquiry we find our answers. You see that is The True scientific method is that 99.% of scientist don’t know either. It can be applied in anyway not just the physical world. What me and my opponent engaged in what the True scientific method in the sense. That I put my ideas to be tested, we could call it a theory and my opponent pointing out flaws in attempt to foil them but inadvertently pointing out were I needed to adjust it, until it reached perfection. The proof I was looking for. That is by admitting to myself where I was wrong I was able to evolve my idea. So not only did I prove the nonexistence of god but my partner also helped me PROVE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. This must take the wind out of his Fundamentalism, for he helped me prove his own fundamentalism wrong. That is what I mean by The Art of Foolery. ;)

Secondary, I am a transcendental idealist, which means I work to explain the world within a mental framework without having to appeal to a physical world at all.(warning, not to be confuse with the imagination.) What people consider physical world I translate it into a frame work of mind, because the mind is the necessary condition of seeing the external world, for to claim otherwise is to claim that you are out of your mind. ;)

Let’s this be known as legendary. Let it be salvation for this Sophist, if he chooses it, by the admission of being fooled.

A Fools coffin:

Argument 1: Was that knowledge that faith based is ignorance.

Argument 2: That something based on faith alone is its own negation.

Argument 3 is the demonstration of the non-existence of a faith based god.

A Fools nails:

A 2:

Nail 1

In the second Proof was I missed a few words but it works regardless. To say I am asserting quantity of existence is to not understand my demonstration we use the number one in a mathematical category but that one is the same mental idea which labeled in the different context we use it. That was explained efficiency; we could even make it even clearer if necessary. Secondly that one is inherent in any entity. More proof: to say there is not 1. Is to say there is none. This means it doesn’t exist. There for 1 is synonymous with existence.

Nail 2

Yeah it is absolute but it doesn’t follow by saying so it is false. To say there is no real truth is the same as to be ignorant of it. And so we fall into the fallacy of adhering to ignorance…. Again.

This reeks of an attempt to appeal to relativism as a turtling position of defend.

Nail 3

Another proof anyway for good measure: you could not speak the word if you didn’t grasp some aspect of what it means, for your ability to speak means that you have an idea which you speak of. Unless my opponent wants to admit that he doesn’t even know what he is talking about when he says things. ;)

Nail 4

To quote from the bible is to not recognize the argument which completely discredits any faith based truth which includes that the bible really speaks the word of god.

The Fools Hammer:

The arguments are complete and sound. The Proof has been logically demonstrated and credit should be given where credit is due. Remember ALL THREE HAVE TO BE SHOWN WRONG. And number three is undeniable A FATAL BLOW/

If my opponent which is to reformulate his ideas and challenge me again. Or wants to argue about relativism you challenge will always be accepted.

If the fool is mistaken he wants know about it. So he can adjust and continue with the evolution of ideas. It is not about winning, this was a challenge to see If my ideas could pass the test and with the help of my partner/opponent we made it happen.

It was a pleasure !!!

Neonix

Con

Pro said:"It takes along to adjust to something we all thought wasn’t possible. My point was made very clear. That is Salvation threw reason."

Answer: I'll ignore the terrible syntax. Your point is that salvation comes through reasoning. I disagree. Nobody ever stopped being human by the power of their own will. This doesn't disprove God.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Pro said:"Faith is would we should do when we got nothing else less."

Answer: Again, your syntax is giving me nose bleeds. Your point is, when we have no other options, we resort to faith.
That's true. I agree. That doesn't disprove God.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pro said:"You see part of the demonstration of the evolution of ideas was to show that is through rational inquiry we find our answers."

Answer: Disagree. We don't find answers through radical inquiry. Radical inquiry is part of the process, but it's not the source of the answer. That's like saying:" To feed myself, I think really hard about food." You will never get answers if you all you do is ask questions. You will never eat, if you only think about food. It requires.....(drum roll)......actions.

Again, not proof for the non-existence of God.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pro said:"You see that is The True scientific method is that 99.% of scientist don’t know either. It can be applied in anyway not just the physical world."

Answer: I'm guessing that's supposed to mean that "we can apply the scientific method to more than just physical science."? Of course we can. Psychology, Sociology and Economics all have measurable statistics.
How does this disprove God?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pro said:"That I put my ideas to be tested, we could call it a theory and my opponent pointing out flaws in attempt to foil them but inadvertently pointing out were I needed to adjust it, until it reached perfection. The proof I was looking for."

Answer: You haven't perfected it. All you've said is:" Aha! It is perfected." So, now disprove God.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pro said:" This must take the wind out of his Fundamentalism, for he helped me prove his own fundamentalism wrong. That is what I mean by The Art of Foolery. ;)"

Answer: Yea man. You got me good. If only you would take your Ritalin and FOCUS! You got no proof against God.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pro said:"Secondary, I am a transcendental idealist, which means I work to explain the world within a mental framework without having to appeal to a physical world at all.(warning, not to be confuse with the imagination.)"

Answer:
What are you even talking about? You disproved God in your mind without using imagination? Did you just admit to having a lobotomy?

ALL CONSCIOUS THOUGHT IS SYNONIMOUS WITH IMAGINATION.
Dictionary.com definition of imagination:

the action or process of forming such images or concepts.
Synonyms
ingenuity, enterprise, thought

The scientific method requires "observed, tested and repeatable data".



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Pro said:"What people consider physical world I translate it into a frame work of mind, because the mind is the necessary condition of seeing the external world, for to claim otherwise is to claim that you are out of your mind. ;)"


Answer:


schiz·o·phre·ni·a [skit-suh-free-nee-uh, -freen-yuh]





noun

1.

Psychiatry . Also called dementia praecox. a severe mental disorder characterized by some, but not necessarily all, of the following features: emotional blunting, intellectual deterioration, social isolation, disorganized speech and behavior, delusions, and hallucinations.



2.

a state characterized by the coexistence of contradictory or incompatible elements.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pro said:"To quote from the bible is to not recognize the argument which completely discredits any faith based truth which includes that the bible really speaks the word of god."


Answer: Buddy, you can't just eliminate a source, just because you don't like it. Try that in court sometime." Nah, I'm not guilty. Law is relative."

As I've said before, you would prefer that God doesn't exist. You eliminate all aspects of God within your definition, so that you don't have to disprove them. THAT, is a turtle shell defense. Wouldn't you have to START disproving the Bible before you even try to disprove God? The Bible is the evidence for God's existance. You never once addressed it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pro said:"The arguments are complete and sound. The Proof has been logically demonstrated and credit should be given where credit is due. Remember ALL THREE HAVE TO BE SHOWN WRONG. And number three is undeniable A FATAL BLOW/"


Answer:




    • You haven't proved anything.

    • Not a single FACT has come to light. Not one reference is used.

    • No support exists for your idea.




    • Everything you mentioned comes from your own mind, which you cannot accurately express.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Pro said:"If my opponent which is to reformulate his ideas and challenge me again. Or wants to argue about relativism you challenge will always be accepted."

Answer: Dude, I need therapy after dealing with you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pro said: It is not about winning, this was a challenge to see If my ideas could pass the test and with the help of my partner/opponent we made it happen.



Answer: I'm sure you're quite convinced of your success. The next time they let you out of your padded cell, play some checkers. This doesn't suit you.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pro said:"It was a pleasure !!!"


Answer: No....no it wasn't. Also, we still have closing arguments to make. I'm going to heavily focus on abnormal psychology sources in mine. What sources will you be using?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debate Round No. 4
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro

It is very familiar to hear people say that everything is a belief or it’s all a matter of opinion. What do is the difference? What could we know for sure?

Well for example I have concept/thought of a unicorn. But let’s say a Sophist tells me that it is a belief, I would say no it’s impossible, why because I don’t believe in unicorns. Therefore it would be a contradiction. That is, your thought is synonymous with the mental concept. You could never be wrong about what you are just thinking. Your thought is your thought it is always and absolutely true or you couldn’t even be thinking it. We can call this a self-evident truth;

Proof:

Just picture a tree in your mind, no matter what I think or believe or other people say your mental conceptions (ideas) are true as an idea. This is always absolutely true even if you don’t believe it.

For example you may forget tomorrow that you thought of a tree just now, but it will always be true that at this time right now you had that thought whether you even believe or not. Even if no one can recognize it still happened. No matter what anyone tells you could never be wrong about what you’re thinking. The sophist will try and trick you out of it.

A belief/faith is different because they depend on expectations, which is more than just a thought. When we say we believe in a tree we mean a tree in another context then thought alone.

Proof: thinks of something that you belief in but you don’t’ expect to be true. (try) you will see it doesn’t make sense. That is to not expect something to be true, is to not belief.

So remember to expect something doesn’t mean it will be true, it just mean you expect something to be true.

But remember what you believe in can turn out to be false. So there is the belief and the content (the thing you believe in)

What we are doing here is working with the mind. It is your mind that is the proof of these things.

If you get what I mean you should understand your own mind

A true belief means the content is true.

To claim that a something is true just because you expect it too is f-fundamentalist belief.

So to have f-knowledge it must be more than just a belief, that is it must be a belief+evidence

Evidence is simply a form of verification. (Experience) it doesn’t have to be physical.

So we may say that knowledge is justified believe.

Another level, the highest level is f-certified knowledge, which is proven justified belief or it can be called True justified belief.

We consider math to be TJB

The fool: the relative sophist is a very slippery creature. It strength lies in vague term and the manipulation of definition. We must begin by throwing some sand on it, untill its buried.

Tricky terms:

Opinion:

Infallible Opinion: as in “I like that”, that looks nice. I feel like this or that. Infallible opinion (because you are just expressing your own thought)

Fallible Opinion: you should do this or that. These types of opinions are not equal. For example if you want to know about physical injury, a specialist of physical injuries has more informed opinion, someone who specializes in taxes.

The fools says: most people can’t tell the difference, commonly we use the same word but this causes us to confuse the differing concepts.

What is a argument?

Intellectual and original version:

And argument must have a premise or more, that support a conclusion. And the premise and conclusion must be logically related. This doesn’t have to be in words. I may have a theory which is my conclusion and the supporting premises are the success of the experiment.

Communized version:

Just people having different “says” or disagreement opinions about things, Or reports of opinions, or viewpoints. But there is not inherently better one.




The main point to understand is that nothing follow from expectation alone but expectation. Therefore a faith based does not exist.



Polemic argument:

A hostile argument where people are insulting others it could be in both forms.

For example:what my partner will say..



and we Should expect this as this being buried is not fun. so we should expect kicking and screan during this last bit..
bye for that


the fool in the sky

Neonix

Con

My opponent has been long winded and erratic. The arguments presented lack substance and evidence. The debate is entitled "The Proof of the non-existence of God". I ask the reader:" Have you found the proof in my opponents rhetoric?"


The opponent started the debate and took responsibility to furnish the evidence. The opponent failed by any measure of science or logic. Socrates is turning in his grave at the sight of this self-proclaimed "sophist".


It would appear to me, that the opponent would like to be recognized for outstanding mental prowess. I find it so sad and unfortunate that the opposite became true. How ironic, that the opponent claimed to be a "fool".


For those who do not know, Socrates claimed to be a fool. He admitted he knew nothing. My opponent attempted to liken herself/himself to one of the deepest thinkers of human history. Isn't it a bit suspicious for a self-proclaimed fool to assume he/she can disprove deity?


Please vote CON.
Debate Round No. 5
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tarkovsky 4 years ago
tarkovsky
Two huge problems with Fool's 'logical' argument.

1.) Notation suggests you're using a propositional calculus. One component of a proposition cannot stand for a single word: N is Deoxyribonucleic Acid P is Phosphate

N -> P
N
therefore, P

Doesn't mean or say anything as N and P aren't propositions and, after all, this is propositional logic.

2.) The form of your argument resembles the principle of explosion. Therefore, with respect to validity, you're argument proves absolutely anything: your conclusion, the negation of your conclusion etc. etc.

I really think that because a propositional calculus needs actual propositions to function properly, and propositions weren't provided, you led yourself into equivocation. Faith in premise 1 is different from faith in premise 2.

Then again, I could be wrong, the whole thing is really vague so I don't really know if it is equivocation or not.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
On Sophistry, a fools last lesson 

Sophistry it the art of using fallacies or irrational techniques to persuade people, these techniques are called Sophisms, and thus some who relies on then or uses them to persuade other are Sophists.

For the Sophist calls himself "wise", to give the appearance of wise or whatever positive they self-claim. The strength of the sophist depends on appearances. There is a big difference between appearances and what actually IS. E.g. we might recognize a mirage, that is an appearance, which is and illusion.

Secondly a Sophist, who doesn't know they are a sophist, I call Sophist goons, they are the puppets of the Master Sophist and they get persuaded, moved and motivated, by them.
Master sophists can be recognized in everyday life. Usually in the form of Politian's, Priest, lawyer's marketers, and some teachers even. Why? Because Sophism works better then reason, when there is lots of people because the audience doesn't have to think, it they think they can spot the Sophism.
Some examples: "change is good" no not always if you get cancer or aids or killed, it is certainly a change but it is shitty change. So we need to demand why a particular change is good.

"There is nothing to fear but fear itself" there is the is an emotion but we never fear the emotions we fear that which threatens us our life..

"Two heads are better than one" not really if one is Osama and the other is a Christine infidel.. You might get murdered.

Literally any political quote can be easily debunked. But, they were useful in the moment to persuade people fast, even though they are illusions.

When debating a Sophist makes good use of connotative definitions, like ferocious evil or good, or, better, looks, attack somebodies integrity rather than the argument. Because by doing this it gives the audience a negative appearance of their opposition rather than focus on the worth of their argument.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
The Fools sees you Sophist:
"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."
The Fool says: His Invisible attributes have been clearly perceived? God cannot be self-contradicting, but a Sophist can.
""Psalm 14:1-3 The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good. The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any that act wisely, that seek after God. They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt; there is none that does good, no, not one."
"The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
The Fool: In the past before we understood better we used to think the mind was in the heart, this is where "in your heart come from". But now we know the heart serves to pump blood and that all emotions or thoughts are in the mind which recognize as within the brain. We use metaphor in your heart in the sense that our emotions are often out of synch with reason. But we know very well that this is all in the mind. That means that if these are god's word, we would have to say god is ignorant, for we may say things our mind, and someone may not believe in god, not expect god to be true. But this is not captured in the modern metaphoric version. This follows that god must be ignorant. But this is impossible, so they are writing of a Sophist, who at the time was ignorant, those it is the faults of the human.
Everybody, searches for a salvation, some just have a small standard of wanting it to make sense.
Posted by Neonix 5 years ago
Neonix
You are deceitful. Why did the quality of your English suddenly improve to near fluency? In the beginning, you could barely put two words together that made sense. Now you are ferociously defending yourself with fluency.

Are you the fool, or do you expect us to be fooled?
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Another major issue here is to understand that there are three main arguments. Most of what my partner attacks is part of my introductions into the sections of the debate. Which is obvious not related to the proof, so many shots are taken at things which are not related to the proof. IN the third section I made it clear which are the three main arguments so whatever else he talks about which are not related to that, are excess garbage
It was me who accepted the burden of proof so all my partner should be is a passive opposition. It is in this sense that he is my partner, in that he is really there to help me fix up any mistakes I may miss... He also helps pushing me to make what I more understandable to general audience, w which is hard because if I simplify too much I may lose important necessary information.

Remember proof is only in logic - math or self-evident thought. To ask for evidence is to miss the purpose. The argument is constructed from universal mind entities.. For example we all have expectations, we all, have conceptions of one. And it is from these universal ideas that we "all" I use as my given(self-evident principles). Unless you can really deny that you have these, but you can't if you are human. Because "I think therefore I am" Decartes. So as long as I stick with those to form a logical argument I can't fail.
Posted by Neonix 5 years ago
Neonix
Wow....
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Sorry I didnt get write my last section.. I reallist it at the last minute. so I had copied and pasted informatoin from a different argument that was related.

What is important to think about, is that this is a non-empirical arguement.. Therefore to speak of evidence does make sense. For there is not empirical evidence. We are not doing science here.
The grounding is in mental entitiy.. like faith = expectation. and this is trust factor.. the feeling we get when we are sure of something. nothing follow trust but trust. trust is no truth.. trust is our intuitive inclination to think something... while truth is the certainty of something. So the if the content of what we have faith alone will always turn up false. unless there is something else to appeal too.. So the content of blind faith will always be ignorance.. = is not =false.. takes time to learn this skil because we have been brought up to think so materialistical.. If you don't have a mind you don't exist... but if you have a mind and we cut all you sense of from the brain you will still be there in mind... So the mind is first adn thus th necessary conditoin even knowing of a physical world.. so the object we are working with is our feeling of expecation. (which self-evident) you could never be wrong that you have the feeling. So with out a verfied object with you expect to be true it will always turn up false.. Since this is the only way we know god then he is false..

Secondly a argument need a premise and a conclusion.. don't confuse that with mere statmenta.. all my partner has said are mere statments.. most of them of hatefull slander.. he doesnt know anything a about me as as a person or what I am or what I try to be.. Those are only statment...not arguments.. he doesn' know any thing about socratest he is jsut recited some Coline quin comedy special show, that is about the extent of that...
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
or maybe it is a joke...maybe ;)

don't trust a Fool
Posted by Neonix 5 years ago
Neonix
Hahahahahaha....narcissism at it's best.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
The fool says: well, we can't be children forever. And I am claiming to be a man who makes babies ;) And share my thrown with a mother. And my children will be part of the revolution from the age of illusions in the evolution of ideas, and when my time is done I hope they continue to evolve and become adults themselfs, to continue the progress far beyond me.
but these are the words of a Fool. ;)
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
The_Fool_on_the_hillNeonixTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never fulfilled his burden of proof. He made a daring claim: there is no God. However, he never proved this to be conclusively true.
Vote Placed by Naoi 5 years ago
Naoi
The_Fool_on_the_hillNeonixTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: I started reading this expecting to agree with Pro, but that thought quickly faded. I feel like "The Fool" was trying to make a point through a sort of verbal interpretive dance, but long disjointed arguments and frequent grammar problems completely obscured whatever Pro's point may have been. In the future, consider that if you cannot concisely summarize your argument in one short paragraph, chances are you have not yet developed a clear enough image in your own mind.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
The_Fool_on_the_hillNeonixTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Pros "argument" was really not much more then an incoherent ramble. He did not satisfy his burden to show proof that God does not exist, and Con refuted his claims convincingly. Pro loses SG because of his excessive grammatical distractions, particularly his constant use of bold characters. Con loses conduct for his "padded cell" insult. Con must attack the argument not his opponent, although I certainly do understand how tough that is in a debate like this one.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
The_Fool_on_the_hillNeonixTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ultimately failed to "prove" which was Pro's self assigned BOP. Con pointed out multiple times how the proof was not an accurate proof and defended those adequately.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
The_Fool_on_the_hillNeonixTied
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 showed that the pro didnt actually give any proof to disprove of God since all he did was talk about fools
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
The_Fool_on_the_hillNeonixTied
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 showed that Pro didn't well prove anything...I still do not see where the proof is...I read the "proof" once nothing again nothing....