The Instigator
suriaguru
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
J.Kenyon
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points

Theory of Sivashanmugam

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 1/3/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,853 times Debate No: 14209
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (5)

 

suriaguru

Con

The nature of anything can be known from the universal laws of nature
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You will find them everywhere in everything

If you search for divisibility,
you will find it everywhere in everything!

If you search for comparability,
you will find it everywhere in everything!

If you search for connectivity,
you will find it everywhere in everything!

If you search for sensitivity,
you will find it everywhere in everything!

If you search for transformability,
you will find it everywhere in everything!

If you search for substitutability,
you will find it everywhere in everything!

If you search for satisfiability,
you will find it everywhere in everything!

Without the search for divisibility, science would not have found the divisibility of atoms, molecules, ions, cells, organelles, tissues, organs, guilds, words, numbers, equations, instruments, and other entities!

Without the search for comparability, science would not have found the comparability of atoms, molecules, ions, cells, organelles, tissues, organs, guilds, words, numbers, equations, instruments, and other entities!

Without the search for connectivity, science would not have found the connectivity of atoms, molecules, ions, cells, organelles, tissues, organs, guilds, words, numbers, equations, instruments, and other entities!

Without the search for sensitivity, science would not have found the sensitivity of atoms, molecules, ions, cells, organelles, tissues, organs, guilds, words, numbers, equations, instruments, and other entities!

Without the search for transformability, science would not have found the transformability of atoms, molecules, ions, cells, organelles, tissues, organs, guilds, words, numbers, equations, instruments, and other entities!

Without the search for substitutability, science would not have found the substitutability of atoms, molecules, ions, cells, organelles, tissues, organs, guilds, words, numbers, equations, instruments, and other entities!

Without the search for satisfiability, science would not have found the conditions which could be satisfied by atoms, molecules, ions, cells, organelles, tissues, organs, guilds, words, numbers, equations, instruments, and other entities!

Science constantly searches, researches and tests the universal laws of nature everywhere in everything. No scientific method excludes the universal laws of nature. The universal laws of nature form the very foundation for human knowledge. The universal laws of nature will continue to exist until the universe becomes nothing.

What will you do if nothing has divisibility, comparability, connectivity, sensitivity, transformability, substitutability, and satisfiability?

What would your knowledge be if nothing has divisibility, comparability, connectivity, sensitivity, transformability, substitutability, and satisfiability?

Do you know anything whose nature cannot be known from the universal laws of nature?

Oh, beloved men and women,
You will never know anything whose nature cannot be known from the universal laws of nature!

Refute this if you can, or else declare that you know neither the universal laws of nature nor the nature of anything!
J.Kenyon

Pro

Thanks, Con, for instigating.

Con claims that "the nature of anything can be known from the universal laws of nature." Before responding to this, it's important to outline what the laws of nature are. Princeton's WordNet defines a law of nature as "a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; 'the laws of thermodynamics.'"[1]

1. Performative contradiction of the resolution

A performative contradiction occurs "when the propositional content of a statement contradicts the noncontingent presuppositions that make possible the performance of the speech act."[2] An example would be claiming "I don't exist" or "all propositions are false." In this particular instance, even if we grant that the "laws of nature" can explain the "nature of anything," because such laws must be first be adduced empirically, they can never explain the nature of understanding or the acquisition of knowledge itself. In order to discover the laws of nature, we must begin with a sound theory of epistemic justification.

2. The laws of nature are contingent

Many natural laws are contingent truths, meaning that it is conceivable they could be otherwise.[3] Contingent facts can never explain the nature of any necessary facts. Marc Lange explains: "even if 'F' does indeed make 'A' necessary, the account will not have succeeded in revealing what necessity consists in, since 'F' is the very same kind of fact that the account was supposed to be explicating." Examples of such necessary truths include moral facts and the laws of logic.[4]

3. The laws of nature have no bearing on abstract objects

Natural laws only explain the way *physical* things interact. Such laws tell us nothing about the "nature" of abstract objects such as propositions, concepts, classes, the number 7, etc.[5]

Conclusion:

Physical laws are useless for understanding non-physical objects. Moreover, the contingent status of natural laws makes it logically impossible to derive from them any substantive information pertaining to necessary facts and abstract objects. Con's mystic, pseudo-philosophical ramblings have been thoroughly debunked.

References:

1. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://plato.stanford.edu...
4. http://plato.stanford.edu...
5. http://plato.stanford.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
suriaguru

Con

To be precisely, the theory of sivashanmugam addresses,
1. Where will one find divisibility?
2. Where will one find comparability?
3. Where will one find connectivity?
4. Where will one find sensitiivty?
5. Where will one find transformability?
6. Where will one find substitututability?
7. Where will one find satisfiability?
In accordance with the definition of 'universal laws of nature', these recur in nature.
The thoery of sivashanmugam also declares that - No theory qualies to be a theory of evolution because none of the theories explain the origin of:
1. divisibility
2. comparability ... 7. satisfiability.

Quantum mechanics says that photons and quarks are indivisible.
Therefore, I overthrow the theory of sivashanmugam
J.Kenyon

Pro

Con has not addressed any of my contentions.

Extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
suriaguru

Con

Well, I have landed up in circular logic after reading the crap by sivashanmugam.
J.Kenyon

Pro

Con states "well, I have landed up in circular logic after reading the crap by sivashanmugam." I assume this means he is conceding.

Extend my arguments.
Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 3
suriaguru

Con

Are the laws of nature universal?
Is divisibility universal?
What makes the laws of nature universal?

I am lost.
J.Kenyon

Pro

Extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
suriaguru

Con

No extension.
No one can know the laws of nature!
J.Kenyon

Pro

Con has conceded the debate. Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
Cocaine is a hell of a drug.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
lolwut
Posted by ASB 6 years ago
ASB
suriaguru had it.... it is true, a quantum which is a photon cannot be broken down.
deep breath... IN THE THEORY OF QUANTUM PHYSICS!!!!
But, they also said a while ago that an atom cannot bee broken up... hmmm then they say
that a photon is weightless yet it weighs about .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000041g.
that means it still weighs something.

It is also stated that all matter is divisible, yet people contend if a photon is matter or not.

The definition of matter is one that has mass.

Since, a photon has mass, it must be divisible...

THEREFORE QUANTUM PHYSICS IS WRONG!!!!!!
Posted by Chrysippus 6 years ago
Chrysippus
This made me laugh. Arguments and conduct to pro, obviously.
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
Obvious win for PRO
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
So use them
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
To contender: Semantics FTW
Posted by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
Lol @ copy and pasting...
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
suriaguruJ.KenyonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Sad.....................Pro destroyed Con's arguments, whose proposition was shown to be irrelevant in regards of ideas, concepts, and so forth (thus destroying Con's entire argument about the "divisibility, comparability, connectivity, sensitivity, transformability, substitutability, and satisfiability" present in everything, from the "universal laws of nature" and so forth....Con did not respond to Pro's arguments and did not view sources as being necessary to justify his case.:(
Vote Placed by ASB 6 years ago
ASB
suriaguruJ.KenyonTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
suriaguruJ.KenyonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06 
Vote Placed by popculturepooka 6 years ago
popculturepooka
suriaguruJ.KenyonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 6 years ago
Chrysippus
suriaguruJ.KenyonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04