The Instigator
THEBOMB
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Thomas Aquinas's Five Proofs

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/23/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,652 times Debate No: 20611
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (0)

 

THEBOMB

Pro

I am going to argue they work as a proof for the existence of God. My opponent argues the opposite they do not logically work as a proof for the existence of God.

In summary, these proofs are as follows (I'll expand on them later I'm just defining what they are here)

c/p
1. FIRST MOVER: Some things are in motion, anything moved is moved by another, and there can't be an infinite series of movers. So there must be a first mover (a mover that isn't itself moved by another). This is God.

2. FIRST CAUSE: Some things are caused, anything caused is caused by another, and there can't be an infinite series of causes. So there must be a first cause (a cause that isn't itself caused by another). This is God.

3. NECESSARY BEING: Every contingent being at some time fails to exist. So if everything were contingent, then at some time there would have been nothing -- and so there would be nothing now -- which is clearly false. So not everything is contingent. So there is a necessary being. This is God.

4. GREATEST BEING: Some things are greater than others. Whatever is great to any degree gets its greatness from that which is the greatest. So there is a greatest being, which is the source of all greatness. This is God.

5. INTELLIGENT DESIGNER: Many things in the world that lack intelligence act for an end. Whatever acts for an end must be directed by an intelligent being. So the world must have an intelligent designer. This is God.
c/p (1)

4 round debate. First round is for acceptance. Second round opening arguments. Third round rebuttals. Last round is finally the conclusion.

1. http://www.jcu.edu...
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Con



The Fool Grants you: THE PRINCIPLE OF CHARITY(hurray for you!!!);)



The Fool says: I am sorry young Sophist, Did you mean this? Or maybe I heard you incorrectly I am going deaf these days.



Argument of conditional and first causes:


P1 the world had a beginning


P2 something must have created it


C1 got created the world



Argument of greatness:


P1 Things vary in greatness


P2 Greatness depend on greatness itself


C2. god is greatness in itself



Argument of intelligent design:


P1 Thing vary with purpose


P2 Purposeful actions depend on intelligent beings


P3 if there is intelligent being there must have been a creator


C3 therefore god is an intelligent designer




Final Thesis:


C1/p1 god created the world


C2/P2 god is greatness


C3/P3 god is an intelligent designer


C4 God is greatness, intelligence the creator of the world.



End of Charity Round



The Fool in the sky

Debate Round No. 1
THEBOMB

Pro

I'll expand upon Aquinas's 5 proofs here:

1. First Mover:

S1. Objects are in motion.

S2. If something is in motion, then it must be caused to be in motion by something else.

S3. There cannot be an infinite chain of movers as the universe is finite.

S4. There must be a first, unmoved, mover

C. God exists.

2. Causality

S1. Some events cause other events

S2. If an event happens it must be caused by something outside itself (an event cannot cause itself)

S3. There can be no infinite cause/effect chains as the universe is finite.

S4. There must be a first uncaused, cause

C. God exists

3. Contingency

S1. Contigent things exist. Contingent being defined as dependant on for existance (1)

S2. Each contigent thing has a time when it does not exist (contigent things are not omnipresent)

S3. If everything was contingent there would be a time when nothing exists (we will call this "empty time")

S4. This empty time would have been in the past

S5. If the world was empty at one time it would be empty forever (conservation principle)

S6. If everything were contigent, then nothing would exist in the world.

S7. Obviously the world is not empty (S1)

S8. So there must exist a being that is not contigent.

C. This is God.

4. Properties coming in Degrees

S1. Objects have properties to greater or lesser extents

S2. If an object has a property to a lesser extent, there must exist some object with this property to a maximum possible degree.

S3. So there is a being with all properties to the maximum possible degree

C. Therefore, God exists.

5. From design

S1. Among all objects that act for an end, some have minds, others do not (some have intelligence others do not have intelligence)

S2. An object that acts for an end, but itself does not have a mind, must have been created by a being with a mind.

C. Therefore, God exists.

Rationally there is no way to disprove God. Here is combonation of Aquinas's cosmological arguments:

S1. The existence of something is intelligible only if it has an explanation.

S2. The existence of the universe is either:
a. unintelligible or
b. has an explanation

S3. No rational person should accept premise (2a) by definition of rationality

S4. A rational person should accept (2b), that the universe has some explanation for its being.

S5. There are only three kinds of explanations:
a. Scientific: physical conditions plus relevant laws yield the Event explained.
b. Personal: Explanations that cite desires, beliefs, powers and intentions of some personal agent.
c. Essential: The essence of the thing to be explained necessitates its existence or qualities (for example, if you ask why a triangle has 3 sides, I would respond that it is the essence and necessity for a triangle to have 3 sides by its definition.

S6. The explanation for the existence of the whole universe cannot be scientific because there can't be initial physical conditions and laws independent of what is to be explained. Event the Big Bang theory fails to explain the existence of the universe because modern science cannot explain where the original Big Bang singularity came from. The universe as a sum total of all natural conditions and laws cannot be explained unless we have an Archimidean reference point outside the system.

S7. The explanation for the existence of the universe cannot be essential because the universe cannot exist necessarily. This is because, it could have been possible for the universe not to have existed (if the Big Bang had been slightly different it is possible for large-scale structures to not have existed). Thus, the universe is not something the must necessarily or essentially exists.

S8. Thus a rational person should believe that the universe has a personal explanation.

S9. No personal agent but God could create the entire universe. (I ask my opponent to name a personal agent that could if they wish to disprove this argument)

C. A rational person should believe that there is a God.

Sources

1. http://dictionary.reference.com...
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Con

The Fool says: all right have it your way. I was trying to help you out.

A Fools investigation

The Fool: knows how to move it, move it.

1. First Mover:

S1. Objects are in motion.

Fool: False not all objects are in motion.

S2. If something is in motion, then it must be caused to be in motion by something else.

Fool: rejection, something may have been always moving. And we don’t know it.

S3. There cannot be an infinite chain of movers as the universe is finite.

The fool says: The infinite is beyond the capacity of human reason. Maybe the world goes in cycles like the Hindu’s and Buddhist say.

S4. There must be a first, unmoved, mover

Fool: and that which is unmoved and a mover is a contradiction. (M&~M)

C. God exists.

The fool says: God is a physical symbol expression that represents a concept of god. To simply just label things god when it’s convenient just means you are labeling things god when we can’t explain something it. To not have an explanation is to be ignorant of how something works. That is you are just plopping the name god onto something you don’t understand. That is not an explanation at all. That is harmful to society because it prevents us from trying to figure out what really happened.

The fool: This argument causes me to pee.

2. Causality

S1. Some events cause other events

The Fool: so what?

S2. If an event happens it must be caused by something outside itself (an event cannot cause itself)

The Fool: false a star can blow up when it is low on energy. Therefore this cause is within.

S3. There can be no infinite cause/effect chains as the universe is finite.

The Fool: Could be cyclical.

S4. There must be a first uncaused, cause

The Fool: Why is that, maybe there is only a first recognized cause there is a lot we don’t know.

C. God exists

The fool; As concept in our minds, but that all we know for sure.



The Fool: Depends on foolery

3. Contingency

S1. Contingent things exist. Contingent being defined as dependant on for existance (1)

The Fool: do you something depends on others to exist. But it could just be that we recognize something.

S2. Each contigent thing has a time when it does not exist (contingent things are not omnipresent)

The Fool: Maybe they are and we just don’t recognize them

S3. If everything was contingent there would be a time when nothing exists (we will call this "empty time")

The Fool: maybe that includes time as well. Lol. Time must exist still no?

S4. This empty time would have been in the past

The Fool: Just plain false.

S5. If the world was empty at one time it would be empty forever (conservation principle)

The Fool: Obvious not if a god could pop up out of nothing.

S6. If everything were contigent, then nothing would exist in the world.

The fool: false. again could be cyclical

S7. Obviously the world is not empty (S1)

S8. So there must exist a being that is not contigent.

The fool: No more then there must as there must not.

C. This is God.

The fool: this is labeling and it can also called be a magic leprechaun or anything magic.

The Fool: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Properties coming in Degrees

S1. Objects have properties to greater or lesser extents

The fool: The extremely vague there is space time, color, sound, idea logical and the list goes on.

S2. If an object has a property to a lesser extent, there must exist some object with this property to a maximum possible degree.

The fool: There are properties which are not that of magnitude. When it this going to end?

S3. So there is a being with all properties to the maximum possible degree

The Fool: There could me many equal maximum. Also you speak of no property in particular.

C. Therefore, God exists and so does non-sense.

The fool: you got me on that one. ;)

The fool: has design his intelligent crystal ball for it also have purpose. (To Throw at Sophist)

5. From design

S1. Among all objects that act for an end, some have minds, others do not (some have intelligence others do not have intelligence)

The fool: they day you are able to jump out of you own mind to know this, I will be true. Then again you would be out of your mind.

S2. An object that acts for an end, but itself does not have a mind, must have been created by a being with a mind.

The Fool: For we could just say something is an object with a mind. Puff!

C. Therefore, Santa Clause exist.

Rationally there is no way to disprove God. Here is combination of Aquinas's cosmological arguments:

If someone is worried about a disprove it suggest that you using ignorance as a defense.

IF you want to know a way to dis-prove just look at my proof of the non-existence of god debate:

If you want to continue.. Whatever it won’t take long to put the Nail in the coffin.

Please just forfeit and regroup your ideas to together for another time.

If Aquinas Proof was valid we would all use it. Nobody doesn’t want a god, we just think it can’t make sense.. Put the name god on something we don’t understand doesn’t make it suddenly make sense. You have just relabelled non-sense, with a different physical sound. Lastly science is not only physical we have psychology and cognitive science. So the rest will fail anyway.

I tried to fix up you argument for you because the one you had was impossible to defend.

Debate Round No. 2
THEBOMB

Pro

1. First Mover

S1. Objects are in motion

Technically, all objects are moving at quantum physical level. Furthermore, then most objects are in motion.

S2. If something is in motion, then it must be caused to be in motion by something else.

First, prove something always may have been moving. The Universe must have started at some point, even if it does go in cycles. Therefore, there is a point where nothing was in existence.

Since things being moved are only in potentiality to that toward which they are in motion, whereas those things causing motion in others are able to do so only insofar as they possess the act toward which they move others.

Motion is simply the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality

Nothing can be moved unless by something in actuality.

S3. There cannot be an infinite chain of movers as the universe is finite.

Your argument is false because there has to be a first mover to set the universe into this cycle. Something cannot move itself. The Universe cannot set itself into this cycle as you state. Something had to start. (Even Hindu's believe this, there are cycles but, something began the universe's cycle).

S4. There must be a first, unmoved, mover

Not at all, this unmoved mover is necessary for the Universe to even be in existence. Furthermore, it is not a contradiction something which does not move can still move something from "potentiality to actuality"

C. God exists

.....It's a label as an expression of God. My God is the being that created the universe. Therefore, this is completely accurate. Furthermore, only a God would have the power to create the universe.

2. Causality

S1. Some events cause other events

S2. If an event happens it must be caused by something outside itself.

Your talking about supernova's here. There are two ways a supernova forms. First, binary star systems cause one star to accreted matter from the system. After accumulating to much matter it collapses in on itself creating a supernova. Second, the end of the stars life cycle occurs and if the iron core is large enough it collapses in on itself creating a supernova. (1) In the first case, other stars are causing it's death. In the second case, the creator of the star (and no a star does not create itself) made it such that after x years it dies. The cause of the stars death is its creation by an outside force.

S3. no infinite cause/effect

I believe I already explained this. Even in a cyclical universe it must have started at some point or the universe would not exist.

S4. first un-caused, cause

My opponent has to prove there is more than one cause to the universe otherwise their objection to this point is irrelevant.

C. God exists

Self-explanatory, the first cause in the universe has to be something which supersedes all aka God.

3. Contingency

S1. Contingent things

Yes, something depends on others to exist. You only exist because your parents procreated.

S2. Each contingent thing has a time when it does not exist.

Your objection contradicts itself. Something which is omnipresent exists in everywhere and therefore, in every time. If it exists everywhere, it cannot be contingent.

S3. Time

I do not understand what your objecting to here. Please clarify.

S4. Past

How is it false. You never provided an explanation.

S5. Empty

Until the conclusion you must operate under the premise God does not exist....the entire argument together is what argues for God's existence.

S6. Contingency=nonexistence

I believe I have explained the cyclical universe enough.

S7. The world is not empty.

S8. There must exist a being that is not contingent.

...There must be something which is not dependent on something else. Or there would be nothing.

C. This is God

Whether or not it's labeling it is still true. Besides why can't a magic leprechaun be called God?

4. Greatness

S1. Objects have properties to a greater or lesser extent.

Whether or not it is vague is irrelevant. An object does not have space or time or sound. It lives inside space or time. It may emit sound. It may have color (more color vs less color) or ideas (more ideas vs less ideas) or logic (more or less logical).

S2. Lesser vs greater extent

All properties have some form of magnitude. And if you do not like it why did you accept?

S3. Being with all properties

You have not answered the question of what defines the maximum degree?

C. God exists.

There must be a source of all greatness in the world. If something is great to the maximum possible degree what better word is there than God?

5. From design

S1. Some have minds others do not

I do not see what the rebuttal is here but, I'll provide an empirical example. Magma flows beneath the earth. Magma does not have a mind, it does not have intelligent thoughts as it is not alive. Lava has a purpose to move tectonic plates, create volcanoes, etc.

S2. Object acts for end

An object without a mind.....do not have a mind.....

C. God exists

My opponent is making a mockery of this debate.

Rationally no way to disprove God. Combination.

I am merrily stating you cannot disprove the concept of God because rationally God must exist. Furthermore, you have basically dropped this point. And why don't you just retype your "dis-proof" here or even copy and paste it?

Thomas Aquinas's proofs are valid, as I have shown. My opponent has not made a valid argument to disprove these proofs. I have shown someone with rationally has to believe a God exists (dropped) and I have defended my own (rather Aquinas's) points. My opponent is making a mockery of me and Thomas Aquinas. I suggest that they read up on ethical debating. And I hope they know psychology is a science and cognitive science is a science.

Sources

1. http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Con

The_Fool_on_the_hill forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
THEBOMB

Pro

Conclusion:

1. First mover.

S1. Objects are in motion.

At a quantum physical level all objects are moving. Furthermore, those objects that do move which we can observe are moving.

S2. If something is in motion.

My opponent has not proven their objection to this is valid therefore, we must discard it. Furthermore, the Universe is expanding therefore, it must have had a beginning there is no way to get rid of a beginning that is characterized by cosmic expansion (1). If the universe is cyclical it must be expanding.

S3. Infinite chain of movers

You have not successfully backed up your objection therefore, we must regard it as invalid. Something cannot move itself. The Universe cannot start it self.

S4. There must be a first

I have shown my opponent objection is false. Something unmoved can still move an object (in this case the universe) from potentiality to actuality.

C. God exists

2. Causality

S1. Events --> other events

Dropped

S2. Events must be caused by something outside itself

My opponents sole objection here is using stars. I have shown their objection is invalid.

S3. no infinite cause/effect

My opponent utilizes a cyclical universe for their objection. But, even a cyclical universe has a beginning.

S4. First un-caused cause

My opponent did not prove their is more than one cause. Their objection to this point is invalid.

C. God exists

3. Contigency

S1. Contingent things

Something dependent on something else for existence depends on something else for existence....

S2. Each contingent thing

My opponents objection to this point is invalid as I have shown.

S3. Time

My opponents objection is impossible to decipher.

S4. Past

My opponent never provided an explanation for their "objection".

S5. Empty

This is an if/then statement. If it was empty at one time it would be empty forever therefore there must be a creator.

S6. Contingency=non existence

Their objection is the cyclical universe. I have explained how the cyclical universe must have a beginning.

S7. The world is not empty.

Dropped.

S8. There must exist a being that is not contingent.

Their objection is kind of convoluted and as I said their must exist a being which is not dependent on something else or there would be nothing.

C. This is God.

4. Greatness

S1. Objects have properties

I have proven my opponents objection invalid. Objects do not have space or time or sound. It may have more color or less color, more or less ideas, more or less logic.

S2. Lesser v greater extent

All properties have some form of magnitude. My opponents objection is invalidated.

S3. Being with all properties

Despite the convoluted objection, I believe my opponent agreed this must be true.

C. God exists

There must be a source of all greatness. Therefore, something must be great to the maximum possible degree. My opponent did not answer what better word there was than God.

5. From design.

S1. Minds v non-minds

There was no objection to this and I believe my empirical evidence proves things without minds (intelligence) have purpose.

S2. Objects act for ends

An object without intelligence does not have intelligence.

C. God exists

My combination.

My opponent basically dropped this combination of Aquinas's cosmological proofs. Therefore, I have proven God must rationally exist according to Aquinas. They never provided their so called "flawless dis-proof".

Thomas Aquinas's 5 proofs of God are completely valid. My opponent has not made a valid argument to disprove his proofs. Someone rational must believe a God exists. God must exist for 5 different reasons. I have defended these arguments, my opponent has not touched them. My opponent has not disproven anything and cannot do so as this is the final round.

1. http://www.godandscience.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Con

A Fools riddle:

Objects that have mind?

It may be completely the opposite and that all objects are within a framework of mind, for we know for certain that our minds exist. By the cogito “I think therefore I am” Descartes. But I don’t know for sure if physical objects exist. For we me tricked by our senses. Sometimes we see illusions. Secondly maybe this is all a dream and one day you will wake up, to something else. (Maybe on a hill) How do you know for sure?

If there is no mind there is not external world to perceive, on the other hand if we our senses to the external perception were cut, we would still exist, for we would still have memories and imagination and reflection and so forth, but it would be pretty lonely.

Many things exist that we cannot see physically like radiation or magnetic waves. Must of what we think is external is really in your mind.

That is things like cause and effect are in the mind but not necessarily in the world.

For example we may see on a pool table that one ball moves and hits the other, as we see this more and more we see it we recognize it as cause and effect. Right, but all you really seen is one ball move and then the next, where is the cause and effect. Furthermore we eventually notice something moving under the table, and we discover it is a man with two magnets, and the balls really had metal cores, and it is this Sophist which was moving the balls the whole time… YOU HAVE BEEN FOOLED!!!!

For where oh where is your cause and effect now… ;)

For it was never in the object but in the MIND!! Your mind places it in your physical atmosphere as a temporary explanation, a theory, to explain the physical world.. But when it is shown wrong it takes its back!!!!

That is the physical world is theoretical, But the mind is for sure. That is objects are seen because the mind puts them together from information we don’t understand. That is everything you see as physical has been conceptualized into order for you to see it that way. That which appears random is unorganized information. Your vision doesn’t represent the world as its entirety. We can’t see many things. Even when we claim to know electrons we never see them. We infer them from mental calculations, we create things which can detect what we don’t see but remember you could never leave your mind. We thing math is in the external world because we write it down. But we don’t realize the ideas are from the mind. That is why math and logic is always perfect because it is only representing our own mental framework, from which it has been organized. So it can’t be wrong. ;)

The mind uses these principles to conceptualize outer information, that is why we can apply it to external things because that is the way it been organized for us in our minds. That is why people think it somehow exists externally. Remember what I am saying is Fresh From the Hill. That is brand new knowledge.

One of the reason we have illusion is because your mind has made a false judgment on what was actually there.


To be called a proof it must be certain, So far the argument that has been given depends on a lot of thing in the universe (summation of all things) that we are not absolutely certain about. All these factor cast doubt on all your arguments. Therefore it could never be a proof..


A Fools Account

The fool says: all explanations not equal.

  1. A useful explanation: is an explanation which can be used to increase the efficiency of decisions based on its ability to predict. That is the best useful explanation is that which accurately explains how something works. This gives us the ability to predict the situation at hand and to fix or manipulate it when desired.
For example: understanding how matter works give us the power to predict change and manipulate matter for our advantage. So we may say a useful explanation gives us Power (the ability to control.)



  1. A harmful Explanation: is an explanation which prevents us from gaining power over the world. We may also say it hold us back. That it is an oppressing factor on progress.

2. For example: When we treat a contradicting principle as an explanation. One is example is to say that random is and explanation for something, when really things appear random when we don’t understand something. This is popular in many sciences a good example is random mutations in evolution, where random really is a lack of and explanation not an explanation. This prevents us from investigation because we think that is an answer then it is really a lack of an answer. That is it promotes ignorance as explanations.

A test is see what kind you are talking about is to see what you could predict by it. A good measure to see if is not and explanation is when you answer to something always refers to one things over and over.

Why that is the further back we go in time, all civilization explains things in god or spirits. And the more we progress the less and less get attributed to gods. As a matter of fact god can’t be a good measure of progress. In the sense that if we could explain some without god then explanation has improved.



  1. A Recreational explanation: explanation we may use to feel better but can never be demonstrated to be true or predict but rather as entertainment or therapeutic.

"I don’t know" is a reasonable and intelligible answer, that doesn’t mean we won’t find out in the future.

Let’s say the following:

The beginning of the Universe is “??Unknown??”

But we want to explain it so we insert the name GOD:

Thus the beginning of the Universe is “GOD” only makes GOD synonymous with “??Unknown??”

That doesn’t’ explain anything. This is just he an appeal to Ignorance. A logical fallacy!

God as an answer is just laziness, because we don’t have an answer. And can be harmful because it prevents people from trying to figure out a real explanation.

Therefore the big bang is a better explanation because it is only a temporary theory and thus it can evolve upon new information. God can’t. God explanations do not PROGRESS. They hold us down. They are Oppressing.

The fool: the fool shits on Oppressing Ideas.

Another problem is there is no criterion to distinguish God in this case from magic. It is just as good as anything is magic element; magic monkeys, magic leprechauns or magic x. And of course don’t forget the magic flying spaghetti monster.

That is all we have to add is magic. And it is just a good as an explanation. The problem is that things only appear as magic when we don’t understand them. So we are right back at the same problem.

A casual Fool’s version

Proof of the non-existence of god (simplified)

To have faith in something is to expect that something to be true/exist.

For let that something be the content of a belief/faith

  1. Let x be the content of the belief:
  2. Let F be expectation:

Tautology:

A=A Therefore existence=existence

Thus a contradiction is false.

If the only criteria for the existence of x also contradicts x’s then existence based on such a criteria is FALSE. Therefore x is false.

For let F=faith let G=God let E= existence

Logical form of argument:

  1. EG

Let’s assume God exist.

2. EG→F

Since existence of god depends on the criteria of Faith

3. F→~EG

And it is equally true by faith that god does not exist

4. ~EG

A faith based does not exist

1&4 (EG&~EG)

Therefore a God which depends on faith alone has FALSE existence.

QED again!!

The Fool says: Nothing follows from expectation alone but expectation alone.

The Fool: all I need to show is that his proof is not 100% the burden is on my partner.



The Fool.... in your closet

Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
I know I miss a word here and there and add a word. but pls be charitable when you read it.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
The Fool: First starters I don't know how to make it clearer, a first mover, is the same as first cause. That is a mover is just one type of cause. So you're first and second argument is overlapping, thus they are not separate arguments.

A logical Proof must be certain. If it is anything less than it's not a proof. Therefor all science validation are good evidence put are not proofs. The burden is on you to show certainty.

Quantum physics is the least certain if specifically a statistical science, which depend on probability. Thus it may provide evidence but never proofs.

When I describe the universe as a cycle in a Hindu or Buddhist explanations they don't presuppose god. Or an absolute beginning, they explain the world as becoming and breaking down only to become again.

One kind a possible way to explain it is that the universe has always been a continuing cycle of coming together and exploding (like a big bang) and this keeps going on. There is nothing which i certain on your or their explanation. The truth is we don't know, and that's it. Nothing more than that, you are just making a God Gap fallacy. That is when you don't understand something we use god to fill the gap. That doesn't fix the problem. It's just an illusion of an explanation that prevents us from trying to figure out the real problem. In this way it is harmful because it promotes ignorance.

A fool's time:

Time cannot be extracted as a thing in itself. It can only be measure by the relative motion between to object. If there is not object there is no way to distinguish time. Our time is based off the rate of change in location between the earth's rotation and its axis. That is how we get a day. And are year is derived by the rotation of the earth around the sun. Without change there is not time. Therefore change is time. And that is "straight from the HILL!!". (You are lucky I give you such knowledge that is brand new esoteric knowledge from the Fool himself.) For the Fool
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
There was nothing to strengthen...I had refuted your objections, you then forfeited therefore what else could I do. Besides most of your objections were either unexplained (and thus I would be unable to refute anything) or about a cyclical universe which I obviously did refute, oh yea and your other objections were so unreadable that there was nothing I could really do....
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
strengthen up..
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
What else was I supposed to do....you forfeited there was nothing new for me to defend....
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
is this just a replicaton of the last arguement?
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
haha yea I see that...
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
I am not forfeiting the debate. I just was racing to post but I missed it ..
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
sorry I might have to put this on the burner for a bit.. I am in to many debats to handle right now..
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
is this a joke. ?lol
No votes have been placed for this debate.