The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
UndeniableReality
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

belief is theism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
UndeniableReality
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/14/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,684 times Debate No: 68338
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (88)
Votes (1)

 

vi_spex

Pro

there are only 3 possible positions for me to have on any imaginary claim, belief, disbelief, or acceptance i dont know

i dont know=i have to imagine it
belief=false, as i have to imagine it

am i holding a rock in my hand as i type this? you have to imagine it
UndeniableReality

Con

As Pro hasn’t presented a coherent argument in Round 1, or outlined any requirements for the debate, I’ll only start off with a few basic points.

As Con, I will be arguing that belief is not the same as theism, and I suggest the following definitions paraphrased from Google and/or Dictionary.com:

Belief: 1) an opinion or conviction, 2) confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof, 3) confidence, faith, or trust

Disbelief: 1) inability or refusal to accept a claim, 2) lack of faith in something

Theism: the belief in at least one deity (sometimes specifically the belief in only one personal creator deity)

Argument 1:

Belief is not a subset of theism, but theism is a subset of belief. There are infinite possible beliefs one could hold which are either unrelated to theism, or contradictory to theism. However, theism, being the belief that there is a god, is, as just stated, a belief. Therefore, while theism is a belief, belief is not theism as not all beliefs are theistic.

One relevant example is the anti-theist position, which is the belief that there is no god. I wonder whether Pro will argue that anti-theism is theism.

Comment 1:

This debate is an example of the importance of stating your proposition carefully, precisely, and correctly, defining terms, and correct usage of the English language. I doubt that the proposition, as stated, as what Pro meant to say (indeed, Pro’s first round hardly seems more than tangentially related to the proposition). I invite Pro to attempt to restate the proposition and the original argument in order to communicate the intended meaning.

Response to Pro

It is unclear what you are attempting to communicate in Round 1, but I will do my best to respond from a rational perspective.

“there are only 3 possible positions for me to have on any imaginary claim, belief, disbelief, or acceptance i dont know”

For any given claim, one can believe it, or not believe it. Some may include states of knowledge as well as states of belief, but I suspect these were omitted for some reason related to the term “imaginary claim”, which you left undefined, even though it has no common usage or meaning in this context that I am aware of. Given the working definition of disbelief, acceptance that one does not know something is generally a form of disbelief (although, it is possible for someone to accept that they do not know something yet still believe it on faith – but this distinction is likely more to do with way Pro’s first statement conflates belief and knowledge). Please keep in mind that disbelief is not equivalent to belief in some alternative or opposite claim. I.e., disbelief in the claim that a god exists is not the same as belief that a god does not exist. It can also just be lack of faith in a god for the very fact that one accepts that they do not know whether there is a god.

“i dont know=i have to imagine it”

While this statement has no real discernible meaning, I will attempt a response.

Clearly the two phrases are not equivalent. There are things we know, for example the existence of quarks, which we have to imagine, as we cannot observe them directly. So the equivalence cannot be bidirectional. In the other direction, does lack of knowledge in something mean that we have to imagine that thing? It may be true that in order to consider something we do not know, we are required to imagine something related to it, or to imagine a world in which that thing is true/exists. But to simply not know something doesn’t require us to imagine it. Are you forced to imagine all of the things that you are not yet even aware that you don’t know?

“belief=false, as i have to imagine it”

Again, it is unclear what this means. May I ask what exactly you mean when you use the equality symbol, ‘=’? And what does it mean to say that belief=false? Does that mean everything that is believed is false? This can easily be demonstrated to be a false statement. Does it mean that the word ‘belief’ is equivalent in meaning to the word ‘false’? I cannot really respond to this statement without it being communicated more coherently.

“am i holding a rock in my hand as i type this? you have to imagine it”

I don’t, and I didn’t. I can, but my brain does not force me to against my will. But if you were holding a rock while typing, please be informed that it is much easier to type with your hands free.




To Pro: Please clarify your proposition and your arguments. State what you mean by the words you use, how you're using them, and what you mean when you use '='. Or do you believe that what you need to communicate cannot be stated in normal English?

Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

just answer my question, or answer me this, if you believe i didnt hold a rock in my hand as i typed that, what is your position on my claim? the opposite would be believing i am holding a rock in my hand

belief=false, as i have to imagine it
know=true
i dont know=i have to imagine it=true, unless i know

belief is theism, there can be no religion without belief, cause and effect

god is information, a World creator if believed, like santa, or my neighbour

antitheism=atheism

negative is anti positive, disbelief is the opposite of belief, atheism is the opposite of theism

it it unclear, until you grow a pair and answer my question :)
UndeniableReality

Con

Argument 1:

Since it’s gone unchallenged, I’ll leave it as is.

Responses

“it it unclear, until you grow a pair and answer my question :)”

Ah, you’re right. I forgot to answer your question. Let’s see where you take this. I don’t know whether you were holding a rock at the time that you typed that question. It’s possible that you were, and it’s possible that you weren’t. Pretty ballsy move to complain about me not answering your question when I asked 7 and they all went unanswered.

“belief=false, as i have to imagine it
know=true
i dont know=i have to imagine it=true, unless i know”

Is there a reason you choose not to write what you mean in understandable ways? Just for fun, I’ll try to extract meaning from it. I’ll assume the words have their usual meaning, or the definitions I listed in Round 1, and I’ll assume the equivalence symbol, ‘=’

If “I don’t know” = “I have to imagine it”, and “belief” = “false”, then “belief” = “false”, as “I don’t know”

So, were you trying to say that “beliefs are false because they are not knowledge”? This is easily demonstrated to be untrue. If I had said that I believed that you were not holding a rock while typing that question, and you indeed were not holding a rock, then my belief was true, even though I didn’t know actually know it.

I’ll assume you meant the most logical thing I could draw from what you said, and not something like “belief is false as know, unless I true”, which can also be derived from your interesting use of words and symbols.

“belief is theism, there can be no religion without belief, cause and effect”

I agree that there can be no religion without belief. However, as stated in the last round, this does not imply that belief and theism are the same thing. Theism, and religious believe in general, is a subset of belief, and not the other way around.

“god is information, a World creator if believed, like santa, or my neighbour”

Your neighbour is god AND santa? Just kidding. Grammatically, this would be interpreted as you saying that santa and your neighbour are world creators. To a lesser extent, it’s possible that you meant that santa and your neighbor are information. Either way, it’s neither a meaningful statement or discernibly related to the debate.

“antitheism=atheism”

As with belief and theism, antitheism is a subset of atheism. Since atheism is the lack of a belief in a god, and antitheism is the belief that there is no god, all antitheists are atheists, but only some atheists are antitheists. So they’re not the same. How would changing definitions to make that equality hold benefit your side of the argument anyway?

“negative is anti positive, disbelief is the opposite of belief, atheism is the opposite of theism”

Sure. Disbelief is without belief. Atheism is without a theistic belief. Please let me know if you’re going somewhere with this.



What exactly is your goal with all of this? I'm sure you're capable of rational thought and normal communication, but you choose not to engage in those things on this site most of the time.

Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

"If "I don"t know" = "I have to imagine it", and "belief" = "false", then "belief" = "false", as "I don"t know"" yes yes YES

i dont know is a true position unless i know, becasue i have to know to know i dont know, and only know is true

belief is doubt and know is certain

beliefs are false as i dont know is true

so if your belief that i wasnt holding a rock in my hand was true but you didnt know it, i dont know was true until the point you know i wasnt holding a rock in my hand, and thats when it ceases to be a belief, when its true

a blind mans reality is not of colours and light

cause and effect is absolute, if they can not exist without each other, they are the same

if you can not believe in a proposition you can not be a theist and neither and atheist, and actually god cant exist

god is religion

information=seperation=god=religion=supernature=false

i like the way you are capable of putting on my thining, this is rare for me. if you believe santa isnt going to come with presents if you are bad you believe in god and god is creating your world as you are being good to get presents, if you believe you are going to catch a unicorn in the forest and get a wish one day you belive in god, chasing unicorns, like christians

atheism is disbelief, there are just 3 positions on any imaginary claim, you can beleive it, disbelieve it , or accept you dont know, negative positive and balance, what are the other options?

disbelief=negative position on my claim=doubt=false
belief=positive position on my claim=doubt=false
i dont know=balance=certain=true

as i said positive is anti neagative, and disbelief is the opposite of belief, and the anti theist would be the person that disbelieves the claim that i am holding a rock in my hand, is the one who would argue with the theist that says i am holding a rock in my hand

disBelief is belief, how can you believe i am not holding a rock in my hand if you dont have the ability to believe i am holding a rock in my hand
UndeniableReality

Con

Beliefs are not necessarily false

What you’re saying is that a statement can only be true if you know it to be true. You need to clarify what you mean by ‘knowledge’ here. If you mean absolute knowledge, or 100% certainty, then virtually nothing is true in your view, since absolute knowledge is rarely possible in most serious epistemologies.

It is false that only things that can be known are true. If I had said, “you were not holding a rock”, before you had told me you weren’t, that statement would still have been true, even though it was just a belief. I just wouldn’t have known it was true yet. Or are you saying that because it was just a belief at the time, the very act of taking on that belief would have made it false in reality? Would my believing that you didn’t have a rock in your hand magically put a rock in your hand?

Furthermore, if something is only true if it is known to be true, we have a strange paradox. We only say we know something once we know it is true, and not the other way around. Under the system you are describing, it would be impossible for any piece of information or for any statement to become knowledge (because it would be impossible to determine that something is true if you didn’t already know it was true), and therefore the only things that would be true are those which you knew were true from birth. This makes learning impossible. Nothing can become known because your system requires you to know it before you know it in order to know it.

Responses

Pro: “so if your belief that i wasnt holding a rock in my hand was true but you didnt know it, i dont know was true until the point you know i wasnt holding a rock in my hand, and thats when it ceases to be a belief, when its true”

Yes, but the belief that you weren’t holding a rock was also still true, even though it wasn’t known factually.

Pro: “cause and effect is absolute, if they can not exist without each other, they are the same”

You could say they are part of the same system, but you cannot say they are the same. You cause words to appear on a screen with your hands (presumably). The words and your hands are not the same thing. Would you like to argue otherwise? Or did you mean that the abstracted notions of ‘cause’ and ‘effect’ are the same. Again, they are part of the same system. But given that we rarely find effects that caused themselves, it’s difficult to see in what sense your unsupported assertion that cause and effect could be true.

Pro: “information=seperation=god=religion=supernature=false”

I think what you’re trying to say is essentially that god is an imaginary mental construct build to hide the separation one feels from the rest of nature and even parts of themselves. Is that somewhat correct?

Pro: “atheism is disbelief, there are just 3 positions on any imaginary claim, you can beleive it, disbelieve it , or accept you dont know, negative positive and balance, what are the other options?”

The mistake you made in the last round was in thinking that disbelief implies believe in some alternative claim. Disbelief in a god does not imply belief that there is no god any more than your disbelief that I am 9 feet tall implies that you believe I am 6 feet tall. Not knowing, or not forming a belief or opinion, is also a form of disbelief. The negative position with respect to a belief in a god is the lack of belief in a god, not the belief that there is no god. That is a separate proposition.

Pro: “disbelief=negative position on my claim=doubt=false
belief=positive position on my claim=doubt=false
i dont know=balance=certain=true”

Again, equating doubt with being ‘false’ is clearly nonsensical. As explained above, this precludes any possibility of gaining knowledge, ever, because anything that you do not know for certain, is wrong, according to this definition. I doubt you actually believe this. This is just one example of how your imprecise and inaccurate usage of language invalidates your own statements.

Pro: “as i said positive is anti neagative, and disbelief is the opposite of belief, and the anti theist would be the person that disbelieves the claim that i am holding a rock in my hand, is the one who would argue with the theist that says i am holding a rock in my hand”

In this analogy, yes, those would be the positions of the anti-theist and the theist respectively. Both of them have a belief about the state of reality concerning the hypothetical rock in your hand. In Round 2 you said “antitheism=atheism”, suggesting that you believe the atheist takes the same position as the antitheist. Just to reiterate, since you didn’t respond to this point at all, antitheism is a subset of atheism. Atheism also includes many of the people who take the position of “I don’t know”.

Pro: “disBelief is belief, how can you believe i am not holding a rock in my hand if you dont have the ability to believe i am holding a rock in my hand”

Again, disbelief is not the same as believing that you are holding a rock in your hand. The set of all of those who disbelieve that you have a rock in your hand are those who believe you don’t have a rock in your hand, and those who don’t know (they don’t believe that you do, of course). The set of people who are disbelievers with respect to either statement (you have a rock, or you don’t have a rock), are only the people who take the position that they do not know. Disbelief does not require an alternative belief. So disbelief in the statement that you are holding a rock cannot be equated with belief that you are not holding a rock. And what you state above implies that disbelieving is a form of belief because you have the mere ability to believe in the opposite claim. Do you really believe this? You’ve invalidated your own statements again, since what you say above makes “I don’t know” and invalid and impossible position.

Concluding statements

Pro leaves us mainly with a host of unsupported assertions and assumptions, incoherent statements without discernible meaning in the English language, and imprecisely phrased statements that almost surely communicate something other than what was intended. The example I picked out in Round 2 illustrates how trivial and meaningless these obfuscations are: Pro acknowledged that when he said, “belief=false, as i have to imagine it
know=true
i dont know=i have to imagine it=true, unless i know”, what he really meant was, “beliefs are false because they are not knowledge”. Why wasn’t it simply stated in this simple and easy-to-understand form?

Pro doesn’t suggest that there is any meaning that is lost in this form; he responds with an enthusiastic confirmation of this interpretation. Put in this simple form, the statement belays no intriguing quality to it. It is simply a naïve and silly statement to make.

Perhaps obfuscating the meaning of these simple statements is a way make the statements seem less linear, more multifaceted, and more profound than they really are. But making the statements easily misinterpret able in many ways does not make it non-linear or multifaceted, nor does it make it profound. It just makes for poor communication. Those with something real and important to say generally choose the simplest and most accessible way to say that is available to them. It is common for people to intentionally obfuscate the simple meaning behind their words in order to hide the fact that they have nothing interesting, useful, or intelligent to say. I hope that is not the case here. It may just be a lack of clear thinking and precise communication.

Debate Round No. 3
vi_spex

Pro

only know is true, and knowledge is truth, truth can only be in the past and only now is true, the future is false, belief

if i remember something but not to well i stil have to fill the memory gap with imagiantion thefore it becomes a belief

if a guy walk away from me into the dark then at a certain point i have to imagine or remember his existence

a blind man cant see reality, is absolute. logic is absolute.

if i am with you and i say to you, hey man, i am being now, my experience is now, you cant argue with that

know=100 percent certain, as know is no other possibility, absolute

you still dont know wheather i was holding a rock or not, you never will as the past is impossible and know is now

if you believe it, its because you dont know it, therfore i dont know is true

i am the one who put a magical rock in your hand when making that claim beyond you imagining it, and wheather you accept me as your god or not is up to you

now=reality loop 1 second or less

i can at best believe what others tell me, unless the are speaking of something here now, like i know i am typing these Words on my keyboard and reading them on my screen, i dont have to imagine it

facts are in the past, past dosnt matter, now is matter, i know my experience of now

"Yes, but the belief that you weren"t holding a rock was also still true, even though it wasn"t known factually. "
the belief was true, but i didnt know it, thefore i dont know was true, up until the point i knew

look, we can argue cause and effect, but its an even bigger discussion then this one

=(is)
+(and)

1+4=(is)5=10-5=1+1+1+1+1=3+2

so i am saying, information is separation is god is religion, as they can not exist without each other

how can i seperate without informaiton, how can god exist without religion and so on.. its the same

you are trying to squeeze out the i dont know position..... just think about that for a minute, what is my moms name? ow you disbelieve i have a mom, well sir i shall do battle with Pictures of my mom and me!

if you look at the claim, what are your options, either you believe(i claim its a nice rock from the Beach with holes), disbelieve the claim(maybe im lying) or maybe i dont have hands and i sit in a Wheel chair typing with a straw in my mouth, or maybe i am a bot programmed to make you think i am human............. am i holding a rock in my hand?

i have no beliefs. ok listen, whenever you experience matter beyond now, tell me about it, becase you would be violating the absolute which not even an all powerfull god can do, hence there must be evil for eksample, as good is a contrast of that.

atheism is antitheism, there is no other option, what other options are there then for you to believe what im saying, disbelieve it, or accept you dont know? positive negative and balance, 3 sides, no more no less on any imaginary claim

you are missing the main point, belief is theism, ergo belief in anything is belief in god, a World creator

religion is just a position on an imaginary claim

belief=yes=i am holding the rock in my hand
disbelief=no=i am not holding the rock in my hand
i dont know=i dont know=i have to imagine it

you should get it now..
UndeniableReality

Con

You have hardly touched upon the actual topic of this debate and you’ve hardly responded to anything I’ve said in a meaningful way. I’d like to think more of your posts, but it’s hard to justify saying that you’re anything other than someone who uses DDO as a venue to do something similar to preaching and proselytizing in an obscure form of language which you seem to believe that others should be forced to adopt in order to communicate with you. I’ve already shown examples of how your particular brand of wordplay adds nothing to the content of what you’re saying and only obfuscates the meaning.

I believe that you are capable of normal speech, and I have seen some evidence of this in your posts elsewhere. What is your purpose for obfuscating your meaning in this obscure form of language? What do you believe it adds? Is this just your way of trolling, or are you deluded into thinking that if you make your statements sufficiently ambiguous they will seem more profound? You would perhaps find greater acceptance with less educated new-age hippies on acid (you may want to avoid the psychonauts who are also scientists or science students) who inject their own meaning onto the ambiguity you excrete and misattribute to you the wisdom that you perhaps desire to be perceived to have. Not that I believe this of you, but you certainly come across as the type to me, so far.

The debate is about whether belief is equivalent to theism. Since you haven’t addressed it, I will repeat my argument from Round 1.

Argument 1:

Belief is not a subset of theism, but theism is a subset of belief. There are infinite possible beliefs one could hold which are either unrelated to theism, or contradictory to theism. However, theism, being the belief that there is a god, is, as just stated, a belief. Therefore, while theism is a belief, belief is not theism as not all beliefs are theistic.

One relevant example is the anti-theist position, which is the belief that there is no god. I wonder whether Pro will argue that anti-theism is theism.

Responses

I’ve been more than fair with responding to your blind, unjustified, unintelligent, and barely intelligible assertions. They don’t require an actual response any more than flat-earth evangelists require a scientific debate. Since you barely respond to anything I say, you certainly haven’t earned much of a response. But I’ll respond to some of it, because of how absurd it is.

One of your main arguments is that something is only true if you know it to be true, and anything that is believed to be true is false. I’ve already addressed how this necessarily undermines any rational world view, even if we pretend it makes sense. This precludes the possibility of anything that is not known becoming known. And since truth is dependent entirely on what we already know, what you’re saying, translated into English anyway, is that the only things that are known are those things which you are born knowing. Everything else is false, and nothing else can ever be known. Do you believe this, or does your own ambiguity undermine your own intentions as well?

You also say that events in the past must be remembered, but since memory isn’t perfect, we must inject our belief into those memory to fill in missing details. I agree with this completely. But you believe that what is happening in the present moment can be called knowledge because perception doesn’t have this flaw the memory has. That is incorrect. Perception has the same issue. Since your brain cannot process everything in your environment, it uses its belief/expectation about the current state of the environment to fill out the details of a lossy compression of what is actually perceivable. You can refer to almost any introductory neuroscience textbook to read about that [1].

“a blind man cant see reality, is absolute. logic is absolute.”

That’s only a black-and-white interpretation of blindness. Most people categorized as ‘blind’ are partially sighted.

“you still dont know wheather i was holding a rock or not, you never will as the past is impossible and know is now”

That is why I said, “I don’t know”. Perhaps you will pick up on it this time.

“now=reality loop 1 second or less”

I disagree. Half a second ago is the past.

“i can at best believe what others tell me, unless the are speaking of something here now, like i know i am typing these Words on my keyboard and reading them on my screen, i dont have to imagine it”

Do you know it? To what extent do you really know it? It can’t be an illusion of some kind? A hallucination? Your black-and-white thinking about this issue is causing problems for you here. You are partially imagining it. When you look at a screen, or a painting, or in the mirror, what you are seeing is a blend of your brain’s perception of reality and your imagination. Again, introductory neuroscience [1].

“facts are in the past, past dosnt matter, now is matter, i know my experience of now”

The past may not have material existence in the present, but misusing words doesn’t change the reality that the present is at least partially dependent on the past.

“=(is)
+(and)”

You finally tell us what you mean by your symbols. Are you too lazy to type out the extra few characters? Those symbols are not simply short-forms for ‘is’ and ‘and’. In the mathematics ‘+’ is not the same as ‘and’. Perhaps you believed those were the same thing and were wrong.

“so i am saying, information is separation is god is religion, as they can not exist without each other”

Dependency is not equivalency. The exact same reasoning says that you are your mother because you cannot exist without her. Are you your mother?

“how can i seperate without informaiton, how can god exist without religion and so on.. its the same”

It almost has meaning if you cherry-pick the best possible interpretations from what you said. Don’t forget, you also said that information is god (we all have gods in our hard drives), god is separation, and religion is information.

“you are trying to squeeze out the i dont know position..... just think about that for a minute, what is my moms name? ow you disbelieve i have a mom, well sir i shall do battle with Pictures of my mom and me!”

No. If you reread the last couple of rounds, I am trying to prevent you from squeezing out the ‘I don’t know’ position. I don’t have a belief about your mom’s name because I don’t know your mom’s name.

“if you look at the claim, what are your options, either you believe(i claim its a nice rock from the Beach with holes), disbelieve the claim(maybe im lying) or maybe i dont have hands and i sit in a Wheel chair typing with a straw in my mouth, or maybe i am a bot programmed to make you think i am human............. am i holding a rock in my hand?”

We’ve already gone over this one. But I just wanted to say that I don’t believe you’re a bot, because a bot would do a better job.

“i have no beliefs. ok listen, whenever you experience matter beyond now, tell me about it, ...”

I’m not sure what you’re trying say. But yes, I do have beliefs about some things. It is probably impossible not to. The human brain cannot even perceive the world without some level of belief involved [1].

“atheism is antitheism, there is no other option...”

See? You are trying to eliminate the “I don’t know” position.

“you are missing the main point, belief is theism, ergo belief in anything is belief in god, a World creator”

You are missing the main point of the debate. You are supposed to be explaining how any of that is true. But I guess we now know that you believe in a god.

1) Theism = yes, there is a god

2) Antitheism = no, there is no god

3) I don’t know, but I believe = I don’t know whether there is a god or not, but I believe there is

4) I don’t’ know, and I don’t believe = I don’t know whether there is a god or not, and I don’t actively believe there is

Atheism = 2 and/or 4 (2 U 4)

[1] Carlson, N., R. (2007). Physiology of Behavior, 9th edition. Pearson Education Inc: Boston, MA.

Debate Round No. 4
vi_spex

Pro

belief IS theism

any belief is belief in god, as god is information

beyond what i know is what i dont know

belief is false.. it can never be true, as i dont know is true, i have to imagine it, and imagiantion is false

the past is memory of now

kNow=physical experience of now

this is true math as it is, equal is is, and is plus, a banana and a banana, is the same as 1 banana+1 banana..

my mother is something, informaton is nothing, what has more metal in it, a metal ship you imagine or a unicorn?

why do you not believe i am a bot?

i have explained why its true, you simply dont understand. the opposite of physical is mental, something is physical, nothing is mental, and if god is not physical right now, what is god?..

atheism is the negative position on an imaginary claim... anti theism, the no position, where as i dont know is agnostic, third side
UndeniableReality

Con

“belief IS theism

any belief is belief in god, as god is information”

An argument doesn’t succeed simply because you assert new definitions for words that already have meanings in the English language. If god is information, then god is in the text we read and write, and god is on all our hard drives. You haven’t justified this unusual definition of god, but what you’re saying is that since you believe that when you click ‘post argument’ that your argument will be posted online, you believe in god.

This argument, aside from being absurd, is completely invalid. Theism is not the belief in any definition of god. Theism is specifically the belief in a personal creator god. In order to show that belief is theism using your new definition of god, you would have to show that ‘information’ created the universe and has a personal relationship with humans. You haven’t done this in any meaningful sense, though I’m sure you could make a set of assertions and assumptions that to you seem convincing.

“belief is false.. it can never be true, as i dont know is true, i have to imagine it, and imagiantion is false”

You’re just repeating yourself, not realizing that I understand what you’re saying, it’s just that I’m saying you’re wrong. I think I’ve addressed this enough times.

“the past is memory of now

kNow=physical experience of now”

The past is memory of now? Wouldn’t it make more sense to say that the past is represented by memory in the present? Knowledge is not the same as physical experience of now. There are things about the past that can be known (I know that I was not omniscient yesterday). The physical experience of now cannot be equated to knowledge because aspects of one’s physical experience of now could be an illusion, or perhaps an experience certain people are more familiar with, a drug induced hallucination.

“this is true math as it is, equal is is, and is plus, a banana and a banana, is the same as 1 banana+1 banana..”

No, it isn’t. And refers to a Boolean operator. Equality does not imply that both sides are the same, only that they have equal value given a certain measure. This is simply a misunderstanding of basic mathematical concepts.

“my mother is something, informaton is nothing, what has more metal in it, a metal ship you imagine or a unicorn?”

This is a meaningless question that doesn’t serve to make your case. Try learning at least one scientific definition of information [1]. The typical answer is that neither has any metal in it, since neither are physical. If you asked this in earlier rounds, I might have said the following just to see where you would go with it: the one which requires more brain matter to produce the mental image has more metal in it, because there are metals in the brain.

“why do you not believe i am a bot?”

A bot could do a better job of simulating human intelligence.

“i have explained why its true, you simply dont understand. the opposite of physical is mental, something is physical, nothing is mental, and if god is not physical right now, what is god?..”

It’s not simply that I don’t understand, it’s that I disagree. Are you not actively trying to obfuscate the meaning in the first place? Is it not your goal to be difficult to understand? If you are sincerely trying to communicate, then I apologize for poking fun at your disability. I don’t agree that the opposite of physical is mental. The mental is just one’s internal interpretation of physical activity of the brain, in my best estimation based on the current literature in neuroscience. I don’t feel the need to outline the flaws in the rest of that sequence, since I don’t think your first premise is valid anyway.

“atheism is the negative position on an imaginary claim... anti theism, the no position, where as i dont know is agnostic, third side”

You’ve mistaken your definitions. I’ve provided them at least once in previous rounds.

Final Remarks

You haven’t argued your case in any logical or rational way. You’ve mainly made mutually destructive assertions without justifying them. You’ve also ignored most of what I have written. I am reminded of people who engage in debates with the intention of ignoring their opponent and to use the time they have to preach their own version of reality, not concerned with whether or not they are making sense to anyone at all.

Debate Round No. 5
88 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
know=now=matter=certain=objective=life=true=nature=physical experience=logic=absolute=is

the opposite of know(is), is knowledge(off) and belief(on)

moron=more on
Posted by UndeniableReality 1 year ago
UndeniableReality
Yes, the equality goes both ways. So if know = eyes experiencing light, then eyes experiencing light = know.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
1+4=2+2+1=5=10-5

yea
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
it is not a misuse

if you have a bear skin, you have a dead bear, and if you have a bear skin, i know you got it from a bear
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
bidirectional?
Posted by UndeniableReality 1 year ago
UndeniableReality
Equality is bidirectional. That is why it's a misuse.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
what are eyes percieveing light without physical experience?
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
its not a misuse, its absolute

what is eye percieving light without physical experience?
Posted by UndeniableReality 1 year ago
UndeniableReality
I'm just playing with your misuse of '=' and 'is'.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
metaphorically yes, i could mention my ears and skin to but i thought you had it :b
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Tweka 1 year ago
Tweka
vi_spexUndeniableRealityTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Worst grammar by Pro. Con utterly refutes Pro's argument. Only Con has sources and Pro is making bare claim.