god is information
i will find a pretty Black unicorn with a golden horn in the forest one day i just know it!
Both of the above have been submitted by you on multiple occasions here on DDO. 
You have claimed that only your physical experiences of "now" is true, and that the memory of those experiences is the past or "truth", and the beliefs pertain to your imagination of the future, which you call false. You claim to "know" that you will find something in the future, which is false by your own reasoning.
 DDO Debate and Debate Comments of "false=anywhere beoyond my personal physical experience of now"
hm, i just wrote that at random to give you an idea of what im talking about, ususally whatever i argue at first gets ignored..
my point is there is no difference in believing the unicorn, and in god, same
Another difference is that the belief in unicorns is irrelevant to one's existence. If unicorns somehow are proven to exist, then it will likely have little effect on people beyond "Well, whaddya know!". When it comes to god, one's belief is more important because it directly related to one's existence, specifically, in the notion of an afterlife or other judgement by said god.
For clarity of the debate title, do you believe that:
so god is true?
imagination is false
false=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now
only know is true, and i dont know god
my point isnt to disprove god thou, thats easy, my point is to prove the christian god is a unicorn
imagination dosnt exist? i am imagining a unicorn, and im about to catch it i think! its right around the corner
i can believe that i lef the hammer under my sink and when i get home and its not there I GET PISSED BECUASE IT WAS SUPPOSE TO BE THERE, just a tiny god :)
It is unknown, and unknown does not necessarily equal false in reality.
"imagination is false"
Please elaborate on your definition of "false". Your imagination is an image based on your previous experiences, or "knowledge/truth" as you describe it. One cannot visualize a purple, four-armed monster without having previous experience and knowledge of "purple" and what an "arm" is. You memories are formed the same way; they are reconstructed images based on your previous experience, or knowledge. The monster is obviously untrue because it was intentionally constructed from fragments of your experiences as an abstract image. If memories were separate, then one could not misremember them. So, in your format, imagination=memories
"false=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now""
"only know is true, and i dont know god"
So, by this logic, I do not exists *to you*. This does not mean that I cannot exist.
"my point isnt to disprove god thou, thats easy, my point is to prove the christian god is a unicorn"
Disproving god to yourself may be easy, but that does not disprove god in reality. You did not state or indicate that you were referring to the Christian god, which would have totally changed the dynamic of the debate. I will insist that we stick with the general concept of god, or at least present meaningful evidence supporting your claim.
"imagination dosnt exist? i am imagining a unicorn, and im about to catch it i think! its right around the corner"
Imagination does not physically exist; it is a product of the physical function of the brain. Just because your imagination doesn't exist, doesn't mean it is necessarily false. You cannot prove that it is absolutely false for a unicorn to be waiting around that corner.
"i can believe that i lef the hammer under my sink and when i get home and its not there I GET PISSED BECUASE IT WAS SUPPOSE TO BE THERE, just a tiny god :)"
memoryX00;true, memoryX00;false. Memory is prone to mistakes and cannot be deemed entirely true nor false. I'm not sure what point this is supposed to make...
false=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now
matter being real. the only distance that matters is whats rechable by my physical body, not by my imagination
i can create whatever in my mind, but i need memory to have free will
this is a bit confusing but its like what enables they enable the existence of each other, this is on the top level
they are 3 different sides, i can only see 1 side of the pyramid using my eyes
truth is not true, and false is not truth etc, they are seperators, not each other even thou they can not exist without each other, if i dont have the perception of a future and a past i cant be selfaware
i know you are light on my screen and a story in my mind
possibiltieis are imaginary, i could be a bot trying to make you think i am human, or a human trying to make you think i am a bot
belief is automaticly false as i dont know is true
if you say my neighbour can stand outside my door! lets go an SEE.. etc
only know is real, imagination is the opposite of reality, reality is true, know=true=personal physical experience of now
sure, all gods that have ever been worshipped, are information, false
physical is the opposite of mental, thoughts are mental, does mental not exist? lies dosnt exist?
true can not exist without false, 1+1=2 not 3, if i take 1 pen in my hand, and put another in it, i have to imagine a third pen in my hand, which is a false answer
only now is true, if its not now, its not true
for me to say that there is a unicorn around the corner is false, is absolute, can i see a real future in my mind? no, therfore its false, as i dont know
btw im not saying false has no relevance
even if i remember the hammer, i still dont know if its going to be there when i get home, its in the future.. future is false, false=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now
"Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist." 
You are a bit more open in that you accept your perception to be true, but you assume all outside of that is false. You only believe the information that is being attained by your senses, so you believe that you heard the words of someone over the phone, but cannot believe that they physically exist because you cannot see them. If you are deprived of all your senses, does reality cease to exist for anyone but *you*?
How can you assume that either memory or physical experience is a constant "true"? Is should be very well know that our current perception can be erroneous (seeing things that aren't there, feeling something crawling on your skin when it was just a string), and that our memories are not infallible. This statement is unsound if applied anywhere outside of your own mind.
Physical experience is "recorded", and is reconstructed by the imagination to recall the memory, I believe. Once any time has elapsed, there is no difference longer between memory and physical experience, with "physical experience" meaning the instant that the information is received by the brain. Your use of these terms in unclear, and I am forced to interpret what you mean.
Before this goes off on too much more of a tangent, you can justify that god is false in your own mind, but you cannot prove that god is false in reality. Your arguments are hypothetical situations are only applicable to within a mind, and not to reality itself. Even if you justify the falsehood of god in all minds, that is still separate from reality. Things can clearly exist in reality beyond our current perception and knowledge.
Your use of true and false seem to be your own. I will request definitions for your words, once more.
 Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org...
i dont assume this.. i assume there is another person sitting on a computer somewhere typing with me as a matter of relevance, but imagination is false, beyond what i know is what i dont know
i have no beliefs
without my senses im dead, so sensory experience is life. there is no life in my imagination
in order for know to be false it would have to be imaginary, and i cant know imaginaiton, imagination is unknown
memory is truth, know is true, the matter in my physical experience never becomes imaginary. it can not be destroyed
if you felt the strong on you that was true, and you imagined it was bug or whatever, belief
future is the opposite of past, false is the opposite of truth, imagination is the opposite of memory
unless its absolute, i dont have a brain, its not easy or natural to cut open a head, so as far as i know, i dont have a brain. nature flows in the path of least resistance
physical experience is matter
only now is real..
a blind mans reality, is not of colours and light. reality is true, false=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now
"i dont assume this.. i assume there is another person sitting on a computer somewhere typing with me as a matter of relevance, but imagination is false, beyond what i know is what i dont know"
You DO assume this. You assume that your senses are correct, which is normal. You could possibly be dreaming or something, so it is no 100% guaranteed that this is true.
"i have no beliefs"
OK, so what haven't you blundered into the path of a speeding car, then? You would stop because you can *imagine* the potential scenario to determine the most likely outcome, and then act according to that conclusion. If you had no "beliefs" in the way you use that word, you could not predict the consequences of an action.
"without my senses im dead, so sensory experience is life. there is no life in my imagination"
To *you*, you may be, but to *me*, I still can observe that you are alive. Again, this is derived from your perception and not from anything else.
"if you felt the string on you that was true, and you imagined it was bug or whatever, belief"
The same kind of thing can be seen if you "know" you saw something, but later, it was confirmed that there wasn't actually anything there. When you "saw" it, it was untrue in reference to reality.
The same basic argument apply to the rest of your statements in round #5.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Conduct = Tie - Both behaved respectively of each-other. Argument = Con - Con refuted each point, and followed the slightly off topic arguments without resorting spiting hairs over the resolution. Sources = Con - I had to giggle, using a debaters prior debates as a source. I also though about it being poor conduct, but the brilliance of it won out. Con did not use the prior reference in any attempt to distract, or demean.