The Instigator
PrincepsDialeticorum
Pro (for)
PrincepsDialeticorum
The Contender
The_Dank_Gamer
Con (against)
The_Dank_Gamer

The CTMU is Absolute Truth, The debate was dirty last time; here to set the record

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  
Argument Due
We are waiting for The_Dank_Gamer to post their argument for round #4. If you are The_Dank_Gamer, login to see your options.
The_Dank_Gamer's Login
Time Remaining
00days20hours46minutes54seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2019 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 day ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 72 times Debate No: 119840
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

PrincepsDialeticorum

Pro

The previous treatment of Christopher Michael Langan's Theory of Everything The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe is utterly atrocious, And I am here to set the record straight for the side of truth.

The CTMU is the one and only foundational theoretical language in which all that is real or intelligible must be interpreted.

At the core of the theory is a supertautology, Rendering it apodictically true regardless of reference frame, And the metaformal system is rendered complete with the ARC meta-axiomatic "Analytic Reality Closure" principle by the supplementary CTMU papers found here (https://www. Cosmosandhistory. Org/index. Php/journal/article/view/740) and here (http://www. Cosmosandhistory. Org/index. Php/journal/article/view/618).

If you want to try to discredit any of the papers, I challenge you to find ANY ONE logical contradiction of the form "X = not X" or reducible to such a form in the entirety of Langan's writings regarding the theory.

The proof of God is true and complete.
Report this Argument
The_Dank_Gamer

Con

Really? Just one? OK, X=not x, Basic knowledge in algebra proves that this is wrong, X is a variable. When used twice in the same equation, X is the same number. =not is the same thing as saying not equal, So x=not x, Is the same thing as saying x is not equal to x, But since earlier I proved that x is always equal to x, That is illogical, You disproved yourself, I proved that you disproved yourself.
Report this Argument
 Debate Round No. 1
PrincepsDialeticorum

Pro

PrincepsDialeticorum forfeited this round.
The_Dank_Gamer

Con

vote con
Report this Argument
 Debate Round No. 2
PrincepsDialeticorum

Pro

PrincepsDialeticorum forfeited this round.
The_Dank_Gamer

Con

The_Dank_Gamer forfeited this round.
 Debate Round No. 3
PrincepsDialeticorum

Pro

PrincepsDialeticorum forfeited this round.
This round has not been posted yet.
 Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
 Debate Round No. 5
Post a Comment
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.