I agree. Homosexuality is a sin and should be punishable by death. Glad to see someone with common sense.
Therefore I am in favour of abortion. We must tackle the fags at birth. If they survive, human experimentation is a possibility.Thank you.
Stop ignoring me you cunts
@itsamentalillness first warning... keep it civil please
This is not a website for this kind of discussion thank you.
@feckineejit Thank you
If God's existence could be proven than the gays would be smited from the heavens.
The con guy is a cutie, so im votng for him.
@itsamentalillness I supposed if he stabbed you it'd be ok since he's cute?
Can you address transgender ism please?
Dr Phil Fernandes debate with the 9 argumentshttps://infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/fernandes-martin/
join in the lounge later?
Shade is being thrown by pro guy
@feckineejit what shade did I throw?
RIP everyone voted against me
@kyrothehero no not yet. One of the guys voted for Nelson, another guy is just trolling and has been commenting random nothingness and switching his vote back and forth. And then there's me, I voted draw since I only caught the last 5 minutes. I'm watching the rest of it now.
@sharkb8 Oh good, I was starting to think I screwed up somewhere
@kyrothehero I love crushing the spirits of young people haha
To clear up what I was talking about with the set of integers vs. even integers:The notion of "size" to which I was referring was cardinality; two sets have the same cardinality if there is a one-to-one correspondence between the sets.The notion to which @nellyj_misesian was referring is known as asymptotic density; under this measurement, there are indeed half as many even integers as integers.Another notion that @nellyj_misesian referenced is measuring size with subsets. Under this theory, because the set of even integers is a subset of integers but not the other way around, the even integers would be a smaller set than all integers.Basically, there are different ways to measure the size of an infinite set. Just because you reach two different conclusions with different measuring tools doesn't mean that infinity is impossible.
@kyrothehero I thought you did a good job trying to explain it. I think the next step is to intuit what ultimate point Nelson is getting at and swing back around at it. He's really trying to get at the idea that infinities are not pragmatic realities. He's going about it in the wrong way, but I think that is where he is trying to go. Apologists then use that observation against the idea of an infinite past universe. The problem with that is that time is a theoretical set in that proposition anyway. So what I mean is that time does not create another universe. Time is just a measurement of a single universe. In fact, it is simply one of the qualities of that universe. Much like Zeno's paradox, distance, motion, and time are relative to one another. So is time and space in the universe we know. As you go back in time, you also go back in space. They approach infinity, but you can't say they ever actually arrive at infinity because the two travel together and are relative to one another. That at least, is how the math works out.BTW: Nelson is simply wrong about the number of atoms in the universe. The figure he is quoting is the estimated number of atoms in the OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE and the simple fact is, we can't ever see beyond that, but we are fairly confident that there is a universe beyond what we can possibly observe.Because space-time can expand faster than the speed of light at sufficient distance, we will never know what lies beyond those boundaries by any direct observation.
The problem I'm seeing for Pro in this is that all of his arguments come down to "we don't know". He says we don't know what happened with the big bang, and that entropy could be different than the laws of physics we know. But this debate is the question of whether there are any correct arguments. Nelson has provided a correct argument, and Kyro just believes by faith that the laws of physics could have been different back then. Nelson correctly calls Kyro on his points being a "God of the gaps". Just because we don't know what happened, doesn't mean we would reject the arguments that Nelson is presenting. Oh here we go, now Kyro is talking about burden of proof. And he's totally right, Con is making a truth claim, so this is his burden of proof. Christianity by definition is a truth claim, but that being said, Con shouldn't have to prove that Christianity is 100.0% certain, he just needs to prove that there is at least one correct argument for God. Nobody can prove anything with 100.0% certainty, so we already know certain things are going to be answered through faith. I have faith that my senses are mostly accurate, and through that faith I'm able to trust that my fingers are currently typing and there is sound coming through my headphones. The point is, Con doesn't have to prove 100.0% certainty, he just needs to show that it's a valid argument one can choose to believe. Kyro has a great point that I 100% agree with when he says that Christian's are making the argument that "We don't know, therefore God." which is not a proper logical conclusion. The correct conclusion from "We don't know." is "therefore, we don't know." If this was a debate saying "Christianity has not been proven true" then I would vote for Pro on this. But in this debate, he's got a higher standard he has to prove.I think I'm gonna vote Con here, because Con has put forward legitimate arguments in support of God's existence. They might not be wholly conclusive, but they are correct arguments in support of God's existence. Thus, Con wins.
Also, when I said "burden of proof" I didn't mean proof as in 100% certainty. What I mean is that if I make a claim, it is my job to provide evidence to back up that claim. I'm saying that Con didn't provide evidence to back up his claim, and therefore we can't take it as a true argument.
@kyrothehero I think your problem (in terms of the votes) is your resolution. To me, it says - Everything my opponent says is wrong, and I can prove that.But your case is more along the lines of "My opponent can't show me beyond any doubt that everything he says is right."You end up making a case that, Either of us could be correct. Were the topic.. "Is there a God?" then I could vote Draw. I the topic was "Is there likely a God?" Then I'd have voted Pro. But I take the resolution as the equivalent of. "There is not a God." and I don't think you made that case.
@sigfried The debate was supposed to be essentially that "there are no valid theistic arguments." I did a little more arguing for Theism than just trying to provide evidence that the arguments for Theism, even if not accepted by the atheist or agnostic, are at least valid arguments. I think the idea of infinite is a valid argument and difficult to oppose, as is the Universal Moral Law that all hold to even if they deny, and the claim itself implies that Universal Truth exists, which is an argument Theists will use. All of these are valid arguments even if not accepted by some
@nellyj_misesian Well, I'd say that the definition of valid and correct are typically a little bit different. Valid only implies (to me at least) a logically sound construction, as where correct applies a true verdict, which would require both a valid structure and accurate presuppositions. It's the presuppositions where I find most Theistic Arguments are taking liberties and are likely not correct.
Interesting discussion, though not one very focused on the resolution. So judging it is pretty hard to do. When it comes to naturalism vs theism I'm a naturalist. It's something we can study and work with, as where theism is a lot of guesswork.I don't feel like either debater is an expert on the topics discussed, and that makes it a bit harder to follow and a little frustrating to watch since I've run down a lot of these over the years. So I want to jump in and say no no no, that's not how it works!Nelson needs science lessons! Ugh... His philosophy isn't so bad, but his science is willfully diminutive. But I'm not hearing anything from Pro that really backs up the thesis of the debate. Just because the naturalistic worldview can explain something, does not mean that arguments in support of god can't be correct or are not correct.Pro came to try and critique Con's arguments. Con focuses on attacking naturalism. So this becomes a debate about the value of naturalist worldviews. But that is not the topic!I think I have to vote Con on the resolution. While I think on any individual point Pro makes better arguments. But Pro didn't do the basic work of making an argument that supports the resolution he wrote.
I should add! @kyrothehero and @nellyj_misesian It was a good debate. You were both civil, very engaged, and responsive to each-others arguments. And both speaking intelligently and rationally. I probably sounded more critical than that. :P It's just that this is such well traveled ground for me, that I can be hyper critical on the arguments in this topic space.
I enjoyed debate, I honestly think Nelly could have did better if he would have focused on 1 or 2 arguments. Problem for kyro is simply quoting Dawkins means nothing and is appealing to authority
@orv_claus The quotes I cited were from Stephen Hawking, not Richard Dawkins. Since Stephen Hawking is an expert in theoretical physics, it’s perfectly valid to cite his quotation.
@kyrothehero your right my bad it still doesn't make it true