We can do it here or in debate....

We can have the discussion here and move the whole thread to debate, we’ll use debate rules though.

I challenge Uccisore, Only_Humean and mr. reasonable to come up with as many different theorems as they can for the FACT that you cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, and I’ll disprove every single one of them. I’ll debate all three at the same time, since they were the ones who got my thread moved to off topic… and when I heard mr. reasonable’s reason why it was done, I decided we needed to have this debate.

The issue is a theorem that states that you cannot prove one way or the other that God exists or doesn’t exist… Present 100 theorems if you can… I’ll disprove every single one, because I actually know how to disprove this concept.

We’re talking thoeromatic proofs… mr reasonable said you all had theorematic proofs. Present them. I’ll reply to each proof with it’s disproof.

I just wanted to add… I didn’t really care that my thread was moved until mr. reasonable told me why it was moved. I want your theorems, ALL OF THEM. This is going to be embarassing for you three.

This is gonna be interesting. I hope they accept the challenge. Ecmandu, 3 on 1? Sure you can do this?

Positive. I know the theorems for disproving what they say they have theorems for.

You have to understand, I don’t have to prove or disprove God, all I have to do is disprove theorems that say you can’t prove or disprove God. And since I know how to disprove God on top of that, it will be easy.

Make sure they stick to the plot!

We have enough similar stuff on other threads. It wold be interesting to see if they have anything interesting.

If they move off topic, then say so, but don’t answer.

UPDATE: !!! Through PM, mr. reasonable stated that it wasn’t their theorems of agnosticism that had them move the thread as he stated BUT a now a new concept called logical reductionism. I’ll HAPPILY debate him on this.

I’ll debate all three of you and the whole staff at the Stanford Encyclopedia on Logical Reductionism at once… Now that you’ve changed your ships course (and of course Mr. reasonable is speaking for the mods in ways they might not even want to be spoken for)… I’ll debate this too. And YOU"LL LOSE!

UPDATE!!! Mr reasonable thinks I’m arguing that the word “tree” is an actual tree, and that I’m too stupid to understand this. Oh my, this is going to be fun.


mr reasonable wrote:
See though, they’re not debates. They’re various accounts of the same phenomenon. To think it’s something to be won is your fallacy. Anyone can memorize positions of arguments and even learn to make thier own. But only some people really get it in life.

Me: Well… if we ever move this to debate, let someone besides you three judge it. You may actually be speaking for the mods as they think, in which case I want to debate all three of you at once. Logic is visible to anyone. Epistemology, the science of the senses is bullshit, science is bullshit… the only thing on earth that can prove or disprove is logic. The rest is just theory, approximation.

The reason I’m so confident I can debate you three and the entire Staff of the stanford enyclopedia of philosophy is because I know all the loopholes for the Logical Reductionism debate.

You’re so terribly confused.

Why the hell is this rant in philosophy?

Kris because he’s got some proof that god either is or isn’t real. He’s proven it. For real.

Be more informative than that. Let’s just say the debate hasn’t stated yet, we’re just setting up the sequence of events that led to it. And I repeat, Mr. reasonable, you might not actually be speaking for the Mods here.

This isn’t a rant… I had a thread moved because of what mr. reasonable said… so I’m here in philosophy forums challenging all three of the philosophers who had a hand in this to debate, right here…

As I just explained to mr. reasonable in PM, there’s a reason scientists only call what they discover THEORIES, as opposed to mathematicians, where they are called THEOREMS!!! And anyone who wants to have this debate is going to learn this the hard way. I reacted to the reason mr. reasonable gave to WHY this thread was moved, not because it was moved. This has become a philosophical debate and I’m calling all three of these people out to debate me on this issue, in a NON-RANT manner. So whoever tried to move this to rant… I would offer that.


mr reasonable wrote:
Destroy us all? You got problems man. You’re just ignorant about some fundamental things. I don’t know what else to tell you, except that you will wear yourself out eventually, and when you finally get it, you’ll feel dumb.

I’m prepared to feel dumb… are you? I know you guys probably have 100+ years of experience in philosophy through university… but I have that spatial IQ going for me, and I can calculate when I can win philosophical arguments. I read a few links on your concept, and I already know how to disprove them. You changed the goal post, but I can still out debate you… and whatever you think you have up your sleeve, I haven’t tipped my entire hat on these forums, so you guys are not a sure bet here. I can usually simulate conversations with people weeks in advance, because I can memorize their consciousness signatures… and I can do that for philosophical debate as well. So take the challenge. It might revolutionize your idea of philosophy, so I see it as being to your advantage. I’m trying to get you guys into this debate by incentivizing you =)

Why not just go ahead and prove that you’ve solved the problem of first cause? Wouldn’t that be more conducive to your goal?

I see no philosophical premise in a challenge of debate. And as you felt the need to go on and on, it is a rant.

He doesn’t understand what it means in philosophy when you say, “the problem of…” something. He thinks that you’re supposed to pick one side of the debate and prove that side. I don’t know how to get him to understand that he’s just wrong in his entire approach to understanding the world.

How could you not see a philosophical premise? First Mr. Reasonable said my thread was moved because all the mods had theorems that God could neither be proven or disproven, and then he changed the goal post and said actually it was because of a concept called “logical reductionism” Those are philosophical topics!!! AS I said before, I barely even CARED that my thread was moved, I was like “Whatever”, but then mr. reasonable comes in and tells me WHY my thread was moved, and that’s when he made it philosophical. If he had never made that comment, I wouldn’t have even thought to start this thread. These are real philosophical debate topics, and I’m prepared to have them in a non-rant way.

Chain posting is non non-rant… and actually most of my posting has been to show the mods how mr reasonable has been PMing me about this, so they can decide whether they even agree with him… if they don’t want to take the challenge, then mr. reasonable and I can have this PHILOSOPHICAL debate in a NON-RANT manner, right here.