Quote:
Originally Posted by jfuh  |
Once again, ad hominems will not make up for what you lack in terms of argumentation. Do you have any explanation as to why this distinction is pertinent to the topic of discussion?
Quote:
|
[url="http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057644914-post141.html"] That's not presenting a negative argument, that's stating the obvious. You claim it to be god prove it.
|
Um, so it's not a positive statement of a negative because you call it obvious (which has ABSOLUTELY no bearing on whether it is a positive statement of negative under any possible interpretation).
You're not helping your case!
I have proven that energy is God according to my definition of God, if you for whatever reason can't understand my arguments then there's nothing more I can say on the subject. Now it is up to you to prove the validity of your claims.
Quote:
|
I didn't state of any need to believe in the rubbish superstitious literal interpretation. No one here but you has. Yet your bible clearly says that god told them to do just that. Jesus christ is the embodyment of god, different persons yet one and the same - which you prescribe as being energy - nothing more nothing less. Hence you are indeed proclaiming that energy is sentient - as I've asked, prove it.
|
Which is rested upon the premise that the biblical description of God's interaction with humanity and the personification of God is intended to be literal, and I reject this premise on the grounds that throughout human history humans have used personification as a model for understanding forces beyond their comprehension.
It is the sign of a failed argument when one insists that another must justify a premise that he never stated.
Quote:
|
I'm not in a position? Why wouldn't I be in a position? You're not a scientist yet that does not prevent you from attempting to make scientific validations.
|
Are you ****ing joking me?! You're not in a position because they're MY ****ing views! I can't believe that I'd actually have to explain that to another human being.
Quote:
As I've said, you are the one making the claim that energy = god YOU bear the burden of proof. You claim god exists the burden of proof that god exists rests with you. You are the christian - though you throw out the bible as **** - so the burden of proof rests with you that there is a christian god. You can't cherry pick and say the christian god exists because the bible says this and this and that then in following posts also claim that the bible is "****". Fact of the matter is your god has as much substance of existence as the flying pink elephants brought up earlier.
ie, if I claimed that I was god the burden of proof rests with me to prove so - or should I just tell you, nope, don't question it, I am god you need to have faith in my being god. Spare me the ridiculous rubbish.
|
Right, man, no offense but you're really not in a position to lecture anyone about logical processes, considering the "That's not presenting a negative argument, that's stating the obvious." statement.
I gave you my definition, I explained how energy fits that definition, you haven't successfully rejected any of my premises nor have to pointed out any specific flaw in my logic. That is the definition of having proved it to you. You can attempt to insult me as much as you want if it makes you feel better, but you have to bear in mind that I recognize that the insults are coming from you, and I value them appropriately.
Quote:
You initially did say H2O in fact you stated.
Then stated
But in fact even H2O is not an element, made up of elements certainly but not an element itself. As well as the fact that at 0C it's in a fluctuating state becoming a solid - structurally completely different as is the case with it at 100C becoming a gas or condensing into a liquid.
Water at 60C kills nearly all pathogens where as half that to 30C and it's a perfect temperature for growth.
You're understanding of these facts is clearly obfuscated by your desire to validate your religious beliefs. You are the perfect example of the title of the thread of religion conflicting with facts - but perhaps more sinister in how you have been dishonestly twisting the facts so as to match your arguments.
|
Once again, an insignificant distinction for the purposes of this discussion, how SURPRISING!
You're right, I misspoke, H2O is a molecule, not an element, I should've said it's still the same hydrogen and still the same oxygen.
I repeat my challenge to you to present an explanation how any of these distinctions has even the slightest significance to the topic of discussion.