Quote:
Originally Posted by galenrox  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:
|
Originally Posted by galenrox 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 say again, the science says only of the properties of energy - none of which call energy god. God is your claim - the burden of proof rests with you.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by galenrox 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. |
You've done absolutely nothing of the sort, all you've done is gone around and around in circles with a conclusion that says "look I did it I proved that energy is god".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by galenrox 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. |
YOU just stated that you've proved that god is energy and that this is the christian god that is written in the bible - all your statements shesh, have the ****ing balls to admit what you've already stated it's utterly rediculous of you here trying to dodge it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by galenrox 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. |
You put your views onto the topic of this site. You put your views here and said that your christian god exists and is synonymous with what scientists have stated is the energy in the Universe and insist this as proof of the existence of your god; has this ceased being a debate site and become the site of galenrox personal **** views?. Please, drop the feigned outrage hurt dove routine.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by galenrox 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. |
Do you even know what a negative argument is?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by galenrox 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. |
You explained it only in one that is not supported by any factual evidence and proclaim it to be proof. Now you're feigning outrage when you're met with challenges on it. Look dude, you don't want people challenging on your views, don't post it. The obvious flaw of your logic is that you've not in anyway established that energy is god - in particular with the fact that you've simultaneously also stated that energy is just that, nothing more nothing less; but here you are assigning divinity to energy?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by galenrox 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. |
Further evidence you do not know what you are talking about. Though the letters representative of hydrogen and oxygen remain the same, however hydrogen that is covalently bound to oxygen is far from being the same as it's elemental form. To allow you to better understand this look at iron vs rusted iron - it's not in anyway the same.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by galenrox 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. |
The entirety was given to show you of the variation between the different energies. Mechanical energy is not the same as chemical energy and so on.