You make me sick.

I haven't actually seen Solo yet, but the other nine, from best to worst:

1. Empire Strikes Sack; easily the greatest sequel in movie history and near flawless in every respect, 9.5/10

2. New Hope; just a classic story, 8.5/10

3. Force awakens; it did steal a lot from the original film, but all in all a good experience, 7/10

4. Return of the Jedi, Ewoks ruined star wars and much of the film was dull, but the duel at the end was good enough to salvage this movie for me, 6.9/10

5. Last Jedi, better than I expected, but not very compelling. I've forgotten most of it already. The casino scene in the middle was horrible. 6.75/10

6. Attack of the clones; it did alright I guess, Dooku was underdeveloped, if he'd had a presence in the previous film he could have been quite interesting. Obi wan was the saving grace of this movie and the other prequels. 6.5/10

7. Revenge of the Sith; there were at least 5 light-saber duels in this movie, which was ridiculous. Again, Grevious was underdeveloped. Barely a 6/10

8. Rogue one. Just boring. Characters were all awful. A couple good Vader scenes, but that's it. 6/10

9. Phantom menace. Jar Jar Binks plagues my nightmares. Enough said. 5/10

Why should I have to do that???????????????????????????????????????

Naturalism can explain non material things like the concept of a president. This is explained by humans evolving, and then creating the idea of a president. Another example of a non material thing is a number like 4. The number 4 is a concept that describes natural material things.

"No, moron, naturalism is what I said. Materialism is the denial of all non-material things”."

But you seem to think naturalism is the denial of all non material things. You earlier said: "Your naturalism cannot account for it either. The fact that you admit things exist that are not material is a refutation of atheism [naturalism in your eyes]."

"Atheism = naturalism"

What about Buddhists? When did we go over this?

I don't see why it needs a capital letter. To me that implies a religious affiliation.

I no longer have any idea what you're talking about..........................

Your link doesn't really support your argument, and considering that the guy was using the word in everyday language, it should be interpreted that way, not in a strict mathematical way.

"I don't need to Google the definition. Round means circular, and circles exist in 2 dimensions. When you go around something what do you do? Do you traverse it in a circle or do you traverse it in a sphere? If King Arthur's round table had been a sphere I imagine it would have made meetings quite difficult."

The context of the usage of the word matters, none of that proves the word round is exclusive to 2D objects. Words can have multiple meanings.

Round is not exclusive to 2D. You need only google the definition. I think "round" could even apply to an oblate spheroid, as it is shaped like a sphere.

When I sad "some sort of being" I meant some sort of self aware or conscious being, not just something that exists.

"Naturalism is the believe that all of reality can be explained by natural means alone, so yes it is, mental midget."

You are confusing materialism with naturalism. A non material thing, such as a concept like being president, can arise naturally. Materialism is the thing that says everything is material.

"And since atheism denies the supernatural as an explainariom, it is left with naturalism, making all atheists naturalists."

Atheism is not a belief, and actually doesn't deny the supernatural as an explanation. For example, most Buddhists are atheists because they do not believe in any deity.

"Take Philosophy 101 and, until then, shut up."

:) Actually, I have taken philosophy 101, and I can tell you that you have no idea what you're talking about.

To say something is known to truth or heard by it implies that the truth is some sort of being, and I see no reason to believe that on the basis of what has been said in this debate so far.

That is not naturalism, I suggest you do your research before making wild claims.

Atheism is also not the same thing as naturalism.

I believe the truth exists, and that it is no more than the way in which things truly exists. There are true answers to questions etc, but this definitely has no weird implications that there is something out there that hears your prayers.

"Nothing could exist unless it exists in Truth, so God is clearly omnipotent, that is, the source of all influence, and thus the creator of all things."

Could you explain this reasoning more clearly? I don't see how the it follows that God is clearly omnipotent if nothing could exists unless it exists in truth.

"The Truth is the highest good, and all good things come from The Truth. God is clearly omnibenevolent, the source of all good."

Why do you say that the truth is the highest good?

Can this "Truth" hear people's prayers?

This Truth/God that you speak of, is it akin to an omnipotent or benevolent creator of the universe?

That's a ridiculous statement. There are plenty of natural things we can't test in a lab. It doesn't mean they don't exist. For example, I can't provide a lab test that demonstrates Donald Trump is the president of the US.

What proof would you accept of somebodies intelligence over a website anyways? I can't take you to a physical lab so that you can watch me take an IQ test or something. Tell me exactly what I should do to satisfy you.

I have already provided you with some solid evidence (which would be to look at my previous posts on this website).

You're being kinda ridiculous. I don't know what lab experiment would prove it, but I am convinced by reason, you may even be able to find examples of that on this site, and hopefully you'll be able to decide whether or not you think I'm intelligent by reading other arguments I've made.

Why are your questions posed only at atheists?

I am a rational and somewhat intelligent atheist! Not sure if you want me to somehow prove that.

I don't know truth from fiction for sure.

I base my beliefs on science and reason, but at the end of the day I can never be absolutely sure my beliefs are true.

May I ask how you rationally know truth from fiction?

It seems obvious to me that all of our 'decisions' are predetermined, for multiple reasons, and in this sense I don't believe in free will.

One could take a more 'compatibilist' stance (I think that's what it's called) where we choose a more relevant definition of free will: This definition could be something along the lines of "Having free will means that if you wanted to to do something else you could have." Basically this means that we behave in the way we want to, so for all intents and purposes we are free.

This is an interesting way to think about it and I haven't made up my mind yet as to whether this is an acceptable definition. One of my problems with it is that I want a definition of free will that allows people with free will to be morally responsible for their actions (assuming objective morality exists, etc), but I also don't think someone who is criminally insane should be considered morally responsible for their actions, and I'm pretty sure under this definition they would be.

Also, I'm not sure fatalism is what you're arguing for. It's hard to define, but fatalism might be described as the view that you cannot escape your destiny no matter what you do (even if you have the freedom to choose your own actions, circumstances will conspire so that something specific will happen to you no matter what you do.) I don't think it's really a respected academic view.

"Without space, time does not exist. Hence, time is part of space."

That reasoning is wrong. Take this example: Without humans, laws do not exist, therefore laws are a part of humans. This is clearly bad reasoning.

So far as I know, time is not a dimension of space, it is its own type of dimension. Space and time are linked, but they are not the same thing.

Coming from a first year physics major who knows a bit of special relativity but not much else.

Well hey, if you want to play me you can find Mackapaka on chess.com . I suggest playing against the computer a couple times first to familiarize yourself with some basic tactics. It tells you how good your moves were and what better moves would have been. It's quite a fun game to get into.

That's probably true, and I can imagine some people on here cheating. At least the winner will know if it was fair and square or not. Still, if anybody wants to play me I'm game.

I think I might have heard something like this in the movie the pursuit of happyness:

I would like to think freedom is the right to pursue happiness in life so long as it doesn't infringe on other's right to do the same. I know it's not a rigorous definition, but it sounds nice.

"Creative thinking, invention, innovation etc. are not what you may think. The human mind cannot actually create an idea from scratch. In order to "create" you must combine or alter known concepts and elements. Human "creativity" works by making connections between things which are impressed upon the brain through our senses, in other words the brain needs input before it can make new neural connections and form ideas. Thought works through pattern recognition, you cannot create a new idea in a literal sense because all ideas come from external input."

Well yeah, that's what creativity/originality is. Putting things/ideas together in a way not previously thought of. You can create a new idea by putting things together in your mind just as an artist can create a new painting by putting paint on the canvas. Something can still be new even if its parts are old.

"what is constantly moving forward, constantly passing itself, and speeds up whenever you slow down?"

I don't think time fits that description. How does it "pass itself," and how does it speed up when you slow down (because I don't think that's what relativity states if that's how you meant it).

"Damn, haven't you heard of general relativity you scientifically illiterate block head?"

Are you hinting it's something to do with relativity?

You said darkness was close, it's not something to do with black holes is it? I don't see how that would fit.

Is it something to do with a wave??????????????????????????????????????

Nice...........................................................................

Electric ( and maybe magnetic) fields, or electromagnetic force (and maybe weak and strong nuclear force)?

Is there anything that can move (or to be more accurate, accelerate in an inertial reference frame) without being forced?

It's not something like information is it? I'm still not sure how to define information, and I don't think it can travel faster than light. I'm guessing people are wrong to interpret this as a physics question?

Edit: In some ways information can travel faster than light, but I feel like it's not what you're getting at.

Homosexuality is being attracted to the same sex.

One's gender is not the same thing as one's sex, so if gender is a social construct, biological sex would still not be, so homosexuality could exist.

I don't see a contradiction in these two ideas. Whether either is true, I don't really know or care.

The claim that you can't know for sure about anything not going on inside of your mind seems plausible, but that you are the only existent thing requires too many assumptions and is not supported by any evidence as far as I know.

Somehow I don't think this is the place to be asking complex physics questions.

Any answer you get here will be bullshit, or the result of a quick google search (probably still bullshit). It's hardly likely that someone will give an answer worthy of a Nobel prize on createdebate.com.

"It's funny you say that, because I think that literally everything is a paradox and every truth comes with it's polar opposite."

Google defines a paradox as: "a seemingly absurd or contradictory statement or proposition which when investigated may prove to be well founded or true."

The way I normally think of a paradox is the situation that arises when two (or more) premises that seem obviously true seem to obviously contradict each other.

In that sense, yes, as you put forward in your first argument (the clarification I requested), the very existence of existence itself is a paradox. I will grant that.

This doesn't imply that the paradox can't be resolved. We live in the real world, and I think this means there must be a resolution to every paradox, otherwise the world would be logically inconsistent. Is that what you believe, that the world is inconsistent?

A paradox would be resolved if at least one of the premises is actually false, or if it is actually possible for the premises to be true without contradiction.

"That makes no sense, especially as an argument for God...."

I agree with you about God, so I won't argue.

"The way I see it nature (i.e reality) is what defines what is "logical". And mother nature is telling me that she doesn't make any bloody sense and that true logic is the opposite of logic. Logic is illogical."

I think this relates to the idea of necessary and contingent truths. A statement like "all bachelors are unmarried" (given appropriate definitions of the words) is necessarily true (couldn't have been otherwise), while one like "the Earth exists" is a contingent truth (could have been otherwise). Similarly I think there are logical truths and natural truths. Statements like "all bachelors are unmarried" would seemingly be true regardless of nature (or rather, it would be impossible for nature to defy this), while some thing like "the Earth exists" would be determined by nature. I don't see how logic is dependent on nature or defined by nature.

"We have a fabric underlying everything we see made of microscopic paradox balls (particles) that pop in and out of existence randomly and only take specific trajectories when they are observed."

Skipping ahead to your last line, these quantum things are paradoxical, but we search for a resolution to this paradox. We haven't found one, but to assume that we never will is not a justified assumption to make, if that is what you are implying.

Thank you for clarifying, I just thought you could mean there was a paradox in some other way.

With regards to your argument I will say this:

Firstly, there must be some loophole in what you've said, because of course the universe does somehow exist (at least it seems reasonable to believe the universe does exist, though some might disagree). I don't think paradoxes (at least of this sort) can actually exist in reality, by their very definition. The task is now to find the loophole.

Well there are some possible answers:

-Many people believe in some sort of un-caused first cause, like a God (I never know when I should use a capital 'G,' but certain members of this site will freak if I don't). This would be a supernatural being, so they wouldn't necessarily be bound by natural laws like cause and effect (which I think seems to be a natural law rather than a logical law).

-Physics around the Big Bang gets really weird, and we simply can't trust our intuition about the nature of cause and effect and time and all those things when it comes to that. For example, I don't think it makes sense to say "before existence." Given the weirdness it makes sense to withhold judgment, even if you're an expert in the subject.

-Closed time loops are another idea, but I think they seem a bit 'ad hoc,' i.e. goofy and just made up to get out of a tight spot.

-I think there are other explanations, but I don't recall them at the moment.

Alright, I'm a first year physics student at university, and if there's one things I've learned it is that people who don't REALLY understand physics (myself included) shouldn't be arguing about things like this. Maybe you actually have a PhD in physics or something, in which case, you can dismiss what I am saying.

Either way, you're in the wrong place. The website 'Physics stack exchange' is where you want to go if you really want a serious answer to a question like this.

Alright, I'm a first year physics student at university, and if there's one things I've learned it is that people who don't REALLY understand physics (myself included) shouldn't be arguing about things like this. Maybe you actually have a PhD in physics or something, in which case, you can dismiss what I am saying.

Either way, you're in the wrong place. The website 'Physics stack exchange' is where you want to go if you really want a serious answer to a question like this, though I suspect you won't.

To answer your question, I can't prove anything other than entropy exists because I lack sufficient understanding of physics.

Can you explain why you are asking this? I assume you have some reason to think it is a paradox?

I think maybe the reason that you have to take math in school, even stuff that you don't use in everyday life, is that they don't want people who will do jobs that require math to slip through the cracks. In other words; if you didn't have to do math then lots of people who would become physicists or engineers or whatever would never become those things since they opted out of math at an early age. Sucks for you, I know, but it's better for society as a whole if we don't miss the people with those skills.

All it means is that it could have been possible for life to form on mars, especially in the past, because the right ingredients are there. NOT that there is or ever was life on mars. We don't know if there is or especially if there was because we haven't really looked enough.

Pretty sure you're a troll too...........................................................

But it's not like there are thousands of white Einsteins, and I see you've completely ignored the rest of my last argument explaining why it might be the case that there are other factors than intelligence at play.

Your three truths thing is just a joke.

I think you mean battlefield 'V'. I think it's pretty dumb too, but it's their game so they can do what they want with it. I'm not going to buy it anyways (mainly because it doesn't look like a good game though).

In no particular order:

1. Star wars, episodes IV & V (Films)

2. Splinter cell, specifically Chaos theory. (Games)

3. Catch 22 (book)

4. Lord of the rings + the Hobbit (Books & Films)

5. Battlefield 3 & 4 (Games)

6. Peep Show (Sitcom)

7. The X-Files (the old TV series (those recent ones mostly sucked))

8. The Terminator (only the original film)

9. The original Mad Max (film)

10. My sex life (fantasy)

It's really your decision, but here's an idea nobody ever mentions:

If you feel guilty about your carnivorous habits leading to animals being killed, but you also don't want to stop eating meat, just eat less meat! You'll still be reducing the amount of meat consumption, and therefore animal slaughtering, just not by as much. It's a good compromise I think.

Why can't we just be nice for the sake of being nice? Suits me just fine. I hope you aren't being nice only because of what you think God says.

I don't believe things can be objectively morally right or wrong.

A question for you: are things (a) right/wrong just because God says they are, or are they (b) right/wrong because of some objective morality that doesn't come from God? If (a), then your morality seems arbitrary. If (b), God isn't required for your morality to exist.