CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Do you think God is taking a nap, leaving you to die while He takes a nap? Do you think you are more deserving of food than those who die of hunger?
You gloat over the pain and suffering others go through, you blame God for their troubles, do you thank God that you do not have such troubles? Why should you not be the same as those you hold as trophies implying you have won the right to say God is not good?
Well, I guess you want to see God as being bad, that is your choice.......so to you He will always seem bad. You're wrong, He is right, but you don't have to see it that way. God loves you.
I don't think we are using the same definition for mind. You may get away with your definition in India but this is America and that definition will not fly here. ;)
I have had other accounts before, as I said. Though not in this case. What exactly would be my reason for creating an alternate who has different ideas than me? Would it make my arguments more effective or convincing? I know its difficult, but try thinking a little.
Well, that was more about questioning the self evidence of claims that any of us exist.
But, one can be certain that there is something which makes it seem to them like they exist - but a claim on "something" doesn't really count as absolute certainty.
Then there's all the If...then statements, with the extra premise that we have the rules right, which really yields absolute certainty.
And there's the difference between nothing being certain and certainty being impossible.
Though that line of thinking you exhibited would lead you to George Berkeley.
Well, that was more about questioning the self evidence of claims that any of us exist.
The whole thing started with Dermot saying that nothing can be certain. I presented my own certainty of my own existence as just one example of certainty. That's what led to the whole other debate. I noticed that you stopped arguing against my position about the time that Dermot gave up. You should go back to it.
with the extra premise that we have the rules right
There was an underlying argument about fundamental principles. Evidence is itself based on them, not the other way around.
Though that line of thinking you exhibited would lead you to George Berkeley.
I don't believe that follows. I am not an immaterialist.
No I didn't give up if you re -read what I actually said regarding the cogito ... Even if we accept the fact that I am thinking at all proves that I exist , it says nothing about what I am , apart from a thinking thing .
Even this goes to far Rene should not have used the words ' I think ' if he was consistent with his approach , he should have said ' there are thoughts '
I said this more or less the same way last week and as usual you bulldoze your way through with your own thoughts and dismissing anything that disagrees , whys that ?
I asked before if you wanted Nietzsches devastating destruction of the cogito and you as usual indulged in a personal attack as in ' only if you can't '
Tell you what if you want yet another dismissal of your cogito I will indeed let Nietzsche do it also 🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀🙀
Even this goes to far Rene should not have used the words ' I think ' if he was consistent with his approach , he should have said ' there are thoughts
He couldn't say that there are thoughts without having experienced them. That's why his doubt reduced him to his final statement. The experience of the matter was my point as I made very clear in the other debate.
I asked before if you wanted Nietzsches devastating destruction of the cogito and you as usual indulged in a personal attack as in ' only if you can't
"Only if you can't" was not a personal attack. It was an appeal to your reason that indicated you should attempt it before you appeal to authority. But, if you cannot utilize your own reason to challenge my position, then by all means, use someone else's. A famous name won't make the position stronger if the reason is faulty. If it is, I'll let you know.
Knew you wouldn't get it , again you're jumping the gun , Rene was making an assumption that if there are thoughts there must be a thinker , this is again open to doubt .
Perhaps thoughts could exist independently of a thinker ?
So could they yes or no ?
There you go again you cannot help yourself with the sarcasm can you as in ' appeal to authority '
I told you if you wanted someone else to destroy your argument ALSO I would let Nietzsche do so also .. so you really need a bit more work on this don't you ?
If you want I will go over your papers and I'll let you know where your ' slipping up ' 😱😱😱
Knew you wouldn't get it , again you're jumping the gun , Rene was making an assumption that if there are thoughts there must be a thinker , this is again open to doubt
Thoughts devoid of a thinker are not thoughts, they are undiscovered information. So no. There cannot be thoughts without a thinker. Descartes statement required no consideration of the notion of thoughts without a thinker out there somewhere, because his reference was to his own subjective experience. That which is proved through introspection, need not be proved through extrospection in order to be valid. This is what you fail to understand.
I told you if you wanted someone else to destroy your argument ALSO
You say a lot of things that have no basis. Saying you won does not constitute a win.
If you want I will go over your papers and I'll let you know where your ' slipping up
Ha ,Ha , yeah like ' alternative facts ' are facts .
You say ... there cannot be thoughts without a thinker . .
No , YOUR ASSUMING this is the case
Prove it ?
Oh dear you are a sore loser , it's ok you can smash the house up and tell everyone you won ... just to keep your ego puffed up 😊😊
Saying I won doesn't prove I won ? At last some reason and you're right but actually doing as it as I just have does actually prove I won .... that's gotta hurt ?
Yes leave that to a person capable of reason like your ' pal ' with the god proof 👻 Good luck with that
Game , set , match .... new balls please 🎾🎾🎾🎾🎾.... next ✋✋✋
You say ... there cannot be thoughts without a thinker . .
No , YOUR ASSUMING this is the case
Prove it ?
Thoughts without a thinker is called information, not thoughts. There's nothing mysterious here. Information becomes a thought when it is experienced. This is not an assumption, it's observable.
That "giving up" was actually you just saying that it is self evident. If you can explain why and how it is self evident, we can continue on that debate.
Then those are the fundamental principles which can never be known by us ourselves.
A materialist using the cartesian assertion? You know its original context, right?
Or, of course, make you explain the nature of this experience so that it can be shown to be an unnecessary explanation
One need not explain the nature of a thing in its entirety to begin to understand a thing, something you seem stubborn about. Do you suppose everyone fell off mountains and buildings for lack of an explanation of the nature of gravity? A things nature need not be fully discovered for the truth of that which is partially discovered to be understood. Thus, the only way to reasonably argue against my position is to actually argue against my position. To show a way in which experience can be unexperienced.
One element of the nature of experience is that it is subjective, thus it is not to be proven through extrospection, but rather introspection. There is no external proof for qualia as it is necessarily internal. I cannot prove the nature of my qualia to you, but i cannot doubt that it is there. If you have it, you also cannot doubt it. If you don't, it is because you lack consciousness as well as the ability to doubt.
Or, of course, make you explain the nature of this experience so that it can be shown to be an unnecessary explanation at best, or probably entirely wrong.
A things nature need not be fully discovered for the truth of that which is partially discovered to be understood.
It has to, actually. Partial claims don't count as anything.
I have made a whole claim about a subject that we may only have partial knowledge concerning. You can know that 2+2=4, at understand the truth of it, without knowing the Pythagorean theorem. So when I say that 2+2=4 and to prove me wrong you must only show an instance wherein 2+2=/=4, it is an invalid argument to claim that I must understand the whole of mathematics lest my “partial claim” be rendered meaningless. Rather than attempting a logical refutation, you have avoided.
But unless you have knowledge of enough mathematics, your claim might as well be entirely wrong.
As to the specific example, I'll need to know which rules are the most involved in solving it to be able to tell exactly which changes would yield a solution otherwise. But such things can exist.
But unless you have knowledge of enough mathematics, your claim might as well be entirely wrong
Most of what you assert is baseless. You don't need to understand the whole of geometry to understand that a square peg won't fit in the round hole.
As to the specific example, I'll need to know which rules are the most involved in solving it to be able to tell exactly which changes would yield a solution otherwise. But such things can exist.
This is like saying "I can't say why you are wrong, but I am certain you are". You might as well concede to reason.
I won't entirely rely on your instinct to tell that, then.
Because there is no knowledge that prevents you from believing the wrong things.
But, since the principles you might use to get to the conclusion in the example problem can be mutually agreed upon, there won't be disagreement in the outcome.
Because there is no knowledge that prevents you from believing the wrong things.
This may be the crux of your misunderstanding. Very early on, you claimed that the the existence of illusions destroys my position. You still fail to see that I can doubt what I experience, but not the fact that I experience, by the nature of experience itself.
You deny that to doubt experience, one must experience doubt. The only way for you to do this is do claim outright that experience doesn't exist. You assert an equally faith based claim that qualia does not exist.
Tell me how one can deny the existence of experience (thus experiencing denial) without being dishonest or blindly faithful.
Ok , I will try one more time to clear up your uncertainty, your position is lost and you will not concede , no doubt the end of my post will see you yet again hurl abuse and insult at someone daring to question you ....
A thought comes when “it” wishes, not when “I” wish, so that it is a falsification of the facts of the case to say that the subject “I” is the condition of the predicate “thinks.” It thinks; but that this “it” is precisely the famous old “ego” is … only a supposition,… and assuredly not an “immediate certainty.”
One has even gone too far with this “it thinks” – even the “it” contains an interpretation of the process, and does not belong to the process itself. One infers here according to the grammatical habit: “Thinking is an activity; every activity requires an agent; consequently”….
Bet you go into another rage instead of attempting a counter ?
Your confusion here is based on semantics and was resolved with the creation of the word "qualia". It was my mistake for not clarifying this earlier than I did. But since I have already clarified this confusion previously, your mistake was in asking your philosopher friends the wrong question before presenting their response here.
No , your confusion seems to be that every statement you make is ambiguous ,and your pseudo intellectual posturing typifies the approach of the ' bar room philosopher ' no doubt encouraged by his fellow beer sodden worthies , who whisper ' sage ' advice into your little ears ?
Oh dear , I note with some amusement you're receiving a thrashing on your other debate ..... maybe you need some of those philosopher friends to help you ?
I also went to work and I asked 4 people there. They all said that you changed your mind. One of the 4 is from India. But I asked him last and he may have been peer presured into agreeing with the rest of us. Your homie threw you under the bus ;)
God said the descendants of Ishmael would always be fighting against each other and everybody else....they keep fighting because they think they can take the birthright of the firstborn by force.
wtfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff y is god on the other side there not winning or attacking america soon isis will be a thing of the past
i know gods on are side when u said that al qutia or who ever they are are in heven thats a bad thing there DEAD DEAD DEAD DEAD when is that a good thing and i dont think being a terrorst and kill 1000s of people in 1 day or no good reason brings people 2 heaven but cheating on your wife dosnt
i like chicken i like chicken!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! goolge ggpidsh;ujks;ghalgfabhdjwJKSAF;OIWEAJGHWOUEJSHFLBWSUKGJFBLISUDRKGBISYUJFGNWIKSUD
So depending on whose version of religion you believe those 27 al qaeda fighters are all now in heaven having sex with 77 virgins each, and meanwhile that US soldier is healing from wounds all over his body and having sex with just his wife (unless he is cheating on her, in which case you can add he's going to hell on top of it all).
Actually I'm not sure God could afford that. If we killed 1 million Islamic martyrs then that would be 77 million virgins. I'm not sure even God can afford that many sluts.
77 Virgins. That's, at MOST, three months worth, given the hope that you are blessed with a holy hard-on to work with ... that would be the 4 hour type, at least. Let's see, 3 months, as opposed to eternity doesn't seem like they get the "Art of the Deal" very well. Not much return on your investment. ;-)
I let a couple of virgins go even though I "had them where I wanted them." I always preferred a bit of experience and I hated to see a girl cry. ;-)
You are the typical Progressive that can't understand what you read. Now that is a shocker. Get your facts right ! " In 2007 Navy Seal Mike Day was shot 27 times by four Al Qaeda gunmen hit by grenade shrapnel but he killed all four of the gunmen" Where do you see there was 27 Al Qaeda fighters in what i quoted to you from the heading of the post ?
Does Islam condone slavery? Does Islamic teaching allow Muslim men to keep women as sex slaves?
Islam neither ignores nor condemns slavery. In fact, a large part of the Sharia is dedicated to the practice.
Muslims are encouraged to live in the way of Muhammad, who was a slave owner and trader. He captured slaves in battle; he had sex with his slaves; and he instructed his men to do the same. The Quran actually devotes more verses to making sure that Muslim men know they can keep women as sex slaves (4) than it does to telling them to pray five times a day (zero).
So tell me Dermot how the thinness is on the ground
Quran (33:50) - "O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee" This is one of several personal-sounding verses "from Allah" narrated by Muhammad - in this case allowing a virtually unlimited supply of sex partners. Other Muslims are restricted to four wives, but they may also have sex with any number of slaves, following the example of their prophet.
Quran (8:69) - "But (now) enjoy what ye took in war, lawful and good" A reference to war booty, of which slaves were a part. The Muslim slave master may enjoy his "catch" because (according to verse 71) "Allah gave you mastery over them."
I hate to choose this side because, as you said elsewhere, he must have been asleep at the wheel a few times (actually MOST of the times when HE was needed). Genocide appears to be a hobby with it.
Many of us believe in "luck", and in excellent training and equipment. We know the SEALS have BOTH, as well as the drive to WIN. I have to admire the man. He not only defeated the enemy, he overcame the odds that "GOD" seems to give us, like those 9 worshipers in the "House of God", those 20 young "original sinners" in the school, etc.,etc.,etc.. Hopefully WE will survive the next 4 years with "HIS" protection better than those unfortunates. :-(
I agree. I lived through WW2, the Cold War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, even Saintnow's attempt to send me to hell! Still, I'm not so "scared" that I have to carry a gun because of the "bad dudes", ISIS doesn't scare me, People from countries that have never sent anyone to attack me, don't scare me .... guess that's why I'm not a conservative ... I've lived through most of the worst that's happened to this country. "A GOD" that never is seen and let's even his most devout die horrible deaths scares me much less than the afore mentioned. Trump actually scares me MORE! I WILL be surprised if I live through him! :-()
Very good way of looking at it. I am, however, expecting a inordinate amount of pain throughout the experience. Every day this looks more like a kidney boulder!!
wrong question...the correct question is "who is on the Lord's side?".......I placed this comment on both sides because the wrong question is being asked on both sides