Conservation of energy

[The Tanager]

I don't know if this should go here, because I'm not making a religious point off of this here, but it could possibly clear up some confusion in another thread.

Which of these would you say is the law of conservation of energy? Or how would you tighten the law up more?

(1) Matter/energy/mass are eternal

(2) In a closed system, the total amount of mass/energy/matter is constant or conserved. That the system does not gain or lose any energy when transformations take place within it.

[benchwarmer]

But no on has ever called or implied evolution is a brute fact. That's all on you.

SMH. You are starting to become just too disingenuous for me. I can't just sit back and have people continuously make false statements as it relates to stuff that I know is true.

I just can't do it, as much as I respect you and enjoy our sparring, .

As happened in my thread of conversation with you, either put up or stop making accusations that people are saying things they are not. You have been called on this by multiple people now and have yet to provide quotes that would quickly put us in our place. The only 2 options seem to be that no-one has made such quotes or you can't be bothered to find them.

You thinking people have said or implied something does not make it so. Post the quotes and we will declare you right and retract our complaints. Post the implications and I imagine those quoted will explain what they really meant and you can discuss it. I mean come on, I'll even help you out. Click on the Search button and start looking. It shouldn't take you too long.

I think from now on whenever you post this 'brute fact' nonsense, I will do as you do and "?"/SMH/LOL

Now, can we get back to discussing conservation of energy/TOE or something remotely related to the OP rather than the rabbit hole we seemed to have landed in?

[Bust Nak]

SMH. You are starting to become just too disingenuous for me. I can't just sit back and have people continuously make false statements as it relates to stuff that I know is true.

Why would you think my response was anything but genuine, even if you think it is false? You do realize that "stuff that you know is true" isn't necessarily "stuff that I know is true," right?

If someone stated the Earth is flat, he is quite simply incorrect, but that doesn't mean he is disingenuous if he truly believe in a flat Earth. This isn't hard to understand.

I just can't do it, as much as I respect you and enjoy our sparring, .

You kept attacking my character, despite my continual protest, I am not sensing any respect from you.

[Elijah John]

How about you attack it, junior?


"The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing". (1Corin 1:18)

Moderator Warning


Do NOT call anyone names, Also do NOT quote scripture and use it as a spiritual weapon directed against your opponent, insinuating that they are "perishing".


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Junior, eh? Well I admit I've entertained inviting you to a head to head for just that reason. It's just your track record of abandonment that stays me. I'd hate to be the reason you end up 0-5.

And if I am 0-5 (for arguments sake), I'd hate for a debate with you to be where I got my first W.

But if I'm not mistaken you just said "If the conclusion is drawn from sound/valid premises, it does" in response to " Even if Kalam, MOA, and AFC were sound (they're not), there isn't some sorcery whereby their soundness poofs a god into existence."

Would you like to reread that and have another crack at it?

No. Not at all.

Or are you content to stand by the statement that gods spring into existence the moment a sound argument is made in favor of their existence?

Very much content.

PS. The sheer number of "?" replies you post is troubling. I'm reading over what you keep responding to with "?" and none of it strikes me as particularly unclear or confusing. Is it your go-to response when you have no answer, to feign confusion and dodge?

I could just say "I don't understand what you are saying."...but a simple "?" seems to sum it up just fine for me.

I'll help you out with one that illustrates the point: Name something that exists that only exists by way of sound argument.

Answer: God.

To demonstrate this point, I challenge you to a debate on the MOA. If you accept the challenge, PM me and lets discuss the parameters of the debate, where there shouldn't be any confusion or mishaps.

[Inigo Montoya]

Junior, eh? Well I admit I've entertained inviting you to a head to head for just that reason. It's just your track record of abandonment that stays me. I'd hate to be the reason you end up 0-5.

And if I am 0-5 (for arguments sake), I'd hate for a debate with you to be where I got my first W.

But if I'm not mistaken you just said "If the conclusion is drawn from sound/valid premises, it does" in response to " Even if Kalam, MOA, and AFC were sound (they're not), there isn't some sorcery whereby their soundness poofs a god into existence."

Would you like to reread that and have another crack at it?

No. Not at all.

Or are you content to stand by the statement that gods spring into existence the moment a sound argument is made in favor of their existence?

Very much content.

PS. The sheer number of "?" replies you post is troubling. I'm reading over what you keep responding to with "?" and none of it strikes me as particularly unclear or confusing. Is it your go-to response when you have no answer, to feign confusion and dodge?

I could just say "I don't understand what you are saying."...but a simple "?" seems to sum it up just fine for me.

I'll help you out with one that illustrates the point: Name something that exists that only exists by way of sound argument.

Answer: God.

To demonstrate this point, I challenge you to a debate on the MOA. If you accept the challenge, PM me and lets discuss the parameters of the debate, where there shouldn't be any confusion or mishaps.

Honestly, I think my work here is done.

In one post you have agreed to remain content positing the idea that gods spring into existence the moment a sound argument is made in favor of their existing.

This is nothing short of dumbfounding. And captured for as long as the forum exists.

Secondly, you've just declared your god to exist only by virtue of sound argumentation.

You did those things. And are content. What more could I hope for?

As to a head to head on the MOA, I have to ask if you were present for the two against Riku and Wiploc. You know, the two you forfeited after multiple rounds of logic that just wouldn't go away? I see no point in doing it a third time, but it's your reputation. PM me if you just can't stand it.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Honestly, I think my work here is done.

In one post you have agreed to remain content positing the idea that gods spring into existence the moment a sound argument is made in favor of their existing.


This is nothing short of dumbfounding. Secondly, you've just declared your god to exist only by virtue of sound argumentation.

You did those things. And are content. What more could I hope for?

Call it what you want. The fact of the matter is, the conclusion "therefore, God exists" is based upon the true premises which preceded it. So if you have a problem with the conclusion, then do something about the premises.

But, we both know you can't.

No one is saying that God "springs into existence the moment a sound argument is made"...but if God doesn't exist, then the premises of the argument have no business being true.

But they are true..as the premises, in their truth value, reflect reality...whether you like it, agree with it, believe it...or not.

As to a head to head on the MOA, I have to ask if you were present for the two against Riku and Wiploc.

I was more than present. I put in work on both of those guys.

You know, the two you forfeited after multiple rounds of logic that just wouldn't go away?

Sure, so much logic coming at me that I just couldn't keep up, huh? SMH.

I see no point in doing it a third time, but it's your reputation. PM me if you just can't stand it.

It really doesn't matter to me...I'm not losing any sleep either way. I am just saying; you act as if you are so caught up on the idea of the existence of God being proven based upon good ole fashioned sound/reason...and I am saying; there is a perfect argument for the existence of God which seeks to prove the existence of God based on sound/reason ALONE...and that is the MOA.

So, the challenge has been made. If you accept the challenge, fine. If not, that is fine too. I already did my thang on the MOA thread, anyway.

Anything else is Scooby snacks.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 146 by For_The_Kingdom]



Ok. One more try.


Does the soundness of an argument for a god's existence influence whether a god actually exists?


As to the rest of your post, SMH LOL.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 146 by For_The_Kingdom]



Ok. One more try.


Does the soundness of an argument for a god's existence influence whether a god actually exists?


As to the rest of your post, SMH LOL.

I repeat..

"The conclusion "therefore, God exists" is based upon the true premises which preceded it. So if you have a problem with the conclusion, then do something about the premises.

But, we both know you can't.

No one is saying that God "springs into existence the moment a sound argument is made"...but if God doesn't exist, then the premises of the argument have no business being true.

But they are true..as the premises, in their truth value, reflect reality...whether you like it, agree with it, believe it...or not".

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 146 by For_The_Kingdom]



Ok. One more try.


Does the soundness of an argument for a god's existence influence whether a god actually exists?


As to the rest of your post, SMH LOL.

I repeat..

"The conclusion "therefore, God exists" is based upon the true premises which preceded it. So if you have a problem with the conclusion, then do something about the premises.

But, we both know you can't.

No one is saying that God "springs into existence the moment a sound argument is made"...but if God doesn't exist, then the premises of the argument have no business being true.

But they are true..as the premises, in their truth value, reflect reality...whether you like it, agree with it, believe it...or not".

Classic FotK exchange.


Watch this. I'll grant the conclusion follows from the premeses and the argument is sound.

Now...

Does the soundness of the argument make your god's existence a fact?

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 146 by For_The_Kingdom]



Ok. One more try.


Does the soundness of an argument for a god's existence influence whether a god actually exists?


As to the rest of your post, SMH LOL.

I repeat..

"The conclusion "therefore, God exists" is based upon the true premises which preceded it. So if you have a problem with the conclusion, then do something about the premises.

But, we both know you can't.

No one is saying that God "springs into existence the moment a sound argument is made"...but if God doesn't exist, then the premises of the argument have no business being true.

But they are true..as the premises, in their truth value, reflect reality...whether you like it, agree with it, believe it...or not".

Classic FotK exchange.


Watch this. I'll grant the conclusion follows from the premeses and the argument is sound.

Now...

Does the soundness of the argument make your god's existence a fact?

Yes.