[Serious Discussion] Religion

[STyL4]

Cool, authority argument again, this time a university. Orch or can be approved by a uni. But the god linked theory that you made out of it will not be.

Oh and giving your opponent less crediblity by saying he's too dumb to understand . Coolio

I believe there are terms for this false argumentation, but i'm too lazy to look it up.

It's just because there's a gigantic hole in your 'god proof'  theory, ive maybe quoted it 1000 times and still you intentionally ignore it.

Property of X=A, Property of Z=A, Thus X=Z is not proof, because the logic is wrong.

SO THERE GOES YOUR ORCH OR BASED GOD PROOF THEORY.

"Sorry I forgot about this. Yes so basically I say a mind is a self-collapsing wave-function but you're asking does that mean that all self-collapsing wave-functions are minds? Yes that would be erroneous of me to assume it goes both ways automatically. It's just that in this case Orch-OR was explicitly derived in the context of Penrose's quantum mind theory. So in this particular case it's meant to be go both ways: X=Z and Z=X. It's a biconditional." - @video and so on..

Theory is approved once again. questions after questions, im the one giving explanations but questions wont take u nowhere.


Im not saying Grim is an idiot, but looking on internet seeing if there is anything about "ORCH OR God proof" is just stupid. You can do research but make sure u understan it because there has to be scientific proofs covering it like in this ORCH OR  theory.


ORCH OR theory creator knows alot of stuff about God, and yet again he doesn't deny Evolution because he says as a Christian u shouldnt. I mean, he even says that he's more of a evolutionist than creationist. and he knows some pretty secret stuff about God and science and he's extremely intelligent. a genious if u ask me, because ive talked with him..


P"eople stopped taking him seriously like 4 or 5 pages back  " - or is it u and "ur own opinion" debates?


"Your sorry ass is obviously not much of a "science man" either. He brought enough proof? Gee, I thought you guys didn't need any proof? Not to mention that right now, the tables obviously have turned, as it's not just the ones who don't believe that need proof. It's obvious the ones that do believe try to make their proof themselves, even if it's not real proof. " - actually, if u would know much about what's going on, they dont give proofs because they want to "prove" it to themselves, but prove it to people like u and ur thinking about Religion , obviously u judge it wrong and some of them want to prove u wrong, because obviously if they belive in something that much and u disrespect it (atheist's faith - fighting for existance of nothing makes no sense either, did i say that already) then they will react.


"As a last entry, what is your problem with Grim googling the situation? How is that "typically him"? Would you not google information over something you may not know very well or to get even more information on something you do know well? Google is without a shadow of a doubt, as is the internet itself, the best source to find information, both correct and incorrect, right now on the entire planet. The joke is on you when making a statement like that. Maybe I should call that 'typical' too now?"

- google is without a doubt? alrighty then! go follow internet, it will bring u closer to the truth, im sure thats what scientists does! who needs EXPLAINED scientific proof, follow what GOOGLE says! its without a doubt! that argument made no sense, that is science for sure! so much of a science man u are! writing 50 sentences over my 1 sentence, without knowing the real point i made. its about how u understan it not how OTHERS on google does. ur head, ur thinking. next time think before u say something and make a fair point about what i actually though. even if it has correct PLUS incorrect information, u must think with ur own head.

its nothing wrong if he did a research first, but if u dont find thousands of results in google, that does not mean its wrong because as long as its briefly described and scientificly proved with logic, it should be fine.

And Maka, i cant take u seriously, u dont even know me yet u judge me what i "think" over internet. that is a prefect example of pure rage over someone getting the "control" of the situation.


and Peru2600, im not getting personal, they started the insults because thats an example if you see ur opponent as strong and if he made u spechless, you start going personal and state ur OWN opinions only. maybe i over reacted too, but it was my reply and my reply atleast had some useful information. DENIAL and FLAMEs are worst components in debate. its not like i give a damn if someone on the other side flames me or states his own opinions only, because i understan he will never agree with me, no matter what i state. its not about how many are there, but what influence u made on them.