God is dead

Don't be silly user, the US is the only nation that matters.

Found one for Putin.

Attached: Jeane-Dixon-Prophecies-and-Predictions-for-2017-2018-2019-2020-and-beyond.gif (698x505, 224K)

Existence is a prerequisite for death. Do you disagree?

Attached: index.jfif.jpg (300x168, 12K)

Looks like its now in Israel.

Attached: donald-trump-the-whore-jared-kushner-the-dupe-benjamin-netanyahu-the-antichrist.jpg (853x555, 149K)

When people say god is dead, they usually mean the worship of him.

He never existed so technically he can't die either but now we're being pedantic so fuck off.

Attached: 9893031627.jpg (1612x1270, 156K)

>no proof
>ignores the second law of thermodynamics
hmm

proofs?

*first*

I was wrong, it is Ted Cruz. He's definitely the beast.

Attached: 7KzOvsb.jpg (620x525, 196K)

What are you talking about? Alright, here's a proof:
Where dead is defined as no longer alive
If something is dead, then it was once alive
If something was once alive, then it existed
Therefore, if something never existed, then it cannot be dead.

>A question begging epithet
>No proofs
Hmmm
Energy exist and cannot be destroyed nor created

I literally just gave a proof. Either show how it is not valid or show how one of the premises is false or unjustified.

That's not proof
Water and light create life and it doesn't get destroyed only change forms.
The first lifeform just popped into existence

Of which? That worship is decreasing?

There is some proof of that but personally i wouldn't claim god is dead at the moment.

If you mean his existence, I can't prove a negative but unless you think it's logical to believe in all sorts of nonsense (unicorns, fairies, etc) it's sensible to assume he doesn't exist until proven otherwise.

I've never seen any good proof for his existence.

If he existed, then he must be dead. But how do we know he existed at all without a proper record of it?

Was there a King Arthur Pendragon or was he just some Welsh writer's wet dream?

It literally is proof. Water and light are not alive nor are they dead.

Proof of god being dead and that he never existed. Muslims are picking up the slack in Europe and in North America.

Oh shit, I seen this episode of Star Trek when Data was on trial to see if he was a living being or just a machine.
You have to meet a person's personal criteria for life to be considered alive.

>It's proof because I say so
That's not how that works and no scientific study supports your argument
Life can appear in many forms

You got it so wrong. He's very clear that you need to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood. Read some New Testament.

>Christianity
>God

If your atheism is based on the rejection of the Judeo-Christian concept of God then you're pretty dimwitted.

Your atheism is based more around your personal beef with your Christian upbringing and family than it is based around logic, or the honest search for truth.

Go read. Travel. Get out of your shitty echo chamber and talk to other people honestly and not like a worthless little cunt who thinks he knows everything about the nature of the universe. You're an ape from a society of apes who have been scientifically minded for less than 500 years.

You ain't shit.

>I can't prove a negative
Yes you can it's easy
Check it, a toad isn't a oil rig
the phrase "you can't prove a negative" is also a negative and by its own criteria disproves itself

It's proof because it's a series of premises that lead to a conclusion. Life, while not particularly well defined, is well defined enough to where we can say that light and water are not life. They do not reproduce. They do not metabolize.

All modern atheism is based off the eastern religions rebranded for a western audience.
Max Stirner brought up that exact point to his fellow skeptics and they unfriended him

God is doing great actually. I believe he's currentpy in some sort of crossover game.

Attached: 8f3.png (900x1200, 1.46M)

he can call the judeo god dead all the same you fag

>It's proof because it's a series of premises that lead to a conclusion.
you're grasping at straws. you said to exist and I proved other things exist that don't cease to exist. these things brought forth life.
>while not particularly well defined
So even you can't properly define it. yet, you think you have it all figured out when no scientist has claimed this? hmmmm
>light and water are not life. They do not reproduce.
Water and light produced life this isn't a secret.
Scientists say this

Incorrect. In order for something to have died, it is a prerequisite that said thing first be alive. In order for something to be alive, it must first exist as something other than an idea.

God does not exist & has never existed. Thus, god has never lived and never will. Thus, god cannot die.

>God does not exist & has never existed.
proof?

Photoshopped to fuck, and I'm NOT talking about the horns & 666.

Ronald
>six letters
Wilson
>six letters
Reagan
>six letters

There's your fuckin' antichrist. And the Republicans worship him more than they ever did Jesus. So, who's word should we take on all this?

LMAO! I literally just watched this YT video where a lawyer reacts to tv shows & movies that deal with the legal practice & critiques it, and one of the episodes he tackled was that Trek episode.

>read your rebuttals to other Yea Forumstard
>totally understand how it's possible that you choose religion over science
>it's because you're too fucking stupid to UNDERSTAND science

Attached: You're an idiot Billy Madison.jpg (847x468, 69K)

>you're grasping at straws.
No, you're just being stubbornly nonsensical.
>you said to exist and I proved other things exist that don't cease to exist.
I never claimed anything about ceasing to exist, I claimed about things ceasing to be alive.
>these things brought forth life.
Many things are involved in the formation and continuations of life, but that does not make these things alive in themselves.
>you think you have it all figured out when no scientist has claimed this?
Scientists absolutely have said that things which do not reproduce and do not metabolize are not alive.
>Water and light produced life this isn't a secret.
Among other things. That doesn't change the fact that water and light are not alive.

Why? So you can just refuse to acknowledge my proofs like you did the other guy?

Take a look at the image I'm posting here. You wouldn't make it past the first step in the process, so fuck you. Not wasting my time. Pearls before swine (a nice reference from the buy bull that you'll either conveniently ignore or ironically not appreciate).

Attached: Rational Discussion Flowchart.jpg (622x866, 281K)

Literally referenced the second law of thermodynamics and how water and light create life and how the first organism popped into existence with is what scientist claim
>You don't understand science
Your butthurt doesn't make it true lol

>stubbornly nonsensical.
pot calling the kettle black idiom
>I claimed about things ceasing to be alive.
And you can't define proper life
>but that does not make these things alive in themselves
Yes it does energy is in all things
>Scientists absolutely have said that things which do not reproduce and do not metabolize are not alive.
Several other definitions have been proposed, and there are some borderline cases of life, such as viruses or viroids.
>That doesn't change the fact that water and light are not alive.
The definition of life isn't set in stone and was even brought up .

I didn't make the claim you did and by the burden of proof, you have to prove it. Something that hasn't been done. Yet, you claimed to have.
That's why it's a philosophical question
So where are your papers and when will you publish your findings?

>pot calling the kettle black idiom
Nope.
>And you can't define proper life
One popular definition is that organisms are open systems that maintain homeostasis, are composed of cells, have a life cycle, undergo metabolism, can grow, adapt to their environment, respond to stimuli, reproduce and evolve.
>Yes it does energy is in all things
Energy is not alive.
>there are some borderline cases of life, such as viruses or viroids.
Even in borderline cases, light still is not alive.
>The definition of life isn't set in stone and was even brought up .
No definition is set in stone, but a definition must be meaningful. I'd like to hear your definition.

>Nope.
just because you say so doesn't make it true
To sum it up you can't define life then say why you think things aren't life. Do you see how that isn't an argument?
>I'd like to hear your definition.
the ability to support or create life

>just because you say so doesn't make it true
Correct, but it being true does make it true.
>you can't define life
I just did.
>the ability to support or create life
You can't use a word in its own definition.

>Correct, but it being true does make it true.
So you even admit it isn't true?
glad you finally admitted it
>I just did.
you said you can't properly define it and that it isn't properly defined
Electric sparks can generate amino acids and sugars from an atmosphere loaded with water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen.
that's life

>So you even admit it isn't true?
I literally said the opposite.
>you said you can't properly define it and that it isn't properly defined
No, I did not, and I gave a definition.
>Electric sparks can generate amino acids and sugars from an atmosphere loaded with water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen.
that's life
So anything that is not electric sparks that can generate amino acids and sugars from an atmosphere loaded with water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen is not life? If so, then you are not alive.

>I literally said the opposite.
>Just because it's true it doesn't make it true
That's your way of saying you know it's not true
>I gave a definition
That you followed up with saying it isn't properly defined
>So anything that is not electric sparks that can generate amino acids and sugars from an atmosphere loaded with water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen is not life?
Where did I make this claim? Amino acids are organic and the spark produced life

>That's your way of saying you know it's not true
False.
>That you followed up with saying it isn't properly defined
False.
>Where did I make this claim?
Here: >Amino acids are organic and the spark produced life
So define life.

>Flase
seeNot seeing anywhere in my post where I said only that was considered life and I already defined it you just can't grasp it.

>see (You)
See >Not seeing anywhere in my post where I said only that was considered life
I asked you to define life, and that was your response.
>I already defined it
Correct, in your response that makes you not alive.

>Copying the (You)'s
looks like i struck a nerve
>I asked you to define life, and that was your response.
And I didn't claim it was the only definition like you said I did. only you claimed that.
>Correct, in your response that makes you not alive.
I claimed the opposite you don't want to understand it.

>looks like i struck a nerve
No, just quick and easy to do.
>And I didn't claim it was the only definition
I asked for your definition. You gave it. By your definition, you are not alive.
>I claimed the opposite you don't want to understand it.
False.

>I asked for your definition. You gave it. By your definition, you are not alive.
Nope by "Your" definition by mine you are
>False
You tried to say I only had one definition and continue to harp on it. Basically, you're mad my definition is too wide

>Nope by "Your" definition by mine you are
By my definition you are alive. By your definition you are not alive.
>You tried to say I only had one definition
You've only given one that was even coherent. You cannot change the definition of a word you are using mid-argument. That is intellectually dishonest.
>Basically, you're mad my definition is too wide
Amusingly, your definition is actually far too narrow.

>By your definition you are not alive.
You continue to not grasp it is.
>You've only given one that was even coherent
You only ask for my definition and my definition includes the things that support or created life too. Not sorry you can't understand this simple concept.
>Amusingly, your definition is actually far too narrow.
Elaborate, because I never said anything about it being the only way. you just claimed I did without proof and when ask for proof you go back to my post that says nothing about how that's the only definition of life.
Your red herring isn't going to work

>You continue to not grasp it is.
Repeating something does not make it true.
>You only ask for my definition and my definition includes the things that support or created life too
Which I replied to, explaining that you cannot use the word life when trying to define life, because life is the word you're trying to define.
>Elaborate, because I never said anything about it being the only way.
I asked for you to define life. The only definition you've given that is coherent makes it so that you are not alive. Again, attempting to change definitions is intellectually dishonest.

>Repeating something does not make it true.
Tu quoque?
>Which I replied to
I can and I did and there is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life.
>I asked for you to define life.
And I gave it with you continuously ignoring my point to cherry pick one part of my definition to harp on because you didn't like my definition.
nice mental gymnastics

>I can and I did and there is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life.
I've given my definition and I've asked for yours.
>And I gave it with you continuously ignoring my point to cherry pick one part of my definition
I have not cherry picked one part of your definition. I used the entire definition that you gave.

>I've given my definition and I've asked for yours.
and i gave it with you still not grasping it
>I have not cherry picked one part of your definition. I used the entire definition that you gave.
And I never said anything about that being the only way things can be considered life. Do. I. Have. To. Slow. Down. So. You. Can. Understand?

>and i gave it with you still not grasping it
You gave one definition that was incoherent because it contained the word that you were asked to define. Then you gave another definition, which is the one I'm using when saying that, by your definition, you are not alive.
>And I never said anything about that being the only way things can be considered life.
I've asked you repeatedly to define life. Having multiple definitions is intellectually dishonest.
>Do. I. Have. To. Slow. Down. So. You. Can. Understand?
I understand fully that you are being evasive.

>You gave one definition that was incoherent because it contained the word that you were asked to define. Then you gave another definition, which is the one I'm using when saying that, by your definition, you are not alive.
Viable system theory (VST) concerns cybernetic processes in relation to the development/evolution of dynamical systems. They are considered to be living systems in the sense that they are complex and adaptive, can learn, and are capable of maintaining an autonomous existence, at least within the confines of their constraints. BOOM!
My definition not only includes what you posted but with the added concept of this and that which can support and create life.
>I've asked you repeatedly to define life. Having multiple definitions is intellectually dishonest.
I repeatedly gave it too you and you turn around and try to put words in my mouth.
Intellectually dishonesty has nothing to do with it since if gave my definition and you only looked at one part of my definition while ignoring my other posts
>I understand fully that you are being evasive.
No you don't and your being abstruse in regard to my definition.

>My definition not only includes what you posted but with the added concept of this and that which can support and create life.
Your definition which is coherent does not include that. You cannot say that life is that which supports and creates life, as life is the word you are asked to define. Do. I. Have. To. Slow. Down. So. You. Can. Understand?
>I repeatedly gave it too you and you turn around and try to put words in my mouth.
You are the one who has claimed that I've said things I never said. I've responded only to your actual words.
>Intellectually dishonesty has nothing to do with it since if gave my definition and you only looked at one part of my definition while ignoring my other posts
No, I used the full definition that you gave which was coherent and addressed your other posts by telling you they were incoherent.
>No you don't and your being abstruse in regard to my definition.
In what way? Let me give an example. Say we want to define the word gribble, and I tell you that the definition of gribble is the thing you do when you gribble. Can you not see how this definition gets you nowhere?

>Your definition which is coherent does not include that. You cannot say that life is that which supports and creates life, as life is the word you are asked to define.
And I did. not my fault youre too butthurt to understand.
>Do. I. Have. To. Slow. Down. So. You. Can. Understand?
case in point lol
>You are the one who has claimed that I've said things I never said. I've responded only to your actual words.
Where did i claim i said that was the only definition of life? I'll wait
>No, I used the full definition that you gave which was coherent and addressed your other posts by telling you they were incoherent.
They aren't incoherent you just refuse to understand my definition no matter how many times i tell you like a mental retard not being able to understand abstract concepts.
>In what way?
In the way i already said. Remember this part "there is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life." you're actually arguing with the scientific community with your infallible definition.
>Let me give an example. Say we want to define the word gribble, and I tell you that the definition of gribble is the thing you do when you gribble. Can you not see how this definition gets you nowhere?
An questionable analogy isn't a argument

To follow up scientists have been baffled by the god particle and how it reacts differently when it's observed. With many giving theories and hypothesis on why this happens

>And I did.
I know that you did, which is the problem here.
>Where did i claim i said that was the only definition of life?
You cannot switch between definitions during a discussion. That is being intellectually dishonest. You have to pick one definition and stick with it to be honest.
>They aren't incoherent
They are. Demonstrably so.
>Remember this part "there is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life."
Correct, which is why I gave my definition and asked you for yours. You gave one incoherent definition and one coherent definition that is extremely limited.
>you're actually arguing with the scientific community with your infallible definition.
False.
>An questionable analogy isn't a argument
It's a demonstration of the problem of using a word to define the same word. Since it has no meaning before being defined, putting it in the definition gives the definition no meaning.

Literally irrelevant to the discussion.

>which is the problem here.
The problem is your refusal to understand
>You cannot switch between definitions during a discussion.
and I didn't I had to clear it up because you keep thinking it was only one way when that was not the case
>They are. Demonstrably so.
If you're a retard and can't grasp it, sure
>You gave one incoherent definition and one coherent definition that is extremely limited
You keep claiming this but ever proved even after linking to my post which never claimed it was the otherwise but with you making a strawman to attack because you didn't like what i said
>False.
The prove it. show where the whole scientific community agrees with only your definition and link sources
>It's a demonstration of the problem of using a word to define the same word. Since it has no meaning before being defined, putting it in the definition gives the definition no meaning.
So like i just said, k

Goes hand in hand with my definition on things that can support and create life, dip
Not organic but reacts to being observed.

>The problem is your refusal to understand
The problem is your inability to comprehend.
>and I didn't
You did. You've used two different definitions.
>If you're a retard and can't grasp it, sure
Nope.
>You keep claiming this but ever proved
I've proved it multiple times.
>show where the whole scientific community agrees with only your definition and link sources
That is not the claim that you made. You said I was going against the scientific community with my definition, which is false. Show where I have said that my definition is the only possible definition.
>So like i just said, k
Not an argument.

>Not organic but reacts to being observed.
So anything that reacts to being observed is alive to you?

>The problem is your inability to comprehend.
That's my line
>You did. You've used two different definitions.
You asked for my definition and those definitions are not infallible
>Nope.
case in point
>I've proved it multiple times.
no, you haven't you keep going back to your strawman you created after my post
>That is not the claim that you made. You said I was going against the scientific community with my definition, which is false.
my little user cant be this retarded
I said you scientific community is ambiguous on it's definition of life
> Show where I have said that my definition is the only possible definition.
Sure when you proved those links i asked and prove what you claimed first before using a question deflection
>Not an argument.
Yeah, you don't have one. Glad we can agree on something

My definition is wide.
You just ignored how I considered AI to be life in a sense and damage-controlled

>That's my line
It's literally mine.
>You asked for my definition and those definitions are not infallible
Yes, I asked for your definition. The point of the conversation was to determine just how fallible your definition was.
>case in point
Still nope.
>no, you haven't you keep going back to your strawman you created after my post
It isn't a strawman if it's an accurate portrayal of what you've said.
>my little user cant be this retarded
Not an argument.
>I said you scientific community is ambiguous on it's definition of life
Actually, I'm the one who first brought up that life was not particularly well defined. I then proceeded to define how I was going to use the word life for this discussion and asked you to do the same. The first response I got was incoherent. The second response I got was limited.
>Sure when you proved those links i asked
Your asking me to prove something I did not claim. If you want to just keep exposing your intellectual dishonesty, then by all means.
>Yeah, you don't have one.
That's my line.

>My definition is wide.
Apparently it's so wide that you can't actually give a coherent one.
>You just ignored how I considered AI to be life in a sense and damage-controlled
Because giving an example of what you consider to be life is irrelevant without a coherent definition to go with it.

>It's literally mine.
>No U
Sad to be honest
>Yes, I asked for your definition. The point of the conversation was to determine just how fallible your definition was.
No it wasn't, you asked for my definition of life after I told you my definition was broader and you got assmad and created a strawman
>Still nope
Cope
>It isn't a strawman if it's an accurate portrayal of what you've said.
You still haven't proved where i said anything about that being the only infallible definition.
You took one part of my post and grasped at it like straws.
>Not an argument.
Your very own posts prove otherwise
>Actually, I'm the one who first brought up that life was not particularly well defined.
Then turned around and said there was a consensus regarding the definition of life. hypocrisy is you will
>Your asking me to prove something I did not claim.
>"I used the full definition"
Hurr durr we got a hypocrite
>That's my line.
>No U again
You're embarrassing yourself

>Apparently it's so wide that you can't actually give a coherent one.
If one is mentally retarded it would seem that way.
>Because giving an example of what you consider to be life is irrelevant without a coherent definition to go with it.
And i did that multiple times with you going "nuh uh" still waiting on those links you keep dodging

>Sad to be honest
Not an argument.
>you asked for my definition of life after I told you my definition was broader
Right, I wanted you to clarify what you were talking about, and you didn't.
>created a strawman
Where? I've only ever referred to what you've actually said.
>Cope
Not an argument.
>You still haven't proved where i said anything about that being the only infallible definition.
Where did I ever claim that you did that?
>You took one part of my post and grasped at it like straws.
I've taken all relevant parts of your posts and exposed them for what they are.
>Your very own posts prove otherwise
How so?
>Then turned around and said there was a consensus regarding the definition of life.
Where did I claim this?
>Hurr durr we got a hypocrite
Nope. I literally have used the full definition that you gave here >You're embarrassing yourself
Not an argument.

>If one is mentally retarded it would seem that way.
Then by all means, tell me your coherent wide definition.
>And i did that multiple times with you going "nuh uh" still waiting on those links you keep dodging
By all means, link to a post where you did. As for the links, again, I don't need to link something to support claims I never made. This is just getting sad.

>Not an argument.
So just about all your posts? k
>Right, I wanted you to clarify what you were talking about, and you didn't
I clarified and you said you can't do that.
How stupid are you to not remember your own posts?
>Where? I've only ever referred to what you've actually said.
The part where you claimed i said anything about my definition being the only definition, duh
>Not an argument.
Cope some more
>Where did I ever claim that you did that?
just about all your posts, dipshit

>So just about all your posts?
I've presented multiple arguments. Indeed, I actually had to explain to you what a proof was.
>I clarified and you said you can't do that.
I didn't just say that you can't, I explained why your 'clarification' was incoherent. You can't define a word using the word in question.
>The part where you claimed i said anything about my definition being the only definition
By all means, link where I said this.
>Cope some more
Not an argument.
>just about all your posts, dipshit
Link an example. Go on. It should be simple.

>tell me your coherent wide definition.
I did already
Seehurr durr
>By all means, link to a post where you did.
I'd have to link all your posts for that so I'm gonna ask you to be a big boy and reread your own posts.
>I don't need to link something to support claims I never made.
That's a funny way of saying you don't need to link post after getting called out on your bullshit
>This is just getting sad.
>using echolalic
wew

Is it just you two arguing in here? WTF are you one about? Go to bed.

>I've presented multiple arguments. Indeed, I actually had to explain to you what a proof was.
And I proved this wasn't infallible like you claimed it was
>I didn't just say that you can't,
Yes. user. You. Heard. That.
>By all means, link where I said this.
hurr durr

>IP count didn't rise
Hmmm

>I did already
You copy-pasted the wikipedia article for Viable system theory. Do you mean to tell me that this is your definition of life?
>I'd have to link all your posts
So that's a no, you can't do it, because I never did.
>That's a funny way of saying you don't need to link post after getting called out on your bullshit
Except we can easily just go back and see that I never claimed what you're saying I claimed. You are literally just putting words in my mouth.
>wew
wew indeed

>And I proved this wasn't infallible like you claimed it was
Where did I claim it was infallible? Go on.
(You)
Alright user, now use your eyes and actually read that post. Now tell me, where in that post did I say what you claim I said?

>You copy-pasted the wikipedia article for Viable system theory.
Is it wrong? can you refute?
>So that's a no, you can't do it, because I never did.
see >Except we can easily just go back and see that I never claimed what you're saying I claimed. You are literally just putting words in my mouth.
seepot calling the kettle black: the post
>wew indeed
>No u yet agian
lol

>Where did I claim it was infallible? Go on.
just did
>where in that post did I say what you claim I said?
seeCan't deny that

>Is it wrong? can you refute?
I'm not saying it is wrong, but by this definition light and water are still not alive. They don't learn and they don't adapt.
(You)
And again, where in this post did I say what you claimed I said? I gave my definition, said that energy and light were not alive by that definition, and then asked you for your definition.

Now stop dodging and prove where i said my definition was the only definition of life
>Inb4 more damage control and no proof

>just did
Ctrl+F "infallible"
Nope, I didn't claim that.
>Can't deny that
Except I already did.

Now stop dodging and prove where I said that you said your definition was the only definition of life.
>inb4 more evasion and links to posts that prove nothing

>I'm not saying it is wrong, but by this definition light and water are still not alive.
But they do learn and adapt as god particles make up everything and if that can act differently to being observed then in my definition it's life
>And again, where in this post did I say what you claimed I said?
just posted it

>No U
So you cant? Or you won't?

So your claim is that god particles reacting to being observed means that they learn and adapt?
>just posted it
Nope.

I won't, because I never made that claim.

>infallible
see You used that definition as the only definition of life
>Except I already did
Except you didn't

see

Can you prove otherwise?
>Nope
Well glad we cleared that up

>see (You)
I never claimed anything about being infallible.
>You used that definition as the only definition of life
I literally said that it was one popular definition and that no definition is set in stone.
>Except you didn't
Literally just did.

see

Can you prove that magical unicorns don't exist? The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

>implying it was ever alive

Attached: Newman!.gif (500x375, 499K)

>Can you prove that magical unicorns don't exist?
>Another questionable analogy
never made the claims you're suggestion and you have no argument

see

Here In order for god particles to be alive by your definition, you must claim that reacting to being observed means that they learn and adapt. Otherwise you can't say that they are alive.
>you have no argument
I have arguments for days.

see

>The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
so provide those links for your claims here
see

>I have arguments for days
>"Having multiple definitions is intellectually dishonest."
>"Where did I claim it was infallible?"
Hurr durr dat double think

They're adapting to being observed.

see

Certainly, I can prove all of those claims.
>Repeating something does not make it true
If repeating something made it true, then I could repeat that repeating something made it false. This is a contradiction, therefore it cannot be true that repeating something makes it true.
>Which I replied to, explaining that you cannot use the word life when trying to define life, because life is the word you're trying to define.
I did so here: and then elaborated on why here >You gave one definition that was incoherent because it contained the word that you were asked to define.
Here: >Then you gave another definition, which is the one I'm using when saying that, by your definition, you are not alive.
Here: >Having multiple definitions is intellectually dishonest
If you can switch between different definitions on the fly, you can simply choose whatever is more convenient for your position in the moment.

ITT: godtards buttshattered by facts that they subconsciously know are true.

>Hurr durr dat double think
That isn't double think at all. There is a difference between having one definition that you use for a discussion and claiming that this definition is infallible.

Prove it.

see

>mental gymnastics
>Literal contradiction
You used your definition as if it was infallible then got mad when other definitions were presented and said you can't do that when it was already said that "there is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life"

The very act of reacting to being observed.
Boom

>No proof
>All question begging epithet and ad nauseum
Hmmm

>You used your definition as if it was infallible
False. I merely presented my definition and have stayed consistent with it. In no way have I claimed it to be infallible.
>then got mad when other definitions were presented
I didn't get mad. I pointed out that the first definition you gave was incoherent and that the second definition you gave was limited. We are currently working on your third definition.
>when it was already said that "there is currently no consensus regarding the definition of life"
Right, which is why I gave my definition and asked for yours. Even if there isn't a consensus on the definition, not defining a word using the word itself is a universal rule, as I've explained.

see

In biology, adaptation has three related meanings. Firstly, it is the dynamic evolutionary process that fits organisms to their environment, enhancing their evolutionary fitness. Secondly, it is a state reached by the population during that process. Thirdly, it is a phenotypic trait or adaptive trait, with a functional role in each individual organism, that is maintained and has evolved through natural selection.

I gave literal proofs in there. Do we need to go over what proofs are again?

>If you can switch between different definitions on the fly
>Ask for clarification
>Gets it
>Complains and says you can't do that
hmmm

FYI
When Nietzsche said that god is dead, he didn't mean that we had moved past silly beliefs or anything of that nature. He was lamenting the death of purpose.
He recognized that the vast majority (most of you included) of people are useless, lazy, and purposeless driven only by their base bodily functions, content in just sitting in modest creature comfort. Religion gave people purpose, it got the 99% of passionless oafs to do more than jerk off in the mirror while being oblivious to their wasted lives.
The death of god, separated from the literal belief in a higher power, is a horrible tragedy.
And I say this an athiest.

If you can't separate the belief in magic from the immense good religion (particularly Christianity, and even more specifically protestant work ethic) did and continues to do for humanity, you are exactly what Nietzsche was lamenting. A weak, purposeless oaf.

see

Switching to an entirely different definition isn't a clarification user.

>Ask for a definition of life
>Gets it
>Uses biology which AI dont have but use in his post
>Sparks can create amino acids

Biology is the study of life user. *Boom*

It wasn't a different definition you got butthurt when i clarified.

It was a different definition.

Define "life"
What is your definition?

yeah it was

One popular definition is that organisms are open systems that maintain homeostasis, are composed of cells, have a life cycle, undergo metabolism, can grow, adapt to their environment, respond to stimuli, reproduce and evolve.

No it wasn't.

>I gave literal proofs in there.
no you didn't you gave me your opinions

I have seen God with my eyes and felt him/her encapsulate my entire spirit. Every day I am blessed with heavenly graces. Gratitude for life and for all moments is the most important thing. Also why would you not believe in GOD if god is real? Did you know that you have to believe to see?

And AI or virus isn't a part of that yet there some consider it life

False. Nothing in that is an opinion.

yeah it was.

Some might. I don't.

No it wasn't.

How do you believe before you can see?

>athiest
Can't spell the word
>the immense good religion did and continues to do for humanity
Srsly guise, I'm ethaist

Attached: cuntmaggot4.jpg (960x960, 176K)

The part where only your definition is proof and then linked my posts saying I had a different take on what life is when you asked what I thought life is.
That's an opinion and you use it like it's infallible.

Same with ether and wind

>The part where only your definition is proof
Nowhere in that post do I even reference my definition.

And your definition isn't infallible so it doesn't matter if you don't agree
yeah it was

You can demonstrate that ether and wind exist. Please demonstrate that god exists.

>And your definition isn't infallible
And I never claimed it was.
>so it doesn't matter if you don't agree
To you, correct, but that doesn't change the burden of proof you have relating to the higgs boson and your own definition.
No it wasn't.

>Nowhere in that post do I even reference my definition.
>Blantant lies
I like how you ignore how all my post you link are in regards to your definition and my definition.

Existence

Your definition certainly comes up in the posts I link to, but that post in particular is only serving to prove that you and I did in fact say certain things.

Okay. How does existence demonstrate that God exists.

>And I never claimed it was.
but you act like it is
>To you, correct, but that doesn't change the burden of proof you have relating to the higgs boson and your own definition.
You just contradicted yourself. i proved it multiple times and you won't accept it.
>No it wasn't.
yeah it was

>but you act like it is
That's you projecting your own insecurities.
>You just contradicted yourself.
How so?
>i proved it multiple times and you won't accept it.
Where?
>yeah it was
No it wasn't

>Your definition certainly comes up in the posts
Contradicting yourself again
>prove that you and I did in fact say certain things.
So show where I said my definition was infallible or that that was the only definition of life? because you never proved that

>Contradicting yourself again
How so?
>So show where I said my definition was infallible or that that was the only definition of life?
Show where I said that you said your definition was infallible or that that was the only definition of life.
>because you never proved that
because I never claimed that

>That's you projecting your own insecurities.
How is it insecurities when you did just that?
>How so?
>"Having multiple definitions is intellectually dishonest."

>Where?
see your own post with all my links you gathered
You didnt prove them wrong no matter how many times you lie to yourself that you did
>No it wasn't
yep it was

Thousands of gods have been claimed. Which one does existence prove? Your favourite one?

Attached: goldjerrygold.jpg (400x225, 14K)

>How is it insecurities when you did just that?
Because I didn't.
>You didnt prove them wrong
That post wasn't about proving you wrong, it was about proving me right.
>yep it was
No it wasn't.

>How so?
>"Your definition did come up and so did mine"
>Show where I said that you said your definition was infallible or that that was the only definition of life.
>because I never claimed that
see above

Buhddist don't believe in gods or soul neither do Taoist

(You)
Literally said one popular definition. In other words, there are other definitions.
(You)
By my definition those things aren't alive. That in no way is claiming that my definition is infallible or the only definition.

>Because I didn't.
Except you did
>That post wasn't about proving you wrong, it was about proving me right.
And you aren't right as there is no agreed definition. Boom! unless you're claiming otherwise. Then you'd have to prove that
>No it wasn't.
yes it was

>Except you did
Didn't.
>And you aren't right as there is no agreed definition.
I wasn't claiming that my definition was right and that post did not seek to prove that it was. I was proving that I was right about various other things, which you can see in the post.
>yes it was
No it wasn't.

>Literally said one popular definition
>In other words, there are other definitions.
Then you turn around and say that's intellectually dishonest. a contradiction if you will.
>By my definition those things aren't alive
No it doesn't because you said you don't include it in your definition which isn't even your own definition but the most popular one by your own admission.

>Didn't.
did
>I wasn't claiming that my definition was right
see>No it wasn't.
yep it was

>Then you turn around and say that's intellectually dishonest
No, it would be intellectually dishonest if I started using other definitions. I will consistently use my definition when discussing my opinion and your definition when discussing yours.
>a contradiction if you will.
Nope.
>No it doesn't because you said you don't include it in your definition which isn't even your own definition but the most popular one by your own admission.
There's no rule saying that you can't use the most popular definition.

>did
Didn't.
see >yep it was
No it wasn't.

>No, it would be intellectually dishonest if I started using other definitions.
What part of "there isn't a consensus on the definition" don't you understand?
>I will consistently use my definition when discussing my opinion and your definition when discussing yours.
And i'll do the same
>Nope.
Yep
>There's no rule saying that you can't use the most popular definition.
True, but it isnt your definition you just lacked onto it

Did
see if you wanna go in circles it's fine with me
>No it wasn't.
Yep it was

So you believe in many gods but not one?

>What part of "there isn't a consensus on the definition" don't you understand?
Nothing, I fully acknowledge it. That doesn't change the fact that definitions exist and we must use definitions to have a meaningful conversation.
>And i'll do the same
Oh goodie, that'll be nice.
>Yep
Nope.
>True, but it isnt your definition you just lacked onto it
I didn't invent it, but it's still mine. I didn't invent or build my car, but it's still my car.

>Did
Didn't.
see >if you wanna go in circles it's fine with me
Same, since I know that I'm in the right and you are just making yourself look more and more foolish.
>Yep it was
No it wasn't.

An answer to a question nobody asked.....
......and dodging a question that someone did ask.

*godtards*

Attached: brainlet.jpg (550x543, 83K)

>Nothing, I fully acknowledge it.
no, you don't because you consider it intellectually dishonest but it means there are other definitions trying to define it
>That doesn't change the fact that definitions exist and we must use definitions to have a meaningful conversation.
And they were brought up
>Oh goodie, that'll be nice
Good boy
>Nope.
yep
>I didn't invent it, but it's still mine.
So you claim it's yours? can I see proof of ownership? did you copyright it?
>I didn't invent or build my car, but it's still my car.
You probably still have payments on it and if you miss a payment it'll get repoed

Have you two really devolved into "Did" "Didn't"? Why are you still here?

>Didn't.
Did
>Same, since I know that I'm in the right
Bold claim is it infallible?
>You look foolish
Says the guy that keeps contradicting himself then damage controls to save face on Yea Forums
>No it wasn't.
yes it was

religions that doesn't believe in gods or soul
>and dodging a question
How is it dodging? why can't you explain why you believe in gods but not one?

>no, you don't because you consider it intellectually dishonest but it means there are other definitions trying to define it
The existence of other definitions isn't intellectually dishonest. What is intellectually dishonest is when you, in the same conversation, switch between definitions depending on which definition is more convenient for your position at the time.
>And they were brought up
Eventually, after going back and forth with you for hours.
>yep
Nope.
>So you claim it's yours?
It is mine in the sense that I have the right to use it whenever I please.
>can I see proof of ownership? did you copyright it?
Can I see yours?
>You probably still have payments on it and if you miss a payment it'll get repoed
Nope, I paid in full up front.

Yes, we really have devolved to that. Can't stop won't stop.

I like to tickle his autism.
But I'll probably stop because even I'm not that autistic

>Did
Didn't.
>Bold claim is it infallible?
Nope, I'm only human after all.
>Says the guy that keeps contradicting himself then damage controls to save face on Yea Forums
Where have I contradicted myself?
>yes it was
No it wasn't.

Can't stop indeed. Take a step back. What are you after here?

>trying to play it off as "I was only pretending to be autistic" after four and a half hours
hmmmm

Attached: godtards44.jpg (564x470, 52K)

Just my own satisfaction at this point. We've long gone past the point of any meaningful conversation, and there wasn't much of one to start with.

>What is intellectually dishonest is when you, in the same conversation, switch between definitions depending on which definition is more convenient for your position at the time.
we went over this
see >Eventually, after going back and forth with you for hours.
ahh a fellow autist
>It is mine in the sense that I have the right to use it whenever I please.
But it's not yours even if you claim it is.
>Can I see yours?
I didn't claim others held my views or that they are mine alone.
>Nope, I paid in full up front.
did he kiss you first?

I don't think you were pretending tho

You did everything in dat pic tho

Do you believe in morals, law, love, ethics and other metaphysical concepts?

except for the praying part

>we went over this
yes we did >ahh a fellow autist
Yep. I fully admit it.
>But it's not yours even if you claim it is.
How so? If I can legally do whatever I want with it, how is it not mine?
>I didn't claim others held my views or that they are mine alone.
I implicitly claimed that others held my view (otherwise it wouldn't be popular) but I never claimed it was mine alone or that I came up with it.
>did he kiss you first?
Nope, I handed him a check and that was it.

I never claimed I was. I don't think you were pretending either.

Well guys, I watched a 2 hour movie while you argued for your pride, you ready to leave with nothing having changed?

>how is it not mine?
you don't own it. it's an idea not a thing
> I never claimed it was mine alone
are you stupid? you just did you even say you own it
> I handed him a check and that was it.
before or after you got off your knees? Ba-zing!

Well there is still 99 posts until bump limit.

>No U
tsk tsk

Fair enough. Wouldn't want to cut them off early.

Fuck that
You won this autistic tennis match. not the argument but the autism off. congrats

Though I guess it's more early than late at this point.

It's an idea that exists in my brain. It's mine.
>are you stupid?
No, but I know that you are. >inb4 no u
>you just did you even say you own it
So copies of things don't exist? I can't own a poster and someone else can't own an identical poster printed at the same shop?
>before or after you got off your knees?
When did you stop beating your wife?

are you some legless or paralyzed weirdo with no life?

something tells me that you don't have working genitals.

Well I won the argument too, but I'll take your gracious concession when it comes to the autism off anyway.

seeWe're just going in circles and I don't have as much autism as you do
Why are you so upset by that?
does it offend you?

BTW, I highly recommend "The Rainmaker" if you want a good law movie. Highly recommend.

>Well I won the argument too
Whatever helps you sleep during the day, doll
Tell your "friends" about me lol

see >We're just going in circles and I don't have as much autism as you do
I think we finally agree on something.

I recommend The Garbage Pail Kids movie

I'll take a look.

This guy hasn't ever had sex. No need to reply thank you.