The Universe was Created Last Thursday

Dialogue on Proof "From my point of view you"re making it up because I myself remember days before Thursday, as well as everyone else"s memories who judges this debate. Simply, how do you prove that you"re not dreaming?" As stated, these memories were apart of the creation and are therefore unreal. This concept did not arise out of creation as it was an acquired thought as opposed to a lingering one (one that began development prior to Thursday). That really wasn’t the answer I was looking for. What you have given me is a dream, a vision on how the world is, yet no reason to believe it. If people can’t trust their very own memories, how can they possibly trust your case? What I’m asking for is proof, and none was provided. What comes without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. The burden of proof is on you. If you read the words prior to this quote, I asked like what do you predict, or falsification, elementary science questions that you dropped. But there is no hint that your case is possibly true, let alone reasonable. Unless you really want to debate magic, I don’t. Dialogue on Truth {…}It acquired its quality of truth rather than having been formed with creation where its truth becomes corrupted. Truth is incorruptible. 2+2=4 will never change to be 2+2=5, it is forever and ever, eternal. People’s perception of truth may change if we spawn a new generation of idiots, but truth remains the same regardless of people’s perception. Dialogue on the Worldview "Why must we assume that? If we did this debate again next week, we would have to believe that the universe was created the following Thursday [...]" If we were to define the topic, "The Universe was Created February 5th," it would not be susceptible to reinterpretation of this form. Ignoring this additional hypothesis, you go on to say that this process, without modification, must be repetitive... Even that scenario wouldn’t work, because you would have to merely change the time. The arguments are too general that it could apply to any date, day, or time. Observe… There is no compelling evidence prior to 15 minutes ago, therefore "The Universe was Created 15 minutes ago" There is no compelling evidence prior to January 15, therefore "The Universe was Created January 15th" There is no compelling evidence prior to last Friday , therefore "The Universe was Created Last Friday" There is no compelling evidence prior to 10 billion years ago, therefore "The Universe was Created 10 billion years ago" There is no compelling evidence prior to next Thursday, therefore "The Universe will be Created next Thursday" Need I go on? All I merely need to do is redefine the text regarding time, and Shazam! The arguments agree with me. This is because it’s built upon fallacious reasoning. There is no reason to believe one time over another, that the universe was created last Thursday instead of say 5 minutes ago. In your worldview nothing is true, so it wouldn’t be able to account for any true compelling evidence. Using similar logic, there is no compelling evidence that you’re wrong prior to now, therefore we must assume you’re wrong. It is possible to believe that the universe regenerates every Thursday, therefore turning things that once existed into an entirely identical, yet separate, object. This allows us to still state that memories are unreal as 'we' did not experience them. The problem here is that the topic states the word “Created” not “regenerated” in the resolution. Creation is different than regeneration because it can only happen once, regeneration might also imply that there wasn’t a creator which also sets it apart from the word “created” as it does imply a creator. We’re also talking about “The” universe, not “a” universe, so it’s talking about a specific universe (not separate ones like your proposing). Sure it might allow you to keep the memory unreal gig, but then your case ceases to be consistent with the resolution. This would be case shifting to the resolution of “A universe regenerates every Thursday” which we are not debating. It’s also possible to believe that time traveling gay unicorns created the universe 10 billion years in the future, and we merely precede the cause. Anything is possible in the imagination, but not necessarily possible in reality. So why believe it happens every Thursday? Why not Friday? Or Tuesday? Why assume it? You never really answered the question, you merely tried to dodge it by speculating that it could happen every week. So the same question again in a different context, why every week? This is a basic question that needs to be answered because the resolution states “The Universe was Created Last Thursday”. Dodging it with imaginary speculations isn’t satisfactory, especially when we’re talking about the resolution, as it’s Pro’s obligation to show why it’s true. This merely shows that Pro’s case is shifty, merely making it up as she goes, it’s empty and inspired by nothing true. Dialogue on Nothing (Con, Round 2) "Truth is a part of the contents of the universe. So for your logic to remain consistent, your statement would have to be inevitably untrue." (Pro, Round 3) "the truth of the statement 'truth is untrue' is untrue because the truth of the statement must have surely been constructed." To extend on this, the hypothesis is not restricted to the logic of predetermined quality because it is an acquired hypothesis, not a lingering one. It acquired its quality of truth rather than having been formed with creation where its truth becomes corrupted. Hypothesis never acquire truth, they are simply discovered to be true. For example, if I see my van missing in the driveway and speculate that my mother had driven off with it, then later find out that she really did, does this mean that my hypothesis became true in that moment when I found out? No. The hypothesis that she left with it was true to begin with, I just merely discovered it. So hypothesis can’t be created to be true, it must be true from the beginning. Hypothesis can never precede truth, it can only come after it. When I claimed "we must then assume that nothing is true," I say so because the hypothesis' truth could not be restricted to creation, else we'd have to assume that truth has contradicted itself. In order for its truth to be arguable, it would have to be acquired and therefore open to interpretation. It’s impossible for “nothing is true” to be true. Truth itself is something that is true, so if truth is not true, then “nothing is true” can’t be true. It’s a self-refuting statement. As stated in the 2nd round, your reasoning isn’t real, this is why, because your truth isn’t really truth. Why should you vote in favor of Con. Burden of proof, pro failed to provide evidence that favored her position. I even asked in round 3 for falsification or predictions (which was dropped), she didn’t even provide a hint of it being true. Bad Worldview, Pro reasons that since there is no compelling evidence, we must assume it true. Yes, seriously. True story. Her case can’t be true. As pro said “Nothing is true”. If that’s true her case is not true, her case is something, therefore not true. Entirely self-refuting. It even fails to answer basic analytical questions as to why it’s true, as when I inquired why we must assume it’s on Thursday it was responded with speculation. It’s almost as if she didn’t really know. Something exists. Her case hinges on nothing existing (mentioned next to “nothing is true” in round 3), I refuted it by noting my eyes see something. She dropped it, so I will assume she agrees with it.