belief is theism

“belief IS theism any belief is belief in god, as god is information” An argument doesn’t succeed simply because you assert new definitions for words that already have meanings in the English language. If god is information, then god is in the text we read and write, and god is on all our hard drives. You haven’t justified this unusual definition of god, but what you’re saying is that since you believe that when you click ‘post argument’ that your argument will be posted online, you believe in god. This argument, aside from being absurd, is completely invalid. Theism is not the belief in any definition of god. Theism is specifically the belief in a personal creator god. In order to show that belief is theism using your new definition of god, you would have to show that ‘information’ created the universe and has a personal relationship with humans. You haven’t done this in any meaningful sense, though I’m sure you could make a set of assertions and assumptions that to you seem convincing. “belief is false.. it can never be true, as i dont know is true, i have to imagine it, and imagiantion is false” You’re just repeating yourself, not realizing that I understand what you’re saying, it’s just that I’m saying you’re wrong. I think I’ve addressed this enough times. “the past is memory of now kNow=physical experience of now” The past is memory of now? Wouldn’t it make more sense to say that the past is represented by memory in the present? Knowledge is not the same as physical experience of now. There are things about the past that can be known (I know that I was not omniscient yesterday). The physical experience of now cannot be equated to knowledge because aspects of one’s physical experience of now could be an illusion, or perhaps an experience certain people are more familiar with, a drug induced hallucination. “this is true math as it is, equal is is, and is plus, a banana and a banana, is the same as 1 banana+1 banana..” No, it isn’t. And refers to a Boolean operator. Equality does not imply that both sides are the same, only that they have equal value given a certain measure. This is simply a misunderstanding of basic mathematical concepts. “my mother is something, informaton is nothing, what has more metal in it, a metal ship you imagine or a unicorn?” This is a meaningless question that doesn’t serve to make your case. Try learning at least one scientific definition of information [1]. The typical answer is that neither has any metal in it, since neither are physical. If you asked this in earlier rounds, I might have said the following just to see where you would go with it: the one which requires more brain matter to produce the mental image has more metal in it, because there are metals in the brain. “why do you not believe i am a bot?” A bot could do a better job of simulating human intelligence. “i have explained why its true, you simply dont understand. the opposite of physical is mental, something is physical, nothing is mental, and if god is not physical right now, what is god?..” It’s not simply that I don’t understand, it’s that I disagree. Are you not actively trying to obfuscate the meaning in the first place? Is it not your goal to be difficult to understand? If you are sincerely trying to communicate, then I apologize for poking fun at your disability. I don’t agree that the opposite of physical is mental. The mental is just one’s internal interpretation of physical activity of the brain, in my best estimation based on the current literature in neuroscience. I don’t feel the need to outline the flaws in the rest of that sequence, since I don’t think your first premise is valid anyway. “atheism is the negative position on an imaginary claim... anti theism, the no position, where as i dont know is agnostic, third side” You’ve mistaken your definitions. I’ve provided them at least once in previous rounds. Final Remarks You haven’t argued your case in any logical or rational way. You’ve mainly made mutually destructive assertions without justifying them. You’ve also ignored most of what I have written. I am reminded of people who engage in debates with the intention of ignoring their opponent and to use the time they have to preach their own version of reality, not concerned with whether or not they are making sense to anyone at all.