Heaven exists, not God; science of Quad Helix rotation.

Actual picture of a "quad helix".I accept this debate. For the record, I don't expect a very stimulating conversation with Pro, given the clear absurdity of his resolution and the framework he defends it with. But, I'll at least find some pleasure in entertaining Pro's notions.The practice of philosophy defines the conditions in which an argument can be considered sound. First, there must be an actual argument to speak of. A position asserted without an argument is not convincing, and commits the fallacy of bare assertion [1]. Secondly, the premises of the argument must be true. In order for the premises of an argument to be true, one condition is that the premises of the argument must be free from ambiguity. If it is not precisely clear what the premises of the argument even mean, then it is by definition impossible to determine if they are true. How can a rational agent assert the truth of a proposition without understanding its meaning? We must avoid lexical and structural ambiguity in our arguments [2]. Thirdly, the argument must be logically sound--in other words, the conclusion follows logically from the premises via a means of logical inference. Without meeting these standards, an argument cannot be considered persuasive.Pro's argument fails the first standard of a sound and convincing philosophical argument. Apparently, Pro has no argument for his proposed system whatsoever. Pro explicates his ideas, but does not try to defend them or show any logical relationship between them, instead merely asserting them as the truth and moving onto the next conjured up idea. This fact alone is essentially a deathblow to Pro's system, as he in no way provides any reasons to believe a single word he says, thus making him utterly unconcinving to myself and the audience.Additionally, because Pro has no argument whatsoever, he fails the third standard of argument--logical soundness--, because there is no logical inference to speak of.Other than having no real arguments at all, another mistake--fatal in its own right, is Pro's inability to clearly define his terms. Philosophy is all about precisely defining the meaning of terms, which is what philosophers do when we ask "What is love?" or "What is good and evil?". The pressure to make your ideas clear is especially strong when proposing a novel idea, as Pro is, considering our only way to evaluate the ideas fairly is if Pro articulates his ideas effectively. Considering the inherent ambiguity in his language, and everyone's failure to understand what Pro is talking about (assuming there is anything to understand), Pro has certainly failed to live up to this standard. We have no idea what quad helix theory is supposed to be. (By the way, a quad helix is a dental instrument an orthodonist puts in a patient's mouth, casting serious doubts on how Pro's ideas could possibly be coherent). We have no idea what Pro means by "wisdom" (he seems to have his own definition), we have no idea what he means by "image dei", and we have no idea what he means by "demi realm", "center", "rotation", "revolution", and "realm".Pro's system, which presents us with no reasons for accepting it, and no clarity as to what exactly it is we're supposed to accept, utterly fails. It provides us with no real insights into anything intellectually significant. Thus, the resolution fails.1: http://tinyurl.com...2: http://tinyurl.com...