The Instigator
Lukas8
Pro (for)
Tied
6 Points
The Contender
ObjectivityIsAMust
Con (against)
Tied
6 Points

After-life doesn't exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/27/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,046 times Debate No: 65909
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)

 

Lukas8

Pro

Hello, the first round is only to accept the debate. And the debate can go off-topic, if needed. The CON is supposed to be a Christian, please. And he should prove that there is afterlife. Good luck to the CON!
ObjectivityIsAMust

Con

I accept the debate but reject the premise that I must "prove that there is (an) afterlife".

The debate topic is that the after-life doesn't exist which is theoretical by it very nature therefore it cannot be definitively proved or disproved.

In addition, the BoP is on both parties since the statement "(the) after-life does not exist" is as equally assertive as the statement the after-life does exist.
Debate Round No. 1
Lukas8

Pro

G"day, and good luck to CON.
So lets begin, its hard to decide were to start, but anyway lets simply begin here. First of all, there aren't any true evidences that could show that there is (the) After-life. Next the problem is, even if After-life would exist then we could observe the process in which the shortly dead organic life, transfers and travels in a place that is where. This is weird, all organic forms are made out of molecules and so on. So why would they sutendly after death travell to a holy moly place, its inposible, because its stupid to say that atoms or any small particles go to a holy moly place. Organic forms (lets say life) are a complex composition of complex compounds, and when these die, these cant travell to a distand holy moly place. Death doesn't exist. All molecules didn't wanish, all that happened is that the processes that run a life form stopped. After the stop of the life, the life decays into new compounds that actually recycle through the complex process of nature.
Too hard to imagine? Simply, when you see a dead opossum at the road, what is going to happen? He's going to decay, his immune system stopped to work. And many processes stop automatically, there will also be simple chemical reactions. However many insects, bacteria"s, fungi and other species that help at decaying of material. These species are going to get food and the by product will be literally plant food. So all organic material of a life is going through a life and after the "death", huh its going back to nature, but in a different form, because all parts of a body will be recycled into new material. Other life forms will use it, and the process goes on and goes on"
Why because of the physical law: The conservation of energy.
Have a few questions for religious people, are there actually any organic or any compounds at all in heaven/hell, what are the physics of heaven/hell and a stupid , but still necessary question where are the heaven/hell at all?
Next, how could a human go to after life, if any other animal,plant,fungi, simple eukaryote life, bacteria, other life's, Extraterrestrials cant go the heavens. Looks like that the little species of Homo Sapiens is really the only of the many , many, many species or any life forms in the whole universe, that is allowed to go to Heaven/hell. How comes it?
The evolution denies that. When did the first one go to heaven. We evolved from the previous species of the genus Homo, since were the only Homo species that still exists. I heard in the Simpson's, when bart asked a teacher in the Sunday school and the pater answered that monkeys or any other human-like but not human species aren't allowed to go to Heaven/hell. Every generation is a bit genetically different, because of selection, mutation" So that's how species are being created. And in some point in history, we can tell that there is a new species. Imagine it like: Homo Loly, evolved into Homo Sapiens. And sutendly only the H. Sapiens got allowed to go the Heavens/hell.
Lets imagine it in a different way. An opossum would state that his species is the only species that can go to a place (described in the holy story book of the opossums) after death and no other species can. How seriously would you take them and how fair would it be for you. But we all know what happens after the opossum dies, he decays. So we freak out if any other species would state that they have after-life, but when religious humans talk about it in large institutions (aka church) then we think that this is normal.
But even if after-life and any of the millions of religion would turn to be true, then how high is the possibility that the Christian God does exist. Do you know how many religions did and do exist and Christians believe only in the Christian one. The story book "Holy Bible", doesn't describe anything useful at all. Like were did god come from before the creation, what and where is the heaven/hell" Many people answered that the Holy moly after-life place is a different dimension, but how can this be true? It cant be:
-Its not described in the bible
-people from medieval ages didn't know that there is a different dimension (except the 2D,3D)
- and still where are the evidences that the after-life place is in an other dimension
-How that only the organic forms of a Human can go to the holy moly place, and how?
We humans are still animals. For those, Homo Sapiens is in the genus Homo, family Homodiae, a part of the Primates and these are Mammal's, and these are Animals. So what differs us so much from other species, except our genetics and look-likes. What is the holy moly X that allows our species to go to that after-life place.
But wait" Have you ever heard of the amazing activity of our brain before death? It isn't completely explained, but how high is the possibility that this before-death activity means that after-life and God exist? Those who actually survived and talked about it, explained amazing dreams, but what is a dream? And this answers that God hasn't been in their minds before death, ooh plus what evidences show that this is the Christian god, it could be any unknown force?
And i"ll ,stop because i"ll continue in the next round. Good luck to you!
ObjectivityIsAMust

Con

1. After-life does not imply heaven or hell, it merely implying that there is life after death.
2. In my arguments, I define a person as the combination of his brain and the information in it.

My opponent is attempting to prove that the religious after-life doesn't exist.

I, on the other hand, argue that this is merely one perspective of the meaning of after-life and instead will attempt to prove that the statement "the after-life exist" can be valid.

First of all, the self of a human being is constantly changing through his life therefore at no point, during this process, can one be qualified as his true self. A true measure of life must encompass the totality of it

This means that persons life must be evaluated through every single facet of their humans experience which includes the past.

The human experience is caused by a person (see definition 2) interacting with the physical world.

Therefore, a person's death doesn't not mean that the entire human experience is over. His personality, feelings and thoughts still live on in the memories of others. Therefore, a part of his life still exist after his physical life is over which makes the statement the after-life exists possible.
Debate Round No. 2
Lukas8

Pro

Hello once again.
Well, I hoped to talk with a Christian about the actuall physics of the after-life, but anyway lets continue in your way. Your statement that someone live in someone's memory is wrong. Memory of a person is electrochemical data saved in the nervous system, in our brain. Memory doesn't survive death, except if you actually copy someone's memory (that technology doesn't exist jet). In fact it is saved as long as the nervous system lives. So after nervous cells die-off, your memory literally disappears. It's nothing new, every animal with a central nervous system loses all memory or experience saved there, after death.
You said that we live on in someone's memory. That's stupid. Your life doesn't continue there at all. The only thing is that a person knows that there was a other person. Electrochemical data in the person's nerve system "memory" its not meaning that someone lives on. The basic definition of life rejects that.
What if there is no one to remember you? And memory gets with time forgotten. And you don't remember an ancient bacteria from Kazakhstan? If you have a picture of a person, that died. The picture doesn't present his after-life, he doesn't live.
Simply imagine that you wont live after death. It isn't that hard, what was there of you before you came to this world? And in the previous round I didn't deny only the religious after-life, I was just focused on it.
Anyway Good luck.
ObjectivityIsAMust

Con

My opponent is attempting to refute my claim that there is a metaphysical (philosophical) after-life. This however does not help him prove that there is not spiritual after-life.

His premise: "Your statement that someone live in someone's memory is wrong."

First argument: "Memory of a person is electrochemical data saved in the nervous system, in our brain. Memory doesn't survive death, except if you actually copy someone's memory (that technology doesn't exist jet). In fact it is saved as long as the nervous system lives. So after nervous cells die-off, your memory literally disappears. It's nothing new, every animal with a central nervous system loses all memory or experience saved there, after death."

-> He is simply making the self-evident claim that at death a person physically dies. These are distracting arguments that do not address the issues.

Restating his first premise: "You said that we live on in someone's memory. That's stupid. Your life doesn't continue there at all."

Arguments: "The only thing is that a person knows that there was a other person."

-> Nonsensical phrase.

Clarifying his first premise: "Electrochemical data in the person's nerve system "memory" its not meaning that someone lives on."

Argument: "The basic definition of life rejects that."

-> Life is an ambiguous term that by its very nature cannot be definitively define. There is no definitive measure to define what should be consider life or what exactly life consist of.
Therefore, definitions of life can have metaphysical (philosophy) implications or physical ones or both.

"What if there is no one to remember you? And memory gets with time forgotten. And you don't remember an ancient bacteria from Kazakhstan? If you have a picture of a person, that died. The picture doesn't present his after-life, he doesn't live."

-> After-life does not imply eternal life in some form, it merely implies that after physical death there is some form of life that persists whatever the time frame. Whether it lasts one second or a year is irrelevant it still persists after physical life.
If no one remember you, you have still left your mark on the world which means that your influence persists in this world.
Debate Round No. 3
Lukas8

Pro

Hi, for the final round.
I do agree with CON that every specimen leaves a mark/influence on the world. I didnt deny that. Thats the arrow of time. The specimen did exist somewhere in the past. His influence trueley does stay. He consumed food, made basic life, dies and gave his material for the cycle of the nature. But mark/influence (a sort of legacy) of his life/living doesnt mean that hes still alive or in the after-life phase. Life does not continue in any way after death. What CON mentioned is that after death of every specimen, that specimen leaves a legacy. Agree, but the legacy isn't after-life. And life, is a physical entity that makes basic self-substaining processes.
ObjectivityIsAMust

Con

Supporting that life has metaphysical implications ; "I do agree with CON that every specimen leaves a mark/influence on the world. I didnt deny that. Thats the arrow of time. The specimen did exist somewhere in the past. His influence trueley does stay. He consumed food, made basic life, dies and gave his material for the cycle of the nature."

Unsupported statement: "But mark/influence (a sort of legacy) of his life/living doesnt mean that hes still alive or in the after-life phase. Life does not continue in any way after death."

-> My opponent is still vaguely referring to his premise that life can only be seen from a physical stand point which I have shown to be not so since there are also metaphysic (philosophical) implications. Therefore, these arguments are simply repeating his premise without supporting it and also without addressing my previous arguments.

"And life, is a physical entity that makes basic self-substaining processes."

-> This is the operational definition of a biologist which I at not point challenged since I retorted that life could be defined in both a metaphysical and physical what.

From the Wikipedia Locked article of life: "However, determining when death has occurred requires drawing precise conceptual boundaries between life and death. This is problematic, however, because there is little consensus over how to define life."

-> Because the article is locked it has reputability.

In summary, my opponent has not proven his proposition that a spiritual God does not exist. While I on the hand have proven my proposition that the statement "The after-life exist" can be viewed as correct because of metaphysics.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
I'm not sure what ELO restrictions are in place that prevent me from voting here, but I will post an RFD here all the same.

I'm a little shocked that both votes haven't included any point allocation for spelling and grammar, since Pro's argument was incredibly hard to read, especially in his first round. The conduct point should also be obvious for the same reason - Pro seemed to have it out for religious ideas as a whole, and took the time to designate many people and their beliefs as stupid, despite the irrelevance of the argument.

Lastly, arguments go to Con. Much of Pro's opening round didn't apply to Con's argument, and Con's case basically went untouched, as Pro instead decided to argue that life has a much more narrow definition than the one Con ascribes to it. I don't think the argument that an after-life has to occur in some physical form is ever well-supported, and Con's argument to the effect that an after-life need not exist in a form where the person continues to exist in some ever changing form remains the most persuasive. I disagree with both the previous voters in this regard, as I don't think that the definition of life destroys Con's case without Pro making a point of using it, and I think the issue of what an after-life is was left up for debate, meaning that the semantics involved were entirely reasonable parts of the debate.
Posted by ObjectivityIsAMust 2 years ago
ObjectivityIsAMust
The Pro is not allowing the BoP to be solely on himself. The BoP is on both parties.

In this debate both people are making a theoretical statement. How are we supposed to determine the truth or validity of an unverifiable claim if one side doesn't have to defend his perspective.

Therefore, the claim that because truth is truth that one person shouldn't carry the BoP in a debate about theoretical ideas is nonsense.
Posted by Kaynex 2 years ago
Kaynex
"I hate the BoP cliche. Truth is truth no matter who has "proof" of anything. "Proof" can be deceiving as it depends on the "eye of the beholder."

That's incorrect. Proof is proof. Proof invalidates all claims against it. People who settle for less than proof, or people who reject correct proof, don't understand what proof is.

Most debates don't have any form of proof, it's one opinion against another. However, when it comes to something like an afterlife, proof is not unrealistic. If the afterlife existed, definite proof should be there. It is not there.

Problem with this debate is that PRO allowed BoP on himself, which isn't possible.
Posted by yoshidino 2 years ago
yoshidino
I hate the BoP cliche. Truth is truth no matter who has "proof" of anything. "Proof" can be deceiving as it depends on the "eye of the beholder."
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
PM me and I'll tell you
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
I'm curious what they are.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
There are some good arguments for an afterlife. I wouldn't use the NDE arguments or the 9.5 ounce study which was heavily flawed.

There are 2 different routes I'd take to argue this, but I won't share them here. Although I don't think it would be unfair to bring them up because there aren't many people who can argue them well.
Posted by UndeniableReality 2 years ago
UndeniableReality
Yeah the BoP would be on Pro here, since Pro is making the claim.
Posted by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
you can't place the BOP on con as the affirmative lol
Posted by Atheist-Independent 2 years ago
Atheist-Independent
You justify faith because it's safe to believe in a god?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
Lukas8ObjectivityIsAMustTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: It's impossible to prove anything doesn't exist. Something can be shown to be improbable, but that's not what the resolution was claiming. Since Pro was the instigator and took the pro position, he had the full bop ( which was impossible to meet)
Vote Placed by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
Lukas8ObjectivityIsAMustTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Con unfortunately shot himself in the foot. By initially claiming " A true measure of life must encompass the totality of it". If life can only be defined by the entirety of ones life, individual, or even multiple memories/experiences between numerous individuals would not encompass the entirety, or totality, of their existence. Therefore, based in the given definition of LIFE, by Con, the physical AND metaphysical existence of the "after-life" do not exist. (Revised to include conduct and grammar to Con)
Vote Placed by Mister_Man 2 years ago
Mister_Man
Lukas8ObjectivityIsAMustTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro brought up reasonable arguments and obviously knows some stuff about neurology, whereas Con mostly seems to rely on semantics. However conduct to Con due to Pro being disrespectful and calling Con's argument's "stupid." Not very nice.