The Instigator
abstractposters
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
bencbartlett
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

All Souls Are The Eternal God's Only Illusion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
bencbartlett
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/8/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 961 times Debate No: 25065
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

abstractposters

Con

First round - accept
2nd Round - argue
3rd Round - rebut opponent
4th Round - attack
bencbartlett

Pro

Unfortunately, I saw this debate, and, eager to debate something about religion, clicked accept, under the assumption that abstractposters would be debating Pro and I would debate Con. However, since I’ve already clicked and technically accepted this challenge, I’m not going to cop out or forfeit, and will try my best to form some semblance of an argument for Pro on this ridiculous assertion.

Since the instigator, who is apparently Con, has provided an unclear resolution, and failed to provide definitions, I will provide definitions and clarify the resolution:

Definitions:

Soul: the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.

Illusion: a false idea or belief.

God: a being that is worshiped, idealized, or followed.

Eternal: 1) having infinite duration. OR 2) characterized by or associated with an abiding fellowship with a god.

Resolution:

All souls are illusions, and the illusions, or false ideas, were started by a god, who is eternal.

Debate Round No. 1
abstractposters

Con

This debate has become an allon-bacuth or 'oak of weeping'.
Please do not hold this against my opponent in voting.

In its first sense, the Hebrew word nephesh signifies breath, life, and the PRINCIPLE of animal life (Genesis 1:20). It was only much later that the Hebrews adopted the distinction of soul from body. My opponent correctly defines the soul as spiritual. The literal 'spirit' means 'breath'. Immaterial, however, I cannot accept as an accurate definition of a soul. That would imply the soul as being illusive from God, which is the point I am arguing against. All of my opponent's other definitions are fine and dandy.

Spirit is an essence with as little material as possible; it is even more subtle than a soul. The Spirit of God has powers and when in action these powers surpass those considered human powers. The Spirit of God is a person distinct from the Father and the Son. It is believed that every Christian possesses the Spirit as a principle of life and a pledge of resurrection. Spirit, being subtler than a soul, is the innermost part of a believer in Christ.

Once upon a time there was a God who ordered from abroad at a a high price a faultless and hybrid Soul and Spirit which He desired to have for His own pleasure and for the pleasure of operating them Himself.
Then about a year or two passed.
Anyone who had previously known this Soul and Spirit would not have been able to recognize them again.
The eyes of the Spirit and Soul became tired, their gate lacked style and precision, they became weak and impatient, and they hardly were hardly operable by God.
bencbartlett

Pro

As requested by my opponent, I will reserve the main portion of rebuttals for the next round. However, I would like to ask my opponent to clarify the following points:


1. If my opponent is to maintain the soul is not immaterial – i.e. has a physical manifestation, he must provide evidence of this or retract the claim. (Immaterial: not consisting of matter.)


2. The allon-bacuth refers to the burial place of Deborah in the Old Testament. I fail to see the analogy between this debate and the burial place of a biblical figure.


3. I fail to see the distinction between a spirit and a soul. (Sprit: The soul, considered as departing from the body of a person at death. [2])


4. I would ask that my opponent clarify the context and meaning of the final paragraph, as well as how it relates to the position that souls are not illusions. Also, the entirety of the paragraph is introducing additional positive claims which have not been cited.



That said, I shall proceed to my main arguments and reserve the majority of my rebuttal for the next round. For clarity’s sake, I shall also break my resolution into three contentions, as well as address the burden of proof for each.



Original resolution: All souls are illusions, and the illusions, or false ideas, were started by a god, who is eternal.


Contention 1: The concept of a soul is false. (i.e. All souls are illusions.)


Contention 2: The idea of a soul was started by a god. (i.e. The illusions, or false ideas, were started by a god.)


Contention 3: The god is eternal. (i.e. The god that started the false idea of the soul is eternal.)


As will be shown, Contentions 2 and 3 are quite trivial, and I suspect that Contention 1 will be the only main point of this debate. I will now address each contention in turn.



C1: The concept of a soul is false. On this contention, my opponent is making the positive assertion that the concept of a soul is not false, thus, souls are real. Since Con is making the positive claim here, my opponent has the burden of proof for this contention. To meet his burden, my opponent must show that there is significant, falsifiable evidence that souls exist. I will point out that there is no falsifiable evidence of souls actually existing that has ever been collected, other than the popularized pseudoscientific approach of Dr. MacDougall, which is commonly regarded as having no scientific credibility, and has never been reproduced. [3] Since my opponent has the burden of proof on this contention and has not yet provided an argument for this, I will allow him to make his main argument to this point in the next round, as well as rebutting my arguments.



C2: The idea of a soul was started by a god. Here, I am making the positive claim, so I have the burden of proof. By the broad definition of a god previously accepted by my opponent, a god is simply “a being that is worshipped, idealized, or followed.” The proof of this contention is simple. The idea of a soul must have originated from a being, be it divine or human. Since the idea of a soul is commonplace today, we can deduce that people followed the ideas of this being. Thus, the being that started this idea was followed because of its ideas, making it, by definition, a god. Whether the being starting this idea is divine or human is not part of the contention and is a separate issue. Thus, I have met the burden of proof in Contention 2.



C3: The god is eternal. Here, I am also making a positive claim, so I have the burden of proof. Again, by the definition accepted by my opponent, eternal is “characterized by or associated with an abiding fellowship with a god.” Obviously, god is associated with a fellowship with god, just as any entity or object is associated with itself. This is so basic as to be axiomatic. Thus, I have met the burden of proof in Contention 3.



Summary: I have accepted and met the burden of proof in Contentions 2 and 3, as both were quite trivial. The only unresolved contention is Contention 1. Taking this into account, the reduced resolution would be that souls are illusions; i.e. “Souls do not exist.” Since my opponent is Con and arguing against this, thus making the positive claim that “Souls do exist”, my opponent has the burden of proof. I look forward to seeing his arguments for this in the next round, and wish him good luck in the debate.




===References===


[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...


[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...


[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...(doctor)

Debate Round No. 2
abstractposters

Con

abstractposters forfeited this round.
bencbartlett

Pro

My opponent has forfeited this round, and has not met his burden on Contention 1. I await his next argument, and will reserve rebuttals until such time.
Debate Round No. 3
abstractposters

Con

abstractposters forfeited this round.
bencbartlett

Pro

Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited the debate, having not met his burden of proof on Contention 1. Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by TheJackel 5 years ago
TheJackel
There is also the issue the Immaterial is essentially the idea of being made of nothing. It's a self-refuting idea and the Con in this argument will find it futile effort to show nothing as an existing person, place, object, substance or thing while understanding what the definition of "nothing" means. Claiming a non-material thing exists is the same thing as claiming a non-existing thing exists.

Your opponent will lose this debate on consequence alone and will have to resort to utter appeals of ignorance and assertion to formulate an argument to try and circumvent it.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
abstractpostersbencbartlettTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeited, didnt use sources, unconvincing arguments, and hes been banned so he wont give me hell for this vote.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
abstractpostersbencbartlettTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I am not giving the conduct because the forfeits we only because the account was banned, not for actual poor conduct. However, Pro did provide a substantially better argument and pointed out several issues with Con's case (sadly, Con could not respond because of the ban).