The Instigator
atheistman
Pro (for)
Losing
19 Points
The Contender
Alex
Con (against)
Winning
51 Points

An Afterlife is Impossible

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 14 votes the winner is...
Alex
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/2/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 15,192 times Debate No: 9398
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (52)
Votes (14)

 

atheistman

Pro

Afterlife: A life or existence believed to follow death.

I will be arguing that it is physically impossible for humans or animals to experience a spiritual afterlife, as the brain is incapable of being conscious of anything after the brain ceases to function. There is also no evidence of an afterlife, nor has soul ever been found in a human body.
Alex

Con

Hello atheist man, thanks for the interesting debate topic, I hope to have a good debate.

Definition of impossible: not possible; unable to be, exist, happen, etc.
-http://dictionary.reference.com...

What we must recognize is that atheistman must prove without a doubt that there is absolutely no possibility that an afterlife can occur.

=========================
Investigating my opponents arguments.
=========================

My opponent suggests that an afterlife is impossible because:

1. The brain is incapable of being conscious after death.

This, unfortunately for my opponent, has no bearing on anything. An afterlife for the most part, is believed to occur outside of the human body, in some sort of spiritual form. Because typically in an afterlife you leave your human body, the brain's consciousness has no bearing on this debate.

2. There is no evidence.

I will prove how this is fallacious in more ways than one. Long ago we had no evidence for an atom, as we now know atoms most definitely do exist. Obviously, just because we may not have evidence most definitely does not mean it does not exist. "There is no evidence" is refuted by itself, there is no evidence that there is no evidence.

3. A soul has never been found in a human body.

Ehh, iffy. The human body has been recorded to lose between 7 and 21 grams at the time of death. http://www.ghostweb.com...

I await my opponents response.
Debate Round No. 1
atheistman

Pro

First off, I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

I do agree to the statement: 'atheistman must prove without a doubt that there is absolutely no possibility that an afterlife can occur.' Because an afterlife is illogical, devoid of evidence, and even breaks a few laws of the universe. These laws include: Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the law that all living things die. Since all systems eventually fall into disrepair, it is impossible for your life system in the afterlife - soul - the live forever without eventually dying. The law of science that all living things die also makes immortality through the 'soul' impossible. The Second Law of Thermodynamics would also apply to the place an afterlife would have to be located, as a place must have a location. There is also the question of - supposing the soul exists - how would it get to the place where the afterlife is located, and how would it know where to go.

'An afterlife for the most part, is believed to occur outside of the human body, in some sort of spiritual form. Because typically in an afterlife you leave your human body, the brain's consciousness has no bearing on this debate.'

How do you leave your body? We know now that consciousness, personality, and emotions are all generated in the brain. You are your brain's consciousness, so how would you experience an afterlife if brain consciousness has nothing to do with it?

'Long ago we had no evidence for an atom, as we now know atoms most definitely do exist.'

First of all, that's not true. The study of atoms is still called 'The Atomic Theory,' but I believe there is more than enough evidence for atoms. But the point is, with how far mankind has come in it's existence, if an extremely significant and important thing like the soul existed in our own bodies, we would have found it already.

The human body has been recorded to lose between 7 and 21 grams at the time of death.

There are quite a few scientific theories for this, such as the body's loss of fluids, waste, or air in the lungs. Or it could be from a chemical process caused by decomposition. Another explanation could be the shrinking of the body after it stops generating heat. It may even be a combination of some of those.

http://answers.yahoo.com...
http://answers.yahoo.com...
http://answers.yahoo.com...
Alex

Con

Thank you for the timely response.

================
My opponents arguments.
================

1. Illogical: As it stands this has no bearing on your argument, once you provide some substance to go along with it I will refute it as necessary, but being alone as it is now, means nothing.

2. Devoid of evidence: I have effectively refuted this in the first rounf.

3. Contradictory to the second law of thermodynamics as well as "all living things must die". Once you demonstrate for us how this contradicts the second law of thermodynamics I will then refute it.

Now, what we must notice about the law of "All living things must die" is that it is pertaining to only life as we know it here on earth. Which has no bearing on an afterlife.

"There is also the question of - supposing the soul exists - how would it get to the place where the afterlife is located, and how would it know where to go."

Irrelevant, If we are supposing the soul exists than the resolution is negated.

"How do you leave your body? We know now that consciousness, personality, and emotions are all generated in the brain. You are your brain's consciousness, so how would you experience an afterlife if brain consciousness has nothing to do with it?"

Doesn't matter how we would do it. We, unfortunately do not conclusively know how the thought works. The point to an afterlife is a life beyond our human form, the way we may think we do things now does not the future depend.

"First of all, that's not true. The study of atoms is still called 'The Atomic Theory,' but I believe there is more than enough evidence for atoms."

Exactly, we do have evidence for it, but we didn't back when.

"But the point is, with how far mankind has come in it's existence, if an extremely significant and important thing like the soul existed in our own bodies, we would have found it already."

Not necessarily true, nor does it make it impossible to occur.

"There are quite a few scientific theories for this, such as the body's loss of fluids, waste, or air in the lungs. Or it could be from a chemical process caused by decomposition. Another explanation could be the shrinking of the body after it stops generating heat. It may even be a combination of some of those."

And yet none are conclusive.

=======
Conclusion:
=======

My opponent has not at all yet demonstrated how an afterlife is remotely impossible. I look forward to the last round.
Debate Round No. 2
atheistman

Pro

First I'll make the scientific arguments as to why an afterlife is impossible.

'Contradictory to the second law of thermodynamics as well as "all living things must die". Once you demonstrate for us how this contradicts the second law of thermodynamics I will then refute it.'

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all things eventually fall into disrepair. This applies to livings things, (living organisms will eventually grow old and weak) and non-living organisms (a star will eventually burn out.) Because of this, a soul cannot live forever in perfect condition, and neither could the location of the afterlife. Also, since an afterlife would be 'life after death,' it is impossible for a soul to live forever, as all living things die.

'And yet none are conclusive.'

But all provide an explanation without having to use 'the soul.'

And now for the logical arguments.

Your body has five senses, which send signals to the brain. If the soul existed, it would need to be capable of the five senses by itself for you to experience an afterlife. If the soul is capable of the five senses by itself, then why is it that if you cripple someone's nose, they can't smell anymore? Wouldn't there be a back-up sense of smell in the soul? If a soul is incapable of any senses, then how can it really be you?
All of the thought process takes place in the brain, so if brains aren't flying up into the sky after death, how are people experiencing afterlives? There is also the issue of if you go somewhere after death, it would have to be a place. The problem with that is, how does the 'soul' know how to get there, how does it travel, and how does that place have enough room for the billions of 'souls' arriving in increasing numbers. How could the 'heaven' be perfect if you would be sharing it with murderers and rapists who have repented? Also, how can it be perfect if everyone has their own imperfections? And since everyone's perfect 'heaven' or 'hell' would be different, than there would need to be billions of different heavens and hells to suite each person. I have also embedded a video explaining more logical arguments against an afterlife.

VOTE PRO
Alex

Con

Thank you for an interesting last response.

=======================
The second law of thermodynamics.
=======================

"The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all things eventually fall into disrepair. This applies to livings things, (living organisms will eventually grow old and weak) and non-living organisms (a star will eventually burn out.) Because of this, a soul cannot live forever in perfect condition, and neither could the location of the afterlife. Also, since an afterlife would be 'life after death,' it is impossible for a soul to live forever, as all living things die."

This is wrong on more than one account.

1. This law applies only to what we have already discovered, about living things here on earth, the law refers to PHYSICAL reality, and not supernatural reality. It assumes that the supernatural must follow these same laws, without it actually being proven. And 2. Even if the laws did apply to the afterlife, we never said it had to last forever.

"But all provide an explanation without having to use 'the soul."

They provide an alternative explanation, none of which are conclusive, nor disprove the existence of a soul.

============================
The argument of the brain and the 5 senses.
============================
Presupposition logical fallacy: Or "Assumption based on ignorance. Meaning, assuming something based on things that are not proven.

What we must acknowledge here is that my opponent is presupposing that an afterlife is impossible, this is considered a trick question or "plurium interrogationum" which is a logical fallacy. He commits this fallacy by asking the questions:

"then why is it that if you cripple someone's nose, they can't smell anymore?"

"If a soul is incapable of any senses, then how can it really be you?"

"All of the thought process takes place in the brain, so if brains aren't flying up into the sky after death, how are people experiencing afterlives?"

And etc. No matter how much we prod the innards of the brain, we cannot find the source, or the "meat" of the brain. I.e where the thought it originated from. By assuming that our soul's in the afterlife need our brain, without this actually being proven, he is committing the presupposition fallacy.

http://www.towardthelight.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

"There is also the issue of if you go somewhere after death, it would have to be a place. The problem with that is, how does the 'soul' know how to get there, how does it travel, and how does that place have enough room for the billions of 'souls' arriving in increasing numbers."

This is irrelevant. This does not prove nor disprove the existence of a soul, but rather challenges some of the complications of such, assuming that the place is PHYSICAL, which again, is a logical fallacy.

"How could the 'heaven' be perfect if you would be sharing it with murderers and rapists who have repented? Also, how can it be perfect if everyone has their own imperfections? And since everyone's perfect 'heaven' or 'hell' would be different, than there would need to be billions of different heavens and hells to suite each person."

This is completely irrelevant. Heaven and/or the Christian afterlife is not part of the debate.

"I have also embedded a video explaining more logical arguments against an afterlife."

The video does not prove whether or not souls exist, it arises the human's vs animals debate. No matter what you believe about dogs or humans, it is irrelevant, if your looking at the fact that animals and humans are very much alike, then fine, we both have souls. It really makes no difference in this debate.

Either way it is presupposing something that has not at all been disproved.

=======
Conclusion
=======

All in all, my opponent has not given any solid argument that proves an afterlife cannot exist. He has based his arguments on things that we do not know, let alone have not proven. He has not met his burden of sufficiently proving that an afterlife is impossible without assuming things that are not proven. Vote how you know is right.
Debate Round No. 3
52 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by quraan.holy 4 years ago
quraan.holy
Debators!
Plz have a look at this page.
http://www.quranictopics.com...
Read and tell?
Can you say no to your Creator that He will not be able to create you again?
1- {And man (the disbeliever) says: "What! When I am dead, shall I then be raised up alive?" Doesn't he remember that We created him before, when he was nothing?} (Quran 19 (66-67)
2-{Does man think that he will be left uncontrolled (neglected without being punished or rewarded). Was he not once just a drop of sperm poured forth? Then he became a leech-like clot; then Allah shaped him and fashioned (him) in due proportion. Then He made of him two kinds, the male and the female. Is not He (Allah Who does that), Able to bring the dead back to life?} (Quran 75 (36-40)
3-{Does man think that We cannot assemble his bones? Nay, We are Able to put together in perfect order the very tips of his fingers.} Quran 75 (3-4)
4-{Is not He Who created the heavens and the earth, Able to create the like of them? Yes, indeed! He is the All-Knowing Supreme Creator. Verily, His command, when He intends a thing, is only that He says to it, "Be" ــ and it is! So glory to Him in Whose hands is the dominion of all things: and to Him will you be brought back.} Quran 36 (81-83)
5.{Do you disbelieve in Him Who created you from dust, then from a sperm-drop, then He fashioned you into a perfect man?} Quran 18 (37)
Posted by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
PHYSICALLY impossible
Posted by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
s physically impossible for humans or animals to experience a SPIRITUAL afterlife.
Posted by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
By saying that an afterlife was possible in a metaphysical or supernatural state, not a physical one.
Posted by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
Atheist man- That is incorrect, you did not prove that it was impossible, you created such a heavy burden on yourself i will admit, however i refuted (or showed a possibility) that all your arguments did not prove that an afterlife is impossible.
Posted by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
Looking back at this debate I realized that I should've won, since in the first round I said: 'I will be arguing that it is physically impossible for humans or animals to experience a spiritual afterlife.' And I refuted the possibility of a physical afterlife.
Posted by mrnemo 7 years ago
mrnemo
good job alex :)
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
good job alex_hanson911.
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
Voting period is over, but I'll leave an RFD anyway.

Easy win for Con.

Pro burdened himself massively, and didn't live up to that burden. Con did an excellent job returning the vollies, and never once dropped the ball.

C: Tie.
S&G: Tie.
A: Con.
S: Tie.

I personally think that it is a mistake for any atheist to make a positive statement as obvious as this one. Given the limitations of science, this statement is absurd. Especially when dealing with the supernatural. It's outside the scope of what science can handle.
Posted by Rob1Billion 8 years ago
Rob1Billion
You may be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that carcasses becoming lighter by that amount in a short period of time, but how would you show that this loss is due to the existence of a soul?
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Ire 8 years ago
Ire
atheistmanAlexTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by FormAndTheFormless 8 years ago
FormAndTheFormless
atheistmanAlexTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:13 
Vote Placed by greatstuff479 8 years ago
greatstuff479
atheistmanAlexTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by MasterDebaterMK 8 years ago
MasterDebaterMK
atheistmanAlexTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Vote Placed by Lifeisgood 8 years ago
Lifeisgood
atheistmanAlexTied
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 
Vote Placed by numbany 8 years ago
numbany
atheistmanAlexTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
atheistmanAlexTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Alex 8 years ago
Alex
atheistmanAlexTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by comoncents 8 years ago
comoncents
atheistmanAlexTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 8 years ago
Maikuru
atheistmanAlexTied
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