The Instigator
n7
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
Samuel60
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

An afterlife exists.

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 4 votes the winner is...
n7
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/26/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,065 times Debate No: 75730
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (4)

 

n7

Con

I've chosen Samuel60.

Definitions:
Afterlife: "The realm... in which an essential part of an individual's identity or consciousness continues to exist after the death of the body (brain death, after complete nonfunctional activity of the brain ) in the individual's lifetime."
Exists: "have objective reality or being."

Debate format:

R1: Acceptance
R2: My opening arguments followed by Con's opening arguments (No rebuttals by Con)
R3: Rebuttals to opening arguments
R4: Defense of your original arguments.

Rules and Other Debate Information:

BOP is shared.
No forfeits.
No insults.
No semantics.
Follow the format.
72 Hours to Post Argument.
9,000 Characters Max.
10 day voting period.
7 point voting system.
Open Voting
Posting sources in the comments is allowed.
Samuel60

Pro

-I would like to thank my opponent for giving me chance to engage in such a meaningful discussions with him. Thank you, sir! I will make sure to comply under everyone of your rules. Sometimes I might make grammatical errors. Pardon me for that, I am a non-native speaker. I believe we will conduct a compelling debate and learn from each others point's of view. Once again, I would like to express my cordiality and wish you luck.
Debate Round No. 1
n7

Con

Thanks Samuel.


An afterlife is a realm where consciousness survives even when the physical body has died. This obviously rules out any type of identity theories that involved continuation of the physical. Our theory of identity must be based on some further fact of consciousness and the physical (Cartesian soul), or be based on the consciousness itself. This is sometimes divided into 2 categories, Augustinian Reconstructionism and Cartesian Dualism.


Reconstructionism


This is the theory that when you get to the afterlife, you’re reconstructed from your physical substance to the spiritual substance. This theory has some superior qualities than dualism, like it allows for any view of the mind. The actual substance of the mind would be irrelevant. Nonetheless, it has problems.


Two people can have the same psychology. If for some reason the commander of the afterlife, like God messed up and created you now, it clearly wouldn’t be you. After all, two people cannot be identical to the same person.


Let’s say, I die and my psychology is reconstructed in the afterlife. But, at the same time my psychology is also reconstructed on a computer, what would’ve happened to me?


Psychology doesn’t need to be unique to individuals and therefore, a psychological constructionist view of the afterlife is false.


Dualism


Another view is dualism. When you go to the afterlife, your nonphysical identity goes to a nonphysical place. This is the conception that your soul “floats up” to the afterlife.


Since I’ve demonstrated identity doesn’t lay in facts about psychology, the question comes up how exactly does the soul preserve identity? What makes my soul and your soul different? It cannot be facts about psychology or facts about the physical. It asserts it preserves identity without explaining how.


What would happen if our souls switched? Nothing about our consciousness or bodies would change, but we would be different people. There doesn’t seem there would be any difference whatsoever. There could be constant soul switchings and we’d never know. As William James said


“A difference which makes no difference is no difference at all.” [2]


A dualist theory of identity cannot explain identity in the first place.

We cannot get to the afterlife by being reconstructed or by being “carried up”, but since an afterlife is a realm where individual's identity goes, then there cannot be an afterlife. As an individual's identity cannot go to any other realm.


Now to Pro. Remember the next round is for your arguments. You don’t respond to these arguments until



[1] Davidson, Donald. "Knowing One's Own Mind." Reprinted in Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective (pp. 15–38). New York and Clarendon: Oxford University Press. Originally published

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

Samuel60

Pro

Samuel60 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
n7

Con

Aw man...
Samuel60

Pro

Samuel60 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Samuel60

Pro

Samuel60 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by n7 1 year ago
n7
Last sentence got cut off. Should be. ".... until round 3."
Posted by n7 1 year ago
n7
I've debating this subject 3 times before, never went into theology. Believe it or not, there are atheists who believe in an afterlife.

http://www.amazon.com...

There was another website that had an atheist group that advocated for an afterlife. God and surviving death are two different things. Neither presuppose the other.
Posted by salam.morcos 1 year ago
salam.morcos
here is my opinion: To talk about after life, then you are presupposing that God exists. If not, then what's the point of talking about after life? It's like asking if the ball in the bag is red or blue, but the group doesn't agree that a bag exists in the first place! This debate should state that if God exists, then afterlife exists. But even if you presuppose God's existence, afterlife is an unfalsifiable claim, which means you can't prove it true or false. Heck, you can't prove that this universe is carried by 38 turtles... (Don't ask me why I picked 38).
I predict that whoever will debate you will probably go into theology and gets himself in trouble. this should be an easy win for you.
Posted by n7 1 year ago
n7
@Samuel

I'll pick you tomorrow, unless there are more people to consider. You're the only one that has expressed certain interest.
Posted by n7 1 year ago
n7
*were
Posted by n7 1 year ago
n7
@mostlogical

I would say it doesn't entail there is no afterlife. Memories are irrelevant to personal identity.

Let's say when you're a middle aged man you remember a moment when you we're a child. You are a continuation of the child because you remember when you we're a child. Now let's say you're an old man who remembers a moment when you were a middle aged man. However, you've forgotten the moment where you're a child. You would be a continuation of the middle aged man, but not the child. Even though the middle aged man is a continuation of a child. This entails a contradiction. A=B and B=C but A=/=C. Thus memories are irreverent to personal identity.
Posted by Samuel60 1 year ago
Samuel60
I would like to accept this challenge.
Posted by lord_starscream 1 year ago
lord_starscream
I want to accept the soul doesn't exist
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
in heaven, one's memories are swiped clean between centuries, and I guess you think you almost died, but I know you did die, and now is your afterlife
Posted by mostlogical 1 year ago
mostlogical
If you've lived before but can't remember would that mean there is an afterlife?
What if you can't remember your next life, does that mean there is no afterlife?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
n7Samuel60Tied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
n7Samuel60Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FC
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
n7Samuel60Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by Skepticalone 1 year ago
Skepticalone
n7Samuel60Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct deducted from Pro for forfeiture. Con provided the only argument in the debate, thus his was the most convincing.