The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Being an immortal "soul" is a possibility

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/25/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 724 times Debate No: 75739
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)




I am going to start this by saying i am not religious, but i can agree that my beliefs have been influenced by their ideas. I can further say that everything i believe, has been created by my biological brain. Furthermore, from what we know about how humans work, i can believe that when the mind goes so does everything contained in it. This is one logical outcome derived from all the evidence that we have so far.

However, i have been plagued since my childhood that we can also be so much more. So, i started thinking about religion and how it was made. It was made by man...through years of evolved thoughts. We still continue, in my opinion, making these religious ideas everyday. I personally conclude from this that there is one magical power in our world, our imaginations. Yes this is created by our brain, but it can create wonders into the future. At this point i conclude again that our purpose as humans is to move forward. I stop at this point...if the one view of death is correct, at some point we stop moving forward. This can very well be true. But, my mind (like the minds of many) is curious. Let's say, "what if" we continue to move forward; what if we are immortal.

Growing up, this idea was scary to me. I don't care if i get everything my heart desires; how can i be stuck in one world indefinitely? Then religion came into can i get stuck in one world with extra rules that i am not keen of? Don't get me wrong, the idea of a paradise is wonderful. The core idea of most "paradises" is attractive. But, i would not want to be stuck in those rules forever. Maybe a trip to one paradise for a certain amount of time...but i'd want to escape eventually. At this point, i thought of something. While looking a sunset at the beach a thought came to me...would i except a world like this? Would i willfully choose to get lost in a world like this? And, my answer was yes. I would willfully choose to live in a world where no ill exist, and vice versa. To me the idea of immortality, an immortal intelligence became a little more clear.

As an immortal intelligence, i would pick to get lost in worlds. So i started thinking, can this mean that there are other worlds? Then, i looked all around me; something theists say all the time "look at the perfection of the world around you." Yet, i noticed that most don't think of this further. I looked around me, and i see many different worlds. Some are the same idea of paradise, some have ideas of a paradise that allows evil. Then i looked more at, to me, the hints all around. I am, living in this world, learning of so many different ideas, and ultimately different ideas of other worlds.

At this point, can it not be true that death is a creation of immortality? I mean, what is 1 to 100 years of living to infinity. It would be a blink of an i started thinking, and i will conclude; how is it not logical, in the bigger picture, death would be a creation of an immortal source.


I propose that the idea of an immortal soul is false on 5 grounds.

1. The lack of value of immortality

Immortality simply means that one does not die. The notion that a part of a thing doesn't die though the rest of it does has no particular value for the person in question particularly because even if part of them lives on there are no guarantees what happens beyond the rest of them dying. The way I would lay this as an example is simply any given machine that has run it's course; the "soul" could be considerd a tiny cog in that machine, and if that cog is pristine but the rest of the machine is scrap will it be saved? The cog cannot be melted down or distroyed but by no means does that mean it cannot sit at the bottom of the scrapyard for eternity. The entire premise behind there being an immortal soul is that this is not the case and that the soul's value persist beyond death of the body.

2. The lack of value of a soul

The soul is merely an escape mechanism that fundamentally allows one to cheat reality, whether in death or in life, and grants one greater hope even if it is false. A man in prison can still "be free" for instance, a man who is to die soon "can live on", and those who are otherwise enduring duress "have something to look forward to". Also referred to as the font of inner strength the sheer notion of the soul is at best something which gives comfort to others and the self rather tha needing a tangible and observable state of being. Souls are what mediums can use to talk to the dead to calm the living, are what are used to explain unexplainable illnesses and feelings, and ultimately are a crutch to assauge the fears of human life and the limited knowledge had.

3. The lack of value of objectivity

Neither immortality nor the soul are truly comprehensible. It is convenient since the depictions can vary so widely it's bizarre and yet all be correct and legitimate. One's opinion drives the value of both concepts which in turn means that it's not only subjective to the extreme but outright useless to discuss or harp on when trying to convey what either actually is. In effect one can state that they have out of body experiences commonly and have it equivalent to far rarer near death experiences. The question is simply does that make sense? One can, without any justification, claim they have mastered their soul while another can claim that it was a fluke accident that they "discovered" this ability. Are both people right? Such is madness in any other realm.

4. The lack of consistency

If souls are immortal then how are they born? How are they made? They cannot be destroyed, so it must be cumbersome, this process, since they can only be produced and never destroyed. The "recycled" soul still has this problem; if there were only one soul and it was recycled indefinitely this is not a problem but people claim to have separate souls, so how did they occur? I ask this because if my soul is not your soul and that soul is not someone else's soul are we all simply souls of the past and therefore a continuation of a set number of souls? If so how does population grow? Can population ever truly diminish? Where do these things go and what do these ths do? The fact that there is no static level of population across any given species, regardless of whether it's only humans or all live or all things that exist, causes an unbearable weight on the idea.

5. The stability of the delusion

Arguably most people who believe in souls tend to argue the same arguments for those souls worldwide. This is troubling. The odds are that it's a common delusion are very high based on this concept just as the concept of monsters and ghosts where even cultures that have never interacted with the outside world still believe in such things. The reality is that it's extremely common as a belief no matter one's countries /societies status in the world or even personal status and beliefs. The commonality fundamentally suggests that instead of being something that is unique to the human experience and therefore sensibly ascertainable it's the direct opposite: It's simply a widely held delusion just like many humans are afraid of the dark moreso than the light despite the same dangerous things being either at bay in the modern age or ever present the same.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for responding. I will probably get into this later but i thought i should make it clear just in case. When i say "soul" i am not referring to any religion. Basically, i am being lazy and using this 4 letter word to describe an immortal consciousness/identity/intelligence. So just refer to those ideas as we move forward.

1) "The lack of value of immortality"

I agree with this point. Everything within this reality has rules. Yet, i wouldn't use anything that we understand today as an absolute truth in regards to immortality. The way i look at this world is the same as a character in a video game would look at its world if it were self aware. It may not know that it got programmed into its world but it will live it anyways. This world will also have rules, and the rules are absolute for the most part. I have thought of this point as well and the idea that "energy is nor created or destroyed" but i still felt i should look beyond this point. To me, the question is: what would an immortal intelligence be. By this type of definition, it should be way further than what i can imagine. It would be much different than anything that i know in reality now. I feel we should look at the idea of an immortal intelligence differently than how we would look at a computer that we have created. I look at it differently bc this would be an idea that is self aware and intelligent, so ultimately it would be able to find ways around its destruction (if it can even be destroyed) or other bumps in the road that a machine may go through.

2) "The value of a soul"

I agree once again (i'm probably going to be agreeing a lot lol). Yes, a soul or the idea of immortality is comforting in having to deal with death. I remember when i was young, however, i felt immortal. I didn't hold the idea of not being able to die bc i was afraid (i didn't really know what afraid was at this point). I think a lot of children feel this way which to me is interesting at the very least. On top of this i also look at death as an escape from the current world a soul may be in. It can be said that it may save you from the ill's of this world but that is just one of death's purposes. I mentioned earlier that being stuck in one place indefinitely would be terrifying. So this escape was made. Plus, if i looked at the idea of "Heaven" it is more attractive. If i got to choose to go there "even though knowing it may be forever" i would still go (actually not really but just play along lol) This is bc it is suppose to be paradise, always good, no evil and just bliss. But, if i had the option to come into this world, knowing it has evil...well, i would only do so if there was an escape. But with this escape i think one would choose to enter a world like this.

3) "The lack of value of objectivity"

I don't understand your point on this one very well; actually, tell me in the subsequent rounds if i didn't answer accurately to any of your points and i will gladly try to clarify. I am thinking you mean how everyone thinks of different "paradises" how peoples views are different. I would also agree to that point. But, why would there only be one other realm; there could be millions. And every realm will have a position for a particular identity. Lets think of a movie that someone loves, or comic like Xmen. I would be fine being one character while someone else would be fine with being another character. I think in infinite immortal intelligence's there are all types, to play all roles. That is why i think people argue their belief so zealously...inside they know they are right. But, they also get challenged bc it is not truly all their words. Let's say a Muslim, a more moderate one. If i ask them what they think of heaven they will answer x. If i ask a christian, they will answer xy (a little different...But, there differences, in my opinion, are tainted by the greed of humans. Ultimately they are trying to go to a paradise, where all is good. Now, they may go to the same paradise...but, if it is so different, then why can't both their paradises exist. I mean, at that point would it even matter. I believe there are many "realms" ... like, i would except a realm that has evil...lets say i want to go to a "fantasy" type world... like Valhalla or even a lord of the ring type world. I would pick to go to these realms even though i know evil exists in them...and, maybe later go to a heaven with no evil as a vacation. But why does there have to be only one place for a soul to go to. There could be millions, or a gazillions. People know deep down inside they came from a realm, i think. For instance, i would not stand in front of a Viking ready to die to go to his/her world and preach a new religion. They would kill me. But, does that mean that my religions world doesn't exist. I don't think so. One goes to what they consider paradise, while another goes to their vision of paradise.

4) "The lack of consistency"

This is an interesting point that i have been thinking about a lot recently, so i am glad you brought it up. I thought of the question "who created the immortal intelligence"? Well, does it really need a creator? I mean, it would only need time to advance. Let's say there was nothing, just blackness. In this blackness...the color white came. Still not self aware or any type of intelligence. Btw, i am going to do my best trying to make sense here. We don't even know our own evolution perfectly so this is kinda hard to explain, and in now way am i saying it happened exactly like this lol. So out of the blackness came white...then let's think of it like a cartoon analogy; It turned into a stick figure, turned into a black and white cartoon, it found color, turned into color cartoon and etc. Along these lines, probably in the stick figure stage, it became self aware. At this point, who knows how long it stayed this way and what it created, but i think at some point it created another of itself. Think of all the new things it learned from being social being now...i think this process continued for years...all types of opposites being created. Some 20/80% likeness...some 50/50% likeness and so on. I don't think an immortal intelligence needs a creator...i think we are all creators. We are all sharing the same move forward. We created time...but, time is really just moving forward. For something that is self aware, that is what it does through creation, through imagination (what i consider to be our greatest magic in this world). I think this world is just another realm these immortal intelligence's choose to visit because of certain perks you get from the rules of our universe.

5) "The stability of the delusion"

I must say... off topic, i chuckled a bit after reading this point. I am answering one question at a time and just reading these. It is quite interesting how i said the previous analogy and you brought up the point "like many humans are afraid of the dark" well, maybe it's bc we did come from darkness to the blackness to white analogy i used lol. Anyways, I don't understand this question fully either. I will answer again to what i think you mean. Yes, everything in reality is made up by use. So, it would be foolish to correlate our world with an exact opinion about an immortal world. I think this world is a re start. But, being as powerful as i suggest all of use are...we move forward, and fast. The two brains are better than one analogy. I think everything is a hint to what we are...bc we've done it before. So we are all creating a new world with our intelligence combined...possibly one of the best perks about this "realm"

**i'm running out of character so i will stop here. Let me know if i need to clarify anything, i gladly will. This has been a pleasure so far so i can't wait to hear your next thoughts. I am not a professional in this field, but i am very passionate about humanity and its happiness. I feel, our happiness will come from self awarness.


Opening Point: Understood, the word soul is not attached to any religion or philosophy in my own presentation either.

Point 1: The problem with this is that it entails the concept of a standard of what we do know and revolve our lives around. As far as things go he notion of a "personal soul" doesn't actually fit the needs of an "Immortal Intelligence"; this is to say that the very concept itself may have absolutely nothing to do with what you're presenting at the concept which in turns makes you unable to discuss it. If that is the case then there's really no argumentation here. The factors behind this immortality don't actually even really coincide with anything; one could say for instance that the "Immortal Intelligence" is a non-being, non-thing that simply exists and doesn't and needn't think, feel, do, or otherwise act but would we consider that intelligent?

What is basically the qualifications for being an "Immortal Intelligence" to begin with?

Point 2: The notion of escapism has what to do with the soul? For when you were young you felt immortal but only because being alive was all you knew; no man, who is alive, knows death, but knowledge of death's inevitability is what seeps ino a man as he ages however when young all that is foreseeable is more life. I have no idea what this has to do with other realms like heaven or hell so I won't bother to guess. As for death having a purpose that's jus preposterous on many fronts; for one death is not an "event" that is active, it's a passive state, it's when your stops working regardless of how that happens. This is very different from what humans consider to be an active state such as "dying" however one is always dying, even from the moment of conception, so here's no real purpose to death just as there is no purpose to life; they are simply states of being used to describe the functioning, or non-functioning, of any given thing which has certain normal operations. It's no different than describing a rock as "non-living" because it doesn't fit the definition of being "alive".

Point 3: No, this actually asks "Why is this necessary?" in essence. These things are still undefined. It has nothing to do with religion or philosophy and everything to do with the fact that there is simply a major gap in your conceptualization. There's no reason to presume that this thing does exist. So what makes it necessary? If it's not necessary why presume it exists to begin with? After all if it's beyond human comprehension how can you concretely describe it? If you can't concretely describe it how can you discuss it or make claims about it?

Point 4: There are two major problems here. he first is that if the "Immortal Intelligence" can create itself then that is one of the rules of he universe which leaves me to wonder why they aren't being created at will by those who contain this ability (which according to you is all of us) and why then it's impossible to track or record this as a tangibility. The second problem is that it presumes that evolution runs an intelligent course and therefore there's some element of intelligence within the manufacture of society. This is at best, false, evolution as genetic mutation is completely random ( , ) even if Natural Selection is not. This is a major stick in your gears because there's no intelligence to this part of the process, which would be genetic allowances required for this "Immortal Intelligence" I presume. Of course by all means explain otherwise.

Point 5: The sole problem with the world playing out over and over again is that this would be the direct opposite of intelligence as humans know it. Repetition is madness.

Debate Round No. 2


Thank you for your response. I was looking forward to speaking with you again. I feel i should have tagged this as a philosophy topic, it is going into its realm. I will admit that it is hard at this point for me methodically lay out my thoughts bc i am still working on them. Yet, you are tremendously helping me put my thoughts together, so thank you again.

Before I go into your points i think i have to make one part of my so on so "philosophy" more clear. When i am talking about this "intelligence" (soul), i am not saying it is in our universe. I am favoring the idea of a multi-verse i guess. I am also not going to debate if this universe was create, or just evolved how science explains it; it doesn't really matter for now. I think this universe is ours. It has its rules and laws that are absolute for the most part. When i say that we are all this immortal soul, i mean it in the way of the radio frequency analogy. We are these souls, but these souls can only interact with this world through us. Who knows, they may be partying when we sleep. So basically, i am saying these souls exist in another realm (different universe). I know i am taking a huge leap of logic, but why not? I already understand science in the present (as a laymen of course, i am not that smart lol). I understand this may be our only life, but same conclusion can be said in my view. It doesn't matter if we are finite or infinite, we are in 'paradise' right now, and that is what we know for a fact. My point is to make a philosophy that accepts both views, so we can move forward. I'll make this more clear in the points.

Point 1: To us it is both non-being and being. I believe these souls are us. Yet, they are in this universe with its rules and laws. It feels as we feel. In its own world it may feel different (because of different laws), but is self-aware (intelligent). I know there are many definitions of "intelligence." I'm going to go with first sentences in the wiki definition and add imagination to it. It is for this very purpose these souls decide to be in said universe. These, our, souls decided to come to this universe, well aware of its rules. And a soul chooses to come to this universe bc of its rules. I am still philosophizing on the question of "why come here"? I'll share some thoughts. One, learning. Maybe this is a type of world in which these souls can get together and learn from each other. The Vikings would never know their myths if they didn't live here, Greeks wouldn't have known all of the various gods they created, Pirates wouldn't know the fun they can have on the seas, etc...Furthermore, look at the present, how many different worlds do we know of now. I'm a nerd so i can come up with a lot (anime may have an influence), but would i know about anime if i didn't live in the present, let's say in my soul state; i could, or maybe it would take trillions of years to figure it out. I think there are prophets everywhere. Anyone that teaches me a new world is a prophet in my eyes. This is why people fight so hard for their beliefs. They have a vision of "paradise" and know it will be. None of the little details really matter. People will try to word play on the details bc ultimately they have a vision of what they are. One can correlate the "argument from desire" philosophy to this. Deep down we all know our individual truths. Who am i to say one is right and one is wrong when it comes to what a person believes their 'heaven' is like. It can be true for them, but it doesn't mean it has to be true for another.

Point 2: I only used my youth as an example bc youth is interesting to me. I know what i am going to say is anecdotal, but these are things in my life that made me think this way. When i was about 4 or 5 (i vividly remember these ages) my imagination was impossible. You could say i thought of star wars before i even knew what that is. I, instead of playing with toys, played everyday with my imagination...and, i remember some things i imagined; at times, it really was like star wars to be honest. Flying as a captain in huge war ships in space, visiting different planets, having laser wars with other captains, etc... I remember this bc when i was old enough to analysis my previous thoughts (and there was others)... i was like what the!? ... Trust me, I also know all this could be explained by psychology, i accept that...but what if, why should i stop and except that as the only answer. Kids are interesting to me...maybe this could be testable in some way. I am not a scientist, but seeing what kids think could be interesting in my opinion (although test-ability may be hard since everyone's different). I think this is bc they are coming from a previous world...and, of course once indoctrinated into this have to follow this worlds rules. Without death... no other world could exist. We would be stuck here. This is why i think death is necessary in the equation and quite an intelligent concept.

Point 3: Honestly, the only reason i think it is necessary is for better understanding of one's self. This idea may be poison for some. But i think that is all in our hands. I have been explaining myself the whole time but i am just one soul. There are many and many different identities. Yet if everyone is one in understanding and self aware, what would the world be like? Idk, but i think better. Ultimately, my view is atheistic. If i am right, it wouldn't matter bc everyone is only going to live in this present time once...this is our paradise for on average 75 years. Even if you come back to this world, it will never be this time again. So, my message is the same as an atheists, live it up. We are here to take advantage of this universe's laws; and one can say, "fun." If you think how morality evolved (I agree it did), through years of social influence, one can correlate this to an idea. The good, kicked out the bad, and without support, the bad couldn't survive. Ancient man was smart, but they were also one. When a society is one, it is easier to flush out the bad. Yet we're not all one, we should be; excepting we're also different.

Point 4: I think i answered this in my previous paragraphs. These souls aren't in our universe ... and if they are, the rules and laws must be followed ... so, it leaves only our consciousness as a souls vessel. I have a weird analogy i made up. I call it the "Video Game Argument" I am not sure if you know any games, so i will use a popular one. Call of duty. It is a first person shooter. It has a bunch of different game modes you can play. One is Team Death Match, and another is Capture the Flag. Both are the same game, same character, and same rules except; the objective is different. TDM exists so does CTF, but they don't exist together. TDM's rules are kill the other team, CTF is capture the other teams flags. These are the rules that must be followed when you are in said "world," Yet both exist. This is the first time i have wrote this argument, so please ask me to clarify if it is vague. I'm basically arguing why can't other "universes" exist. To my point about evolving intelligence, i can probably use a better word to describe this idea. I wouldn't correlate how souls came to be with our current understanding of evolution.

Point 5: Repetition is madness; that's why death is poetic.

I will leave it here. I welcome you're comments and critiques, for it is helping me understand this better myself. Bottom line, i just have a belief and i am not the type that is scared that my belief can be wrong. I accept it can be, but i feel that we should keep pushing forward spiritually. This is what i am trying to do. I am trying to look at the implication of souls (i'm getting tired of calling it this bc i really don't want to sound religious, so i think i am going to call it "source energy" from now on lol) in the most logical way. So everything i am saying, i am presuming, "if there is a source, what can it most logically be."


I'll have to be more direct and brief this round; other duties do call to me at the moment.

To clarification: Alright. It doesn't effect much. You're still tethering souls to humans so the same problems still exist only now you've added dualism.

P1: Not dealing with "why come here?" because you've still not substantiated what "it" is. For instance you said "To us it is both non-being and being." but nothing you actually said has anything to do with a "non-being" element. All of which you attested would be considered on some point at least functionally existing regardless of vantage point. The proposition itself begins to fall apart because of the suggestion of dualism but the lack of suggestion of dualism at the same time; this isn't "being and non-being" it's just simple contradiction. If the souls are us then we are the souls, that's just about it, whether humans are of this universe or not and so forth and so on doesn't really amount to much since by merit there's no real dualism or at least you've not explained the relationship between humans and these souls which you are basically stating as extradimensional beings. That's all fine and good but this gap is not acceptable.

P2: There are four claims here but I want to only focus on one: "I think this is bc they are coming from a previous world...and, of course once indoctrinated into this have to follow this worlds rules." This is the same problem as in P1, where the dualism is there but also not there at all; you cannot be indoctrinated into the universe if you are part of it because the rules of the universe dictated your existence and yet you cannot be external to the unvierse and indoctrinated if you knew the rules to begin with and chose to follow them as you state in P1 under your extradimensional model. Again, it's folding in on itself and that's just not working; there's nothing salvagable about the idea particularly because when one brings up sciences and specifically sciences composed mostly of observation rather than deduction like Psychology you have a massive problem trying to approach it as a standard for behavior anyway. Is it explanable? Yes. Is it then therefore verifiable and thus testable? Well, yes, by definition. The contradiction is again too big.

P3: This is actually self-defeating. So there's no purpose but there is a purpose? Fundamentally it doesn't matter where social constructs actually come from when talking specifically about this "Immortal Soul" since again, it's existence isn't required, and with concepts like "Live it up!" that only solidifies rather than exercises the idea that it just doesn't matter. It's not necessary. Actually it almost invalides the entire idea of things like "self-awareness" since the entire point of seeking self-awareness is to fundamentally better yourself as a being within context to the universe; this contradicts the notion of throwing away the reasoning and simply being hedonistic. I'll also avoid talking about morality since that's a whole new thing and it's not a simple "good > bad".

P4: This has the same issue of false dualism. Multiversial concepts do not require this interdimensional traveling Soul to work so that's just complicating things. Also, I've never played CoD in my life but that's not a problem; the real problem is that you're likening simplistic rules to extremely complex rules and then stating that they are similar and one can be derived from the other but there's a major flaw in that which is that for those rules in those games quite a bit of those rules can be broken however the objective stays the same regardless. What is known as "hacking" for instance "hexcode modification" would be a massive issue; you can change your loadout to reflect being invincible and invoilable at the same time, so you enter the game and you never die, you've changed the rules to deathmatch or team deathmatch, and we call it cheating because it's broken the rules. Universe don't work like this at all; the Laws of the Universe are not actually "Laws" or "Rules" in the same sense, instead they are simply observations that have held steady; they can and very well may change and the word "Law/Rule" in science has a totally different meaning.

The main problem is that there's just this massive set of gaps, the first is the Dualism which isn't really there and the second is the Knowledge of Science which is really weak. You're not creating a paradigm but instead just contradicting yourself in an attempt to create a [something].

5. Not at all. Also this creates an even greater chasm since if there is a multiverse there's no reason to actually inhabit a body that will die. You could possess a rock or a tree and live for thousands of years and learn far more than say 75. Why would an intelligent being bent on learning vacation in a human's body? There's just so much missing. It needs more development before being released in any form or fashion. Calling it whatever you wish does not fill in these major gaps.

Debate Round No. 3


I didn't think that this debate is going to turn into wordplay. I may have been a little too humble and respectful; i feel you are taking advantage of that. "the first is the Dualism which isn't really there and the second is the Knowledge of Science which is really weak.You're not creating a paradigm but instead just contradicting yourself in an attempt to create a [something]." You're basically saying i'm stupid. Everything i have said, at points making fun of my self, was due to humility. I am not the smartest person in the world, i am not the best writer in the world, etc...Do you get it? I accept my weaknesses, that is how i turn them into strengths; yet why are you attacking that instead of my idea. I am sure, at this point, you should understand what i am trying to portray.

P4: Again wordplay. I gave you an analogy. When i compare my ideas to a game or a movie, i'm only correlating the ideas with analogies. Plus, yes there are hacks in the game. But, if you want to go there; i can also say there are hacks in our reality. We have turned fire into missiles, we have taken energy and created light; furthermore, we will probably one day figure out immortality. Point is, we are hacking this reality everyday. Why are you making such strong correlations? i never said this is exactly how it is, just gave an analogy to help you better understand my view.

P3: Do you know what our purpose is exactly? I never mentioned, again, i know exactly. You are again attacking my words instead of the idea. "Live it up" i am trying to stress, ultimately, we are trying to seek happiness. That is our reason here. That is our desire forever. Yes, again you can attack my words here...what is happiness? But, that is not what i am trying to portray. It is a simple message: We either go to sleep (with no dreams) or we go to sleep (with dreams) Sleep: meaning death. Either or doesn't matter at this very point, our eyes are open yes, we have to, "live it up."

P2: In this part, i am going to try and concentrate on this word you use, "dualism." I've heard of it. What i've always thought it meant, spiritually, is that souls can travel. That there are different dimensions. You started assuming that i am trying to use this concept, which is confusing me, bc i don't get what you think it means, or that i meant by it. I mean the exact definition that i just stated, and it works in my idea. I am saying an immortal intelligence, will create death, so it can change the movie. This is the movie we're in right now, and we're going into another movie after ... this wouldn't happen without death.

P1: Hmm i must admit...i can use better words here. To us, it is a non-being bc it is not here in its entirety. that is basically what i meant. This vessel isn't our full self. Let me explain this through another analogy. Let's say the life we had before this world was a cartoon. Let's say you were Mickey in this cartoon world. Would you want the knowledge of that life when you are here? I think not. You would be in an insane asylum. Which is interesting bc studies show only humans have schizophrenia. Your body is made specifically to block out your source self so you can have a human experience. This source self is your higher power. It is not you here and now, but it is you...and so much more. But why not come here and be a rock or a tree? If you were intelligent, would you come here as a tree? If you lived in the dark ages, or early life, would you want to live longer than 50 years? Why not just make yourself immortal here or live 1000 years? That would defeat the purpose of wanting change. Plus, this world is how it is. Like i said earlier, if you look at the bigger picture, would you choose to come here if you had to live 1000 years? Remember, this world has its hazards that will never change. This world has rules ... so technically yeah, you can come here as a tree...but that is what you will be, a tree. Who knows, some source might want to do that...idk, would you want to come back and be mud? Maybe that's why some people fall in love with such weird things, hmm.

I am trying to look at this in the perspective of an immortal eye. If i look at the world as a whole, i see many different views all in one. One attractive thing about this world is social interaction. Bottom line, when you leave this world (if you sleep with dream) you will have taken something new with you...or maybe not. In which case, you can try again, or move on. So what is this "it" that i am talking about? You know what, i will admit that i don't know exactly. It can be love. Everyone i feel this emotion towards could all be one. My source could be the mixture of everyone i love. Well, at that point it wouldn't be just me anymore will it? It will be a mixture of identities, so in essence, it would be a different identity. My point is, would it want to stay that way? Would it want to, forever, be this immortal knowing all of the identities it is. Lets go further and say that all of these source energies go back to one source; a god if you want to call it that. Would this god want to stay that way? Do you see how frighting it would be to go back to just one after knowing it is all? What would it do then for eternity? Especially after knowing its different identities. That would be hell. However, my premise remains the same...if we are immortal, and intelligent, we would not want to stay that way indefinitely. Death is gloom, but beyond the veil it holds beautiful purpose.


"I didn't think that this debate is going to turn into wordplay. I may have been a little too humble and respectful; i feel you are taking advantage of that. "the first is the Dualism which isn't really there and the second is the Knowledge of Science which is really weak.You're not creating a paradigm but instead just contradicting yourself in an attempt to create a [something]." You're basically saying i'm stupid."

I've no time to argue with you if you're just going to get mopey and offended that your ideas make zero sense. I concede.
Debate Round No. 4


"mopey and offended" I am certainly not mopey, and you can say i took some offense, but i don't feel that either. I would say i am mainly frustrated. Instead of going with the ideas i present, i feel i have to repeat my view over and over bc you'd rather focus on cherry picking my words. I am actually trying to be as humble as possible and respectful by repeating myself in hopes you can catch onto the idea so you can refute that. However, it seems you would rather just try to put words in my mouth to further your view. Which is okay, i never asked you to come in here and play nice, and you should know from my previous post i respect your view.

"your ideas make zero sense." I wish you would have done a better job in telling me why. Again, this is what's frustrating. You use a tone to suggest you are right and i am wrong (you should know that's fallacious). You seem to have little respect for other theories if they are not your own; well i am assuming, so i will give you the benefit of the doubt and say i may have done poorly in explaining, out of respect.

I feel i have painted a well enough picture for you to get where i am coming from. It would have been nice if you took to my ideas. I caught one by myself that i had to re-think while writing at least i learned something new.

" I concede." I respect your decision. Maybe our personalities just weren't meant to clash. I hope you a wonderful day/night, and a blessed journey.


[ Continued Concession ]
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Outplayz 2 years ago
I just noticed, when i type fast and not reread, i have a good amount of typos. I am sorry for that, and i will try to do better in editing in my subsequent rounds. "My second to last paragraph" Yes, i know the difference bw "use" and "us" lol...I'm a noob.
Posted by Outplayz 2 years ago
Thank you for your comments, i respect each one.

@Liri: very interesting thoughts, i would like to talk to you more ^-^ You are hitting points that i will bring up. Great tooth analogy btw. And to your thoughts about taking life for granted...i mean this is true, but think immortal would want to live many worlds. Just the idea of sticking to one world is boring... if it had the intelligence or ability to do so...why not? Why not live in this world for 60 years and then live in Valhalla for 1000...and so on. Funny thing is, the number of years we live here is also interesting...almost perfect. So not only does death make us more appreciative, it also lets us go back to our origins...then back to living other worlds. You know as much as me that i may be wrong in this, or you. But, if this is right...wouldn't death actually be less feared than immortality...wouldn't death be beautiful in the eyes of an immortal...

I think religion is holding us is great, don't get me wrong...but cherry picking pieces to prove how a world is so grand and this is what it should be is bull. I get it, theists want to go to a perfect world, no fear, no evil, just bliss... and this is beautiful, i would go there for a vacation; but i also willingly would go to a world that isn't perfect...and, i think many others would too. The implications of immortality are interesting at the very least...and i feel it should be thought of more logically..."what if" and philosophized on the most logical answer to this what if from our advanced intelligence today...we move forward, not backwards; and we should be doing same with learning who we truly are, what we can be, how powerful we all may be.
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
@blackkid, please accept my friend request.
Posted by canis 2 years ago
The logic consekvense would bee buddishm where past, now and future is the same in Space and time. But at the same time apart in Space and time...Tricky..
Posted by canis 2 years ago
"Immortal soul" is not a possibility but a fact we can not "see" kvante physics and the time/Space paradoks makes it impossible not to exist..The problem is "soul".. and "immortalety"..
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
being a possibility is being false, not real
Posted by liri 2 years ago
Well even if this is better as a forum, I still have some thoughts I'd like to add.

"how is it not logical, in the bigger picture, death would be a creation of an immortal source." Yeah I agree. My take is that we would take life for granted if there wasn't an end to it. So it makes perfect sense that there would be an end to life and it doesn't discredit the notion that there maybe some order or plan for us after death.

As far as your thoughts on a "paradise" ... of course, how can there be one paradise if we all have different ideas of what would that be like. Paradise does sound more like a trap when you really think about it. Happiness comes from a sense of progression. Everything staying the same sounds like a prison as you said. Not to mention, people usually forget to think about the fact that we really couldn't even be the same person if we want to live in a "paradise." In heaven we are all perfect so everyone can be happy. But that would change the essence of who everyone is. Drone paradise!

So my thoughts on death... I think it's kind of like a tooth ache. As a kid I remember dreading to pull that tooth out but in the end, worrying about it was so much worse than the actual thing. So what I do know is that just the fact that we are experiencing life is a miracle in its self. All I have is trust. I don't what's in store after death if anything at all. I would like to think that somehow we become apart of something bigger or we continue to progress somewhere else. But the experience of life its self is generous enough for me to trust that it will work out in a way that makes sense. For those that would like to believe there is a plan for us, I think death was the most rational decision for our progress as individuals and as a species.
Posted by Outplayz 2 years ago
This is my second time to on this site. I didn't really understand how the debate stuff works so i thought i'd just put one up. I feel you are right (surrealism) this would be better fit into a forum when i think about it. I guess someone can try to debate me on the issue of immortality. Idk, i have to figure out how to do a forum question again lol.
Posted by Surrealism 2 years ago
This ought to be a forum topic, not a debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.