The Instigator
cingkole
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
mall
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Can Existence Be Proven (Without Theology)

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/20/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 400 times Debate No: 91611
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

cingkole

Con

I challenge any who will accept, to assert, with total certainty, that they exist.
mall

Pro

How else can existence be proven but by empirical , physical elements . The five senses as they say that us humans have to detect this reality . How do we know outside of our consciousness what really is and what really isn't ? We don't know. Our only business is to know what's inside of our awareness. That's all awareness is for. Like the saying " out of sight , out of mind". Even the depiction of the tree that falls in the woods that nobody standing in the woods hears. How do we know what's real ? How do we know what's true ? How do we define real and a true existence? It's all in the mind and the very definitions are also . Another saying is your as young as you feel . Again that's referring to a mental state . See something can only be as real as the mind interprets it. Anything outside of that is really meaningless . Just like we can only interpret and understand within the realms of logic. Anything outside of that , like before time or what was there before what we see as being an existence now is unfathomable . So can we prove that everything truly exists or not outside of our thinking capacities? No. As we can grasp , the brain functions as it has been designed to work with only with what it's capable of working with. Depending on how reality is defined and the things of reality that exist to the mind , wouldn't it mean that everything that occurs in sensory of the mind be declared a real existence simply by the brain processing it as such in its proper function to do so? This gets deeply profound and enriching , particularly when shifting perspectives.
Debate Round No. 1
cingkole

Con

Great thoughts, but you don't say much to assert your existence and seemed to agree with me. You said it yourself "So can we prove that everything truly exists or not outside of our thinking capacities? No."
mall

Pro

Yes I assert my existence because I am here . Exist means a state of actuality or a state of being. Meaning that something that occurs to be so is so . What is so is so . That's because our brains have processed the information as such . Anything that is not real or processed by our brains to not be real has been indicated to us as not being so or has not truly happened or occurred. What's real and true by definition is the very state of being. The essence of being is broadcasted to the mind to detect the physical properties or properties of its nature in which we are able to identify its presence . This is all what reality is to us, so by that definition we can say of course everything exists as pertaining to what we can recognize . Now in a different perspective, let's say the faculties of the mind are deactivated . We are able to determine that the brain was actually having a view of an illusion. The illusion was shaped , molded and crafted in a differentiated manner. So that would have existence proven right there if we know for sure that that reality is genuine as well . See the lines can become blurred of where reality begins and ends . Stepping outside of one consciousness to another . Unless we have infinite knowledge , how do we know from that situation we haven't reached the pinnacle external realm of all realms . Just speaking hypothetically we say that we have infinite ability and that we are all knowing like a god to attest so . But since all the information thus far there is concerning brain function and capacity the brain would have an inability to do more than go past the confines of itself. Existence is nothing more than what our brains are exposed to so in that light it's proven . Going past that light is a can of worms . So my position is contingent on the perspective of the one whom holds the question .
Debate Round No. 2
cingkole

Con

Your statement that "something that occurs to be so is so" is axiomatically incorrect. If you saw a plane and thought it to be a bird it would not be a bird simply because it occurs to you that you see a bird. Your inverse statement is also false, if you do not believe planes to be real it does not disprove their existence. You cannot state that reality exists because we perceive it because our perception of reality is not permanent. If you hold in your hands a pencil you, by your definition of actuality, you know that it exists. But if you were to place the pencil out of your sight, by your definition again, the pencil would no longer exist because no one would be empirically perceiving it. Your statement "that would have existence proven" depends on the clause stating that "we know for sure that that reality is genuine as well" which you failed to prove in the first place. You say that "existence is nothing more than what our brains are exposed to," but if a human was born deprived of all senses your definition of the existence of reality would not extend to them yet reality would still exist beyond their capability to perceive it. You cannot say that reality is contingent on the perception of the beholder because their perception is not permanent. In this same vein, and in attempt to stay germane to the proposed topic, as I see the text you wrote on my screen I empirically perceive you, but if I were to close my laptop, and no longer empirically perceive you, you would vanish from the very threads of existence. Therefore, you have not proven that you exist by your own definition of existence.
mall

Pro

First of all its not my definition of or for the word existence . Research the definitions of what these words mean . You'll find basically the word exist means the state of actuality or condition of being . See reading too fast and not comprehending to well . Axiom or no axiom , I paraphrase to detail the definition . Whatever exists is detected by the brain and tells you it exists . Whether you choose to believe or not or accept or not . One sees with their own eyes , hears with their own ears , etc. . Sure the senses can be deceived and distort the reading to the brain . Until the brain processes it as otherwise , the person is not in truth . The person remains deceived and believed a lie or a trick . Likewise until proven different , the realist thing that is manifested to exposure is as to what it is .I tell you I'm 25 years of age but in REALITY I'm 30 years old . Why in reality am I 30? Because it is so that an ACTUAL event from 30 years ago , marked my birth date record. This has to do with what ours minds can process as genuine events. It has nothing to do with what we believe. Never stated that we believe something so therefore the ad hoc argument is , it is so or it is real . You don't believe it's so , you know it's so. Belief has to do with little to no evidence. Evidence ties in with information , facts , truth which is synonymous with correct , true actuality . That is correct about perception. It does change or can alter from individual to individual. That's when you close your laptop , I am no longer in your reality . But then to the person sitting next to me or close by , I'm still in theirs. So am I realistic or not? How can my left be your right and vice versa? It's all on the matter of perception. There are a lot of people that I have never met and have yet to meet. Do they not exist until I meet them in the future? These people have families, friends , associates that EXIST to them according to them . Are these folks I'm yet to meet, are they existent or non- existent? Ponder on that awhile . That's why I ask what do you mean when the word existence (reality) is used? How are you measuring it? What do you expect it to look like? If your speaking past beyond what our brains have a play in, it's a oxymoron. Incompatible with what our brains do in the first place.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Agree... But for the fun of it.. I can feel hunger, (so I must exist). I do NOT feel hunger..So I do not exist ?..Well I do. Just in this case not as a relative of my hunger. But a relative of "anything/everything" else. I as an I is a relative. So existence yes.
Posted by CaptainScarlet 1 year ago
CaptainScarlet
@furyan5. Exactly
@cingkole. mmm...how does it beg the question? Existence is what it is "to be". The point we are trying to make is amply demonstrated in your response, when you question "If what we perceive to be existence is false". We cannot perceive anything unless we exist ourselves. We are metaphysically committed to our existence, it is prime, axiomatic, properly basic, fully justified or whatever notion work for you, the point is we cannot avoid it without committing the fallacy of the stolen concept. So we are forced to accept our own existence. I would argue we are also forced to accept much more about reality than that, but that is another debate...your main point is refuted we can know that we exist, thus there is at least one thing in existence.
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
ergo, I think, therefore I am.
Posted by Furyan5 1 year ago
Furyan5
Contemplation of your existence is proof of your existence. It's irrelevant whether your your answers are correct or not. The mere fact that you think proves you exist because if you did not exist, you could not think about whether you exist or not.
Posted by cingkole 1 year ago
cingkole
Well that begs the question of 'how do you define existence?'. If what we perceive to be existence is false then everything, including our statements and thoughts about existence, are as false as your existence itself.
Posted by CaptainScarlet 1 year ago
CaptainScarlet
To deny ones own existence is self contradictory, denying both the argument in this debate and comments made below. To state, write or even just think "I do not exist", one must first exist. It is thus the impossibility of the contrary that means we must conclude that we have at least proven our own existence.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
hood of the noob+spirit of the boss=
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
You can not profe any existance of anything, if you have no prof that the existance of any profe can exist.
No votes have been placed for this debate.