The Instigator
RomanCatholic
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Brian123456
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Can a person prove their existence?

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: Select Winner
Started: 10/1/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 530 times Debate No: 62494
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

RomanCatholic

Con

I am arguing that a person cannot prove that they exist in the physical world. By physical world I mean that they must exist in physical form and NOT in the imagination or mind of a being. If my opponent is unable to prove his existence than he will be defeated.

Rules:
My opponent will use each round in order to give as many "proofs" for his existence as he/she wishes. I will use the beginning of each round to rebuke the his/her proofs.

In the 2nd post of the 5th round my opponent is not allowed to post any new proofs, for I will not have a chance to rebuke them.

Prove- demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.

No "reasonable doubt"

Acceptsnce is agreement to all rules listed above

Good Luck!
Brian123456

Pro

Hello, today I will be accepting and arguing against Con, that a person CAN prove his/her existence physically in the world.

As for my first point, I will give a definition of the word ""xistence"
Existence: the fact or state of living or having objective reality.

Now allow me to continue, according to this definition of existence, I will be reviewing Rene Decartes's quote, "I think, therefore I am" This quote's meaning is that if something is thought to be, then it must be an existence, but this does not prove one's existence in a physical form, but it does allow one to believe that he/she exist through the mind but my point is because it's thought through one's mind, the physical part is still implied.
Debate Round No. 1
RomanCatholic

Con

Can you PROVE any of the following

Rene Descartes exist

Presuming he exists, he said that quote

Presuming both things above are true, is the quote correct
Brian123456

Pro

First thing is first,

Con has missed my point of placing this quote.

My point of saying this quote from Rene Descartes is to point out that, if one is able to think, then logically that one person exists because he has mental thoughts, and mental thoughts can't be performed without actually having a mental thought, which leads to the fact that you can't think without being physically in existence.
Debate Round No. 2
RomanCatholic

Con

You still cannot prove that you think or that you are not the creation of the imagination of a being

If you can do both, you win
If not, you do not
Brian123456

Pro

Ok, if con wants me to prove that any person can exist physically, then may I ask con who he is speaking to, and how is he speaking x.

First of all, I cannot prove in a debate but I can convince, that is why it is called a debate, to convince the audience of both parties' opinion.

Second like I said, one cannot prove existence because existence is in front of peoples' eyes. People cannot attempt to prove existence because of the very fact we exist, and performing our daily actions

Third, what con has said to me previously:

"Rene Descartes exist

Presuming he exists, he said that quote

Presuming both things above are true, is the quote correct"

What I want to examine is the presuming he exists, he said that quote part, because it interests me how con asks me to prove that the quote from Descartes exists, is very contradicting as this quote con provides: "Prove- demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument." So con can you PROVE this quote you gave me exists? Well let me say that the only way to prove the existence of this quote you provided me is the very fact that I see it and that very fact you have the knowledge of it's presence. If words need to be proven into existence then this whole debate doesn't exist if it can't be proved, which is near to impossible under con's standards of proving. However the point of this debate is prove the existence of a figure, but the same rule implies with the existence of words, If you can see it, or any of the 5 senses, then it exists.

So, con prove to me that you exist, and your words exist. Prove to me that my words don't exist and how I don't exist PHYSICALLY.
Debate Round No. 3
RomanCatholic

Con

Ok, if con wants me to prove that any person can exist physically, then may I ask con who he is speaking to, and how is he speaking x."

I could be talking to something I have hallucinated.
I could exist is the mind of a being and not in the physical world

"First of all, I cannot prove in a debate but I can convince, that is why it is called a debate, to convince the audience of both parties' opinion."

Per the rules of the debate, you have to absolutely prove your existence. Your job is to convince voters that you have absolutely proven your existence

"Second like I said, one cannot prove existence because existence is in front of peoples' eyes. People cannot attempt to prove existence because of the very fact we exist, and performing our daily actions"

You just said that one cannot prove existence. You just admitted defeat. Your job is to prove that a Person can prove their existence

"Third, what con has said to me previously:

"Rene Descartes exist

Presuming he exists, he said that quote

Presuming both things above are true, is the quote correct"

What I want to examine is the presuming he exists, he said that quote part, because it interests me how con asks me to prove that the quote from Descartes exists, is very contradicting as this quote con provides: "Prove- demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument." So con can you PROVE this quote you gave me exists? Well let me say that the only way to prove the existence of this quote you provided me is the very fact that I see it and that very fact you have the knowledge of it's presence. If words need to be proven into existence then this whole debate doesn't exist if it can't be proved, which is near to impossible under con's standards of proving. However the point of this debate is prove the existence of a figure, but the same rule implies with the existence of words, If you can see it, or any of the 5 senses, then it exists."

You're admitting defeat
Remember, the question is not do these words exist, but can we prove they exist

"So, con prove to me that you exist, and your words exist. Prove to me that my words don't exist and how I don't exist PHYSICALLY."

You can't change the rules if the debate.
You have to PROVE your existence.

You accepted the rules to the debate and you can't change then now just because you realized that you can't win
Brian123456

Pro

Wow ok,

First, if Con has said I failed to prove the existence of physical beings, then Con has failed the provide more information about what being physical means.

Second,
"You're admitting defeat"
Con seems to not understand the fact that, we cannot determine who gets defeated or not, the voters do, so Con can keep blabbering how I'm defeated all he wants but at the end of the day, the voters will see how ridiculous this debate is and how ridiculous con is defending his objective, and how unclear and unorganized this debate has turned out.

Third, Apparently Con DOES NOT understand why I used words as examples. On Con's 2nd post

"Rene Descartes exist

Presuming he exists, he said that quote

Presuming both things above are true, is the quote correct"

I have to REPEAT myself once again, but Con asked me to prove that Rene Descartes exist, and prove that he said that quote and prove that the quote is correct and are true, clearly this implies to prove the existence of this quote.

BUT the very fact that Con said to prove Rene Descartes' existence and because to Con Rene Descartes does not exist, his quotes aren't correct and true. SO let me turn the tables, is Con real, because if he doesn't exist then his RULES don't exist and are untrue (im not breaking any rules I'm simply making a point like I did last post) and since his rule does not exist because he doesn't exist then what's the point of this debate, however the fact that con believes that we don't exist, but I do believe otherwise then my words exist and I don't have to follow con's rules.

To back my point even further, I will restate what Con said previously as a reply to one of my points.

"What I want to examine is the presuming he exists, he said that quote part, because it interests me how con asks me to prove that the quote from Descartes exists, is very contradicting as this quote con provides: "Prove- demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument." So con can you PROVE this quote you gave me exists? Well let me say that the only way to prove the existence of this quote you provided me is the very fact that I see it and that very fact you have the knowledge of it's presence. If words need to be proven into existence then this whole debate doesn't exist if it can't be proved, which is near to impossible under con's standards of proving. However the point of this debate is prove the existence of a figure, but the same rule implies with the existence of words, If you can see it, or any of the 5 senses, then it exists."

You're admitting defeat
Remember, the question is not do these words exist, but can we prove they exist"

So to this reply,
May I ask Con how I am admitting defeat in this point I am making, unless Con didn't even read my point, even a a 4th grader can read this and understand it, yet I did get a reason why and how I admitted defeat?
As for his second reply,
Like I said again, Con has not read my point 100% because unless con read my point then con should have realized that I was making a point that had a connection between the existence of a figure and the existence of the words that are linked with the figure.

Fourth,
As for my quote right here

"So, con prove to me that you exist, and your words exist. Prove to me that my words don't exist and how I don't exist PHYSICALLY."

and Con's reply to this,

"You can't change the rules if the debate.
You have to PROVE your existence."

The quote I provided to con clearly shows that my quote was a rhetorical question, but of course Con is a lazy reader and does not read everything and try and understand the text.

"You accepted the rules to the debate and you can't change then now just because you realized that you can't win"

Yes con is right, I accepted the terms of this debate, however I have not broken the rules of this debate because the rules are:
"My opponent will use each round in order to give as many "proofs" for his existence as he/she wishes. I will use the beginning of each round to rebuke the his/her proofs.

In the 2nd post of the 5th round my opponent is not allowed to post any new proofs, for I will not have a chance to rebuke them."

So Con, I hope you've realized that this debate is pointless and is in my favor, con as much as he wants, cannot determine who wins this debate, but the voters do.
Debate Round No. 4
RomanCatholic

Con

Alright, I'm going to break away from the format of copy and paste opponents statements and then put your rebuttals afterwards because I fear I will run out of characters.

Let's start by looking back at the very beginning

Pro agreed via acceptance to obey all rules in my round 1 statements.

Here is a direct quote:
"If my opponent is unable to prove his existence than he will be defeated."

Now, the question becomes has my opponent proven his existence.

Let me share a few of Pros quotes:
"I cannot prove in a debate"
"one cannot prove existence"

I can assure you that these quotes were not taken out of context. (They can be found in Round 3, Paragraph 2, Sentence 1 and 3,3,1)

Now, when I say that Pro has admitted defeat, I realize this does not automatically mean that he has been defeated.

Say two people are having a debate, one persons admits he is wrong. By admitting he is wrong he admits to losing the debate.

Now, Pro argues that I cannot prove that these words exist, which is true. Now, reader who may or may not exist, you have two choices...

The path of a person who believes these words exist- A
The path of a person who does not believe these words exist- B

Door B- If you believe this, then you cannot believe in the existence of anything, for the existence of anything cannot be proven. Therefore, simply do nothing whatsoever, for nothing, even you exists

Door A- Vote for the clear winner

Ways Pro has broken rules

1. I give a clear definition for prove in round 1 (which he accepts

He gives his own definition and tries to use it: "If you can see it, or any of the 5 senses, then it exists"

2. He denies the rule of "If my opponent is unable to prove his existence than he will be defeated."

By stating that all he has to do is give more evidence than me

Remember Pro, any argument whatsoever in your next post would be your third infringement of the rules
Brian123456

Pro

Throughout this debate, Con has done nothing to rebuttal my points, but have only made arguments to suggests, how I was "defeated"

Con had no basis of an argument but just criticisms about my points.

Also, when I mentioned to con about not being able prove the existence, seems to much of an opinion on con's side.

I rest this case

Vote Pro
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by kebomystic 2 years ago
kebomystic
Who and what are you proving it to?
If you mean a humans conscious awareness then
this part of a human does not really exist or if it does so only as a conflict of experiences.

The body however has physicality and was responsible for creating the mind as an extension
of its facilities and drive toward complexity. The body is autopoetic and can create while the mind
is a machine (like a bacterial flagellum is a organelle machine ). A machine cannot create anything
novel, just reconfigure what is.- allopoetic.

A machine cannot take responsibility for things. It is not judged by that but by its efficiency in doing the job it was created for. The conscious mind (ego) creates a lot of trouble for the human (say when it rages) but hides behind the body for the backlash because it does not really exist.(has no geospatial location in the brain.

Getting back to the question and if it is a truth or not...
An egos existence can be proven introspectively through self knowledge which is objective.
The reflective mind is an upgrade where the mind is not only aware like it is in say a dog, but a human is aware that he is aware.
Is this a circularity where the mind has split its circuitry into 2 , our left and right hemispheres?
Yes the two sides can communicate to each other in internal discourse (speech).

But there is an additional agency on board that the ego has not properly introduced itself to
lets call it the silent watcher or daemon. This agency is fully integrated with the body on a level above speech, and does not speak in language but expresses itself through the body. Even so it can understand your thoughts and will help you if asked or required but it is not a voice in our head.
Our bodies can be proven in this dimension by the fact we share the same subjective episodes
and are collapsing very similar uncertainty waves (quantum scenes) when say in the same place watching a tv program. If they can prove a photon exists ,they can prove an organi
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
I pinched myself, it hurt,therefore I am.
Posted by NoobBomb 2 years ago
NoobBomb
"Can a person prove their existence?"
To whom? Lets assume you mean to another person. Besides obvious proof that we can observe each other, we can also interact with each other. If there was no one there, then you could not interact with him. Since you can, proves that there is someone. This is that simple. Turn your brains on before going into debate. This is not some high-level, advanced reasoning. This is basics. You should understand this yourself.
Posted by 18Karl 2 years ago
18Karl
"I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I exist" Descartes
No votes have been placed for this debate.