The Instigator
Trapeeze
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Do things outside of our senses exist?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 1/24/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 562 times Debate No: 107034
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (23)
Votes (0)

 

Trapeeze

Pro

I argue that things outside of our senses are possibilities, but that it's illogical to say, something, on the basis of being possible, exists.

To make a case I will have to use scientific logic, rather than philosophical logic.

I refer to a logical, secondary, argument - on the other side of the universe, which I cannot currently sense, exists something.

My case is that things outside of our senses are possible, but to argue this philosophical case sensibly, I must use scientific logic.
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2

Con

Agreed, let us have a good debate!
Debate Round No. 1
Trapeeze

Pro

Great to see that someone has accepted.

Let me confirm my case, that things outside of our senses are possible, but to argue this philosophical case sensibly, I must use scientific logic.

Based on my content in Round 1.

Thanks, I look forward to reading the debate from Con.
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2

Con

Okay, confirm your case.
Debate Round No. 2
Trapeeze

Pro

Something existing outside of our senses is possible, but we cannot provide evidence to make such a claim.

However, if we use scientific logic, such as by theorizing that something exists that's too far away, we can prove the claim in a scientific sense.

Yet, it is a philosophical question, so some correlation between scientific logic and philosophical logic needs to be drawn.

In a philosophical sense, "Do things outside of our senses exist?", is questioning whether a theory is stable if we cannot sense any factor of the theory.

We're not meant to discover 'something far away', to prove our claim using science, but rather, answer the question with philosophy.

It's wise to say that things outside of our senses are possible based on scientific logic (as described prior) because if they are beyond our sensory ability, we can't collect evidence or observe.

To confirm my case a second time in a different way, things outside of our senses can exist (the core of my 'for' case), however, we can only confirm this using scientific logic.

A direct philosophical answer for the question "Do things outside of our senses exist?", is impossible, where I have not provided a clear 'yes' for the question, Con should not be able to provide a clear 'no'. We can provide a scientific answer that proves what's outside of our senses exists, but it's a philosophical question - I have drawn a correlation between philosophy and science, where scientific logic confirms my philosophical idea that things outside of our senses can exist.

Thanks Con, I await to read your argument.
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2

Con

"However, if we use scientific logic, such as by theorizing that something exists that's too far away, we can prove the claim in a scientific sense.

Yet, it is a philosophical question, so some correlation between scientific logic and philosophical logic needs to be drawn.

In a philosophical sense, "Do things outside of our senses exist?", is questioning whether a theory is stable if we cannot sense any factor of the theory.

We're not meant to discover 'something far away', to prove our claim using science, but rather, answer the question with philosophy.

It's wise to say that things outside of our senses are possible based on scientific logic (as described prior) because if they are beyond our sensory ability, we can't collect evidence or observe.

To confirm my case a second time in a different way, things outside of our senses can exist (the core of my 'for' case), however, we can only confirm this using scientific logic."

My argument to that is what outside sense, are you talking about the people outside of us or around us, or are you talking about things like Aliens and UFOs? Please specify. Planets, comets, and stars exist outside of us. You didn't specify what "things" you were talking about in the question.

If we're not talking about these things like planets, comets, and stars (if you're talking about aliens), then clearly the answer is NO.

Let me give you examples of things you're talking about.

Planets: "The term planet is ancient, with ties to history, astrology, science, mythology, and religion. Several planets in the Solar System can be seen with the naked eye. These were regarded by many early cultures as divine, or as emissaries of deities. As scientific knowledge advanced, human perception of the planets changed, incorporating a number of disparate objects. In 2006, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) officially adopted a resolution defining planets within the Solar System. This definition is controversial because it excludes many objects of planetary mass based on where or what they orbit. Although eight of the planetary bodies discovered before 1950 remain "planets" under the modern definition, some celestial bodies, such as Ceres, Pallas, Juno and Vesta (each an object in the solar asteroid belt), and Pluto (the first trans-Neptunian object discovered), that were once considered planets by the scientific community, are no longer viewed as such.

The planets were thought by Ptolemy to orbit Earth in deferent and epicycle motions. Although the idea that the planets orbited the Sun had been suggested many times, it was not until the 17th century that this view was supported by evidence from the first telescopic astronomical observations, performed by Galileo Galilei. At about the same time, by careful analysis of pre-telescopic observation data collected by Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler found the planets' orbits were not circular but elliptical. As observational tools improved, astronomers saw that, like Earth, the planets rotated around tilted axes, and some shared such features as ice caps and seasons. Since the dawn of the Space Age, close observation by space probes has found that Earth and the other planets share characteristics such as volcanism, hurricanes, tectonics, and even hydrology.

Planets are generally divided into two main types: large low-density giant planets, and smaller rocky terrestrials. Under IAU definitions, there are eight planets in the Solar System. In order of increasing distance from the Sun, they are the four terrestrials, Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars, then the four giant planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. Six of the planets are orbited by one or more natural satellites." [1]

Stars: "A star is type of astronomical object consisting of a luminous spheroid of plasma held together by its own gravity. The nearest star to Earth is the Sun. Many other stars are visible to the naked eye from Earth during the night, appearing as a multitude of fixed luminous points in the sky due to their immense distance from Earth. Historically, the most prominent stars were grouped into constellations and asterisms, the brightest of which gained proper names. Astronomers have assembled star catalogues that identify the known stars and provide standardized stellar designations. However, most of the stars in the Universe, including all stars outside our galaxy, the Milky Way, are invisible to the naked eye from Earth. Indeed, most are invisible from Earth even through the most powerful telescopes.

For at least a portion of its life, a star shines due to thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium in its core, releasing energy that traverses the star's interior and then radiates into outer space. Almost all naturally occurring elements heavier than helium are created by stellar nucleosynthesis during the star's lifetime, and for some stars by supernova nucleosynthesis when it explodes. Near the end of its life, a star can also contain degenerate matter. Astronomers can determine the mass, age, metallicity (chemical composition), and many other properties of a star by observing its motion through space, its luminosity, and spectrum respectively. The total mass of a star is the main factor that determines its evolution and eventual fate. Other characteristics of a star, including diameter and temperature, change over its life, while the star's environment affects its rotation and movement. A plot of the temperature of many stars against their luminosities produces a plot known as a Hertzsprung"Russell diagram (H"R diagram). Plotting a particular star on that diagram allows the age and evolutionary state of that star to be determined.

A star's life begins with the gravitational collapse of a gaseous nebula of material composed primarily of hydrogen, along with helium and trace amounts of heavier elements. When the stellar core is sufficiently dense, hydrogen becomes steadily converted into helium through nuclear fusion, releasing energy in the process. The remainder of the star's interior carries energy away from the core through a combination of radiative and convective heat transfer processes. The star's internal pressure prevents it from collapsing further under its own gravity. A star with mass greater than 0.4 times the Sun's will expand to become a red giant when the hydrogen fuel in its core is exhausted. In some cases, it will fuse heavier elements at the core or in shells around the core. As the star expands it throws a part of its mass, enriched with those heavier elements, into the interstellar environment, to be recycled later as new stars. Meanwhile, the core becomes a stellar remnant: a white dwarf, a neutron star, or if it is sufficiently massive a black hole.

Binary and multi-star systems consist of two or more stars that are gravitationally bound and generally move around each other in stable orbits. When two such stars have a relatively close orbit, their gravitational interaction can have a significant impact on their evolution. Stars can form part of a much larger gravitationally bound structure, such as a star cluster or a galaxy." [2]

And finally, Comets: "A comet is an icy small Solar System body that, when passing close to the Sun, warms and begins to release gases, a process called outgassing. This produces a visible atmosphere or coma, and sometimes also a tail. These phenomena are due to the effects of solar radiation and the solar wind acting upon the nucleus of the comet. Comet nuclei range from a few hundred metres to tens of kilometres across and are composed of loose collections of ice, dust, and small rocky particles. The coma may be up to 15 times the Earth's diameter, while the tail may stretch one astronomical unit. If sufficiently bright, a comet may be seen from the Earth without the aid of a telescope and may subtend an arc of 30" (60 Moons) across the sky. Comets have been observed and recorded since ancient times by many cultures." [3]

Sources:
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
[3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

I await your next argument, if you please.
Debate Round No. 3
Trapeeze

Pro

Sorry Con, I don't think your argument is substantive enough.

All you did was post a few articles on planets, stars and comets and haven't provided any logical argument against my own.

"My argument to that is what outside sense, are you talking about the people outside of us or around us, or are you talking about things like Aliens and UFOs? Please specify. Planets, comets, and stars exist outside of us. You didn't specify what "things" you were talking about in the question."

This extract from your argument doesn't make sense, otherwise is poor English. Your argument as it stands is 'what outside sense' and I can't think of a way to understand it.

As for your questions; something, refers to any thing, not only Aliens and UFOs, which are very abstract theories; I prefer other universes if I'm being abstract.

Please try to provide an argument in the next round, or rephrase your argument in proper English.
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2

Con

I just gave examples of the things you should've mentioned, but you didn't.

You were the one who did not specify, or even made a validated argument. You didn't demonstrate what kind of scientific logic, or how the logic works. Let me quote you to prove it. "To confirm my case a second time in a different way, things outside of our senses can exist (the core of my 'for' case), however, we can only confirm this using scientific logic." You didn't demonstrate what kind of scientific logic or how to demonstrate such thing thereof.

You can't just say I didn't really argue at all, without properly demonstrating the kind of "scientific logic" you were talking about.

Let me refrain what you quoted from me. "This extract from your argument doesn't make sense, otherwise is poor English. Your argument as it stands is 'what outside sense' and I can't think of a way to understand it." It is like you don't even understand your position, you also don't know how to actually cite scientific logic. You can't just scrutinize my quote, that is a point loss for bad conduct.

Please demonstrate to me what scientific logic are you talking about, and give me some kind of scientific logic as an example.

Next argument!
Debate Round No. 4
Trapeeze

Pro

The scientific logic was specified in my argument.

I said that we can discover something that was once far away and outside of our senses.

" if we use scientific logic, such as by theorizing that something exists that's too far away, we can prove the claim in a scientific sense. "

This is an extract from Round 3 that shows I have specified scientific logic, Con has ignored this in his off-hand argument.

Sorry if I had insulted you Con, I'm focused on winning the debate!

No, quotes about things does not count as evidence these things do not exist outside of our senses, moreover cannot exist outside of our senses.

Why should I have mentioned planets, stars and comets? It makes no sense when put in context; 'thing' can be any thing.

In any case, good luck in the final round.
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2

Con

The only thing you said is, for example, there are aliens and asteroids about to destroy planet earth. All I'm saying is that there are no existing thing outside our own senses. There are only things in our senses, though we might have to go to outer space.

Here is my conclusion.

1. There is no such thing outside our own senses, all thing exist in our senses. Like planets, comets, and stars.

Planets: " "The term planet is ancient, with ties to history, astrology, science, mythology, and religion. Several planets in the Solar System can be seen with the naked eye. These were regarded by many early cultures as divine, or as emissaries of deities. As scientific knowledge advanced, human perception of the planets changed, incorporating a number of disparate objects. In 2006, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) officially adopted a resolution defining planets within the Solar System. This definition is controversial because it excludes many objects of planetary mass based on where or what they orbit. Although eight of the planetary bodies discovered before 1950 remain "planets" under the modern definition, some celestial bodies, such as Ceres, Pallas, Juno and Vesta (each an object in the solar asteroid belt), and Pluto (the first trans-Neptunian object discovered), that were once considered planets by the scientific community, are no longer viewed as such.

The planets were thought by Ptolemy to orbit Earth in deferent and epicycle motions. Although the idea that the planets orbited the Sun had been suggested many times, it was not until the 17th century that this view was supported by evidence from the first telescopic astronomical observations, performed by Galileo Galilei. At about the same time, by careful analysis of pre-telescopic observation data collected by Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler found the planets' orbits were not circular but elliptical. As observational tools improved, astronomers saw that, like Earth, the planets rotated around tilted axes, and some shared such features as ice caps and seasons. Since the dawn of the Space Age, close observation by space probes has found that Earth and the other planets share characteristics such as volcanism, hurricanes, tectonics, and even hydrology.

Planets are generally divided into two main types: large low-density giant planets, and smaller rocky terrestrials. Under IAU definitions, there are eight planets in the Solar System. In order of increasing distance from the Sun, they are the four terrestrials, Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars, then the four giant planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. Six of the planets are orbited by one or more natural satellites." [1]

Stars: " "A star is type of astronomical object consisting of a luminous spheroid of plasma held together by its own gravity. The nearest star to Earth is the Sun. Many other stars are visible to the naked eye from Earth during the night, appearing as a multitude of fixed luminous points in the sky due to their immense distance from Earth. Historically, the most prominent stars were grouped into constellations and asterisms, the brightest of which gained proper names. Astronomers have assembled star catalogues that identify the known stars and provide standardized stellar designations. However, most of the stars in the Universe, including all stars outside our galaxy, the Milky Way, are invisible to the naked eye from Earth. Indeed, most are invisible from Earth even through the most powerful telescopes.

For at least a portion of its life, a star shines due to thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium in its core, releasing energy that traverses the star's interior and then radiates into outer space. Almost all naturally occurring elements heavier than helium are created by stellar nucleosynthesis during the star's lifetime, and for some stars by supernova nucleosynthesis when it explodes. Near the end of its life, a star can also contain degenerate matter. Astronomers can determine the mass, age, metallicity (chemical composition), and many other properties of a star by observing its motion through space, its luminosity, and spectrum respectively. The total mass of a star is the main factor that determines its evolution and eventual fate. Other characteristics of a star, including diameter and temperature, change over its life, while the star's environment affects its rotation and movement. A plot of the temperature of many stars against their luminosities produces a plot known as a Hertzsprung"Russell diagram (H"R diagram). Plotting a particular star on that diagram allows the age and evolutionary state of that star to be determined.

A star's life begins with the gravitational collapse of a gaseous nebula of material composed primarily of hydrogen, along with helium and trace amounts of heavier elements. When the stellar core is sufficiently dense, hydrogen becomes steadily converted into helium through nuclear fusion, releasing energy in the process. The remainder of the star's interior carries energy away from the core through a combination of radiative and convective heat transfer processes. The star's internal pressure prevents it from collapsing further under its own gravity. A star with mass greater than 0.4 times the Sun's will expand to become a red giant when the hydrogen fuel in its core is exhausted. In some cases, it will fuse heavier elements at the core or in shells around the core. As the star expands it throws a part of its mass, enriched with those heavier elements, into the interstellar environment, to be recycled later as new stars. Meanwhile, the core becomes a stellar remnant: a white dwarf, a neutron star, or if it is sufficiently massive a black hole.

Binary and multi-star systems consist of two or more stars that are gravitationally bound and generally move around each other in stable orbits. When two such stars have a relatively close orbit, their gravitational interaction can have a significant impact on their evolution. Stars can form part of a much larger gravitationally bound structure, such as a star cluster or a galaxy." [2]

And finally comets.

Comets: "A comet is an icy small Solar System body that, when passing close to the Sun, warms and begins to release gases, a process called outgassing. This produces a visible atmosphere or coma, and sometimes also a tail. These phenomena are due to the effects of solar radiation and the solar wind acting upon the nucleus of the comet. Comet nuclei range from a few hundred metres to tens of kilometres across and are composed of loose collections of ice, dust, and small rocky particles. The coma may be up to 15 times the Earth's diameter, while the tail may stretch one astronomical unit. If sufficiently bright, a comet may be seen from the Earth without the aid of a telescope and may subtend an arc of 30" (60 Moons) across the sky. Comets have been observed and recorded since ancient times by many cultures." [3]

These are a few examples of things within our senses, not outside.

Sources used in this debate:
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
[3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

This debate has been wonderful, and I wish the Pro the best of luck, even if he loses this debate.

The choice is clear, Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 5
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 5 months ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
That ends it.
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 5 months ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
Did you mean inside your senses? I think so.
Posted by EmeryP 5 months ago
EmeryP
IR light exists outside your senses, and is real. :P
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 5 months ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
In your imagination. Not in reality.
Posted by EmeryP 5 months ago
EmeryP
I think a better phrasing would be nothing exists metaphysically. Plenty exists outside our senses.
Posted by Trapeeze 5 months ago
Trapeeze
Not theoretically, only logically for a species.

I can create a theory on other universes; the theory is neither correct nor incorrect, but if it's a stable theory it is definitely a possibility.

Throughout a persons life things would have only existed in their mind if they had sensed them, but it isn't a stable philosophical theory to say, because it never existed in their mind, it never existed outside of their mind.

Possibilities are, simple.
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 5 months ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
Everything only exists inside our senses, if we're talking about planets, comets, and stars, we must be in space, like astronauts.
Posted by Trapeeze 5 months ago
Trapeeze
The Vacuum of our universe is inside out to our senses; we actually exist outside of the Vacuum, which can be said to be inside our existence.
Posted by EmeryP 5 months ago
EmeryP
Or you can get even more literal, existence must extend past our senses, as you were unconscious, there would be no advance of time. And the universe as we know it would cease to exist outside our range of senses, the universe could not exist outside the room you occupy.
Posted by EmeryP 5 months ago
EmeryP
There's all sorts of stuff we can't sense. IR light for example, is outside our range of senses. High Pitched sound frequencies, low wave radiation, etc. More exists outside our senses than within them.
No votes have been placed for this debate.