Existence is Impossible
Debate Rounds (3)
In this debate, Pro is making the positive claim that "existence" is an impossibility, and by extension, that there is no existence. In order to win, I do not have to prove that anything exists; instead, all I must do is prove that it is NOT impossible.
Lets start with definitions:
Exist: To have objective reality or being.
Impossible: Not able to occur, exist, or be done.
In effect, Pro must prove that objective reality is not something that occurs. I must prove that it can occur, regardless of whether or not it does. As Pro carries the burden of proof according to the resolution (and it was never stated that the BoP would be shared) I will go immediately into rebutting the arguments that Pro makes. The bolded statement is Pro's argument, while the response underneath is my rebuttal.
"Anything you perceive is the result of a psychosis."
As a positive statement, this must be supported with evidence. The fact that there is no evidence to the contrary does not sufficiently prove this statement, regardless of whether or not it is true. Additionally, the phrasing implies that a "you" exists, effectively disproving the resolution from the get-go. As per the "Cogito ergo sum" argument, the ability to question one's own existence is proof enough of existence, as there must be a "someone" to be doing the questioning. Even if an intelligence fully accepted solipsism and its own complete disconnectedness from any external universe, the very fact that it is able to think would confirm its existence.
"If you can read this you must be crazy, because nothing exists."
Once again, this is an unsubstantiated claim. Lack of evidence to the contrary does not constitute positive evidence.
"At some point something had to come from nothing, something had to start this intricate series of cause and effect known as existence. Nothing cannot come from something..."
Yet another unsubstantiated claim. The use of the phrase "at some point" implies that linear time extends indefinitely backwards, but this is unprovable, and as such, there is no reason why the very first "something" couldn't have begun existing at the start of time. Additionally, even if time does extend indefinitely, there is no positive evidence to support the claim that "nothing cannot come from something" (i.e. "No things can NOT come from something," or "A thing cannot come from NO things"). Pro has given absolutely zero reasons for why this is true. As per Hitchens' Razor, what is stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Secondly, Con is obviously insane and disillusion, he/she/it whatever does not exist. Con has diverged from the argument, saying that "The use of the phrase "at some point" implies that linear time extends indefinitely backwards, but this is unprov[en], and as such, there is no reason why the very first "something" couldn't have begun existing at the start of time."
Let us observe a definition:
Time: the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole.
Regardless, of Cons ignorant claims of what time is and is not, it doesn't matter because time does not exist, nothing does.
Con claims that my statement "Anything you perceive is the result of a psychosis." negates itself because it "implies that a "you" exists." This is not true because I am obviously insane, anything I say that implies existence is a result of my psychosis.
Con wants proof of the impossibility of existence, the first law of thermodynamics states that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed. Which really doesn't mean anything considering the laws of thermodynamics do not really exist, because neither matter nor energy exists.
Existence is impossible, you cannot have an effect without a cause. Unless Con can tell me the cause of the effect that is existence, than I would have to say that there is no such thing as existence. After all, what is stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I'll see the Hitchens' Razor and raise an Occam's razor: When faced with competing hypotheses, select the one that makes the fewest assumptions. Do we assume that something appeared out of nowhere, something that started with time, do we assume a magic bearded man created everything, do we assume something beyond our known laws of thermodynamics made a magic poof and set everything in motion?
No we do not because we do not exist. the universe does not exist. nothing exists.
Other than continuing to make baseless assumptions which can be dismissed immediately, Pro really makes only two arguments, with the first being Occam's Razor. Unfortunately, this actually refutes Pro's position. As stated at the beginning, I do not have to prove that anything exists to win this debate. As such, my position contains zero assumptions, as I am no more assuming that the universe does not exist than I am assuming that it does. On the other hand, Pro is making the assumption that the universe doesn't exist. As such, it is Pro's argument that is clearly struck down by Occam's razor.
The only other argument made is the second law of themodynamics. This makes little sense in the context of this debate, as we aren't arguing about whether or not the universe that is experienced exists, we're arguing about whether or not the existence of any thing is possible. Pro states that I am diverging from the topic, but it reality Pro is trying to wriggle away from the incredibly flawed resolution.
Pro also interestingly claims to be non existant, which, from Pro's perspective, is impossible. I have zero way of determining if Pro is real or not and vice versa, but to each one of us, our own existence is self evident as I demonstrated in my first set of arguments.
The effect that is existence has absolutely no logical cause, therefore it is absurd to think that it is possible that anything exists at all.
Con took the safe route, and says he is not assuming that anything does or does not exist that it is just not impossible. This is a very clever rhetorical slight of hand that I did not foresee. (I must say pretty good for someone who does not exist). Con wants me to prove that existence is impossible, the only proof I offer is that it is logically impossible. Con might as well be asking me to provide proof that god does not exist.
Con says that it is impossible for me to claim I do not exist, and says that from my perceptive that it is impossible for me to not exist. Its obvious that Con neglected the other half of my argument that what we perceive must be a hallucination. existence is logically impossible, therefore, perception is psychosis. Furthermore, this hallucination is true insanity because there is no such hallucination there is nothing there to even hallucinate.
Con claims that your experience is self evident. I claim that your experience shows you are utterly insane because you are a non-being that thinks you actually have experience. Con makes the assumption that he has "experiences" that he/she does not. Con does not exist. Con goes on to claim that I have "experiences". Con criticizes my arguments saying they are "baseless assumptions" yet his/her argument is filled with them.
"I think, therefore I am." This is a baseless assumption, it assumes there is an I.
Furthermore, all of Cons arguments are moot because they all rest on the assumption that something really exists. If Con wants to use Hitchens', Occam's Razor, Descartes' Meditations, my supposed "experience" or yours; he is admitting that all those things exist, therefore, Con really is making the assumption that something exists.
Con may argue that my use of language destroys my argument. It does not, my use of language is just a way of coping with my own madness.
Con says the burden of proof rests on me. Con claims that I am trying to wriggle out of this argument. This makes absolutely no sense. how can i provide the burden of proof when nothing exists? how can I wriggle out of an argument when I, in fact, do not exist.
It is obvious that Con must provide proof of existence because everything Con states relies on existence.
Now, Con may argue wait that negates the whole argument, because everything that I say depends upon something existing. This is where Con is wrong, I am insane and I am hallucinating what "I" "experience." I am simply coping with "my" madness. I am not saying that existence is logically possible.
Con, on the other hand, is saying that it is logically possible to exist. He gives his arguments which in turn are all based on the assumption of existence. Therefore, in order for Con to win this debate he must provide proof that existence is logically possible by stating a reasonable explanation of what is the cause of the effect that is existence. Otherwise, all of Cons arguments are merely baseless assumptions.
Furthermore, Con may argue that a hallucination is something and by hallucinating, that shows that at least a hallucination exists. There are two things I have to say about this. If Con takes this route he is trying to wriggle out of providing proof of a first cause. "hallucinations" are just nothingness.
The last thing I have to state is simply this, 42.
Dufflepud forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.