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

I am the soul imaginor of all things.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/3/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 536 times Debate No: 62613
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




I believe that I am a single celled organisms floating through space. I also believe that I create and imagine everything around me. While I look at something it starts to exist but as soon as I look away it disappears into nonexistence. Dreams are the creation of my mind and it is just as complex. If con can prove that I am not the soul creator of everything around me than he/she wins. If he/she cannot obviously they lose.


I will begin with a variety of questions (please answer all of them in this order):
if you are God, then why did you invent this world?
If you are God for what reason do you have for a body (even a single celled one)?
do others exist as gods as you?
do I exist?
What is my role in the grander scheme of things?
Do you work?
Why did you create such a world in your mind?
I hate you! If I am of your mind does this mean you hate yourself? If not then why do you allow
for your creations to hate its creator?
If a man were to stab you would you bleed?
can you die?
Is your soul existence to create a world in your mind?
Debate Round No. 1


I invented this world because I was to bored with my enviroment and own existence.
I did not say I was god the meaning of the word soul as I stated was to show the absoluteness of just one so I think its supposed to be spelled sole?
The body is the one I started out with with another person creating me in all a giant paradox.
A god as you say would have to imply that the theory of christianity is real.
Not at the moment when I create you into my own eyes that is when you truly exist.
Your role is to argue with me.
Work how?
To make up for my meager existence.
No just a part of my imagination was created to hate me. (you)
To give the illusion of free will.
I would theoretically in my imagination I would.
No I would wake up in my other existence and start the world anew.
No my soul existence is to float through space I use this world as a past time.


First off, I am sorry if the word "god" confused you I am merely implicated your supremacy over this universe just as I am god over the world of my mind. And gods exist in other cultures. FALLACY: how do I, a part of your mind, know more than the mind itself?
FALLACY: you mentioned that you were a single cell ed organism so how do you have eyes? If you don't have eyes how do you understand what it is like to see?
FALLACY:how do you know of your other "lives?" What do you have to be so confident of your other existence?
FALLACY:how do you know of where you roam if you have no sight?

Cogito ergo sum: the fact that you are making me argue my existence proves my existence (Descartes)

What image do you have to create me in with nopoint of reference (sight)
Debate Round No. 2


First Fallacy- You do not know more than the my mind simply because my subconscious created your argument.
Second Fallacy- Seeing is a sense that my mind created seeing isn't an understanding its the projections of the creations of my mind.
Third Fallacy- The creation of this life allowed me to retain my memories of my true existence and what would happen if I died although all other memories are suppressed by my previous imagined deaths.
Fourth Fallacy- I do not have sight because it is a creation of my mind.

No it does not because it argues the point that I am subconsciously creating this argument. I only do not know the outcome of the vote because if I knew everything that was going to happen then this life would be no more enjoyable than my last.

There is no image until my mind puts your particles together in my mind while you come to exist by my mind in front of me. If I knew what everyone looked like and what they were going to do it would be boring in this life just as it was in my last.


fallacy 4: the fact you have no sight should be the big factor of this round.
the instigator has placed himself in a metaphorical "brain in a vat" which has created everything. the fact
"he" cannot see imposes the question of "if he can't see how does he know what it is like to see?"
for example: a blind man might know what colors are if he had previously HAD sight but if one has been
blind since childhood he would not know what colors are.True a blind man may have a general idea of
what something is by what his other senses create. (to feel someone's arm to have a picture of it) The
issue here is he does not have sight smell touch taste or hearing. Even if he did have them he has
posited himself that he lives in an empty void. This denotes that he is the sole object in this world and
as such has not come in contact with images.

yeah i think that's all that's needed for this one
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by sethlacrow 2 years ago
To paw print I like paradoxes that's why I like to argue them because the finality of the argument is not me trying to convince con anything its to convince the reader because the power to choose the winner is in the reader (who I also created).
To the pug I imagined you to be a pug telling me your comment out loud in a formal voice while your pug wears a monocle.
To em it is quite a fascinating paradox.
To El you will have to explain your question further.
Lastly to darkened yes, yes it is.
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
A genuine question is whether or not human consciousness contains elements which necessarily demonstrate that it is a derivative of some greater reality. Its lack of absolute control seems to me to be a demonstration of its derivative nature, as if it were an absolute cause then it should be theoretically able to demonstrate this fact to itself. If the sole creator of everything was helpless to create anything it wanted (or didn't want, for that matter), it would have very little justification for believing itself to be the sole creator, even if it were somehow true. So the fact that I can't, say, create a pug that isn't adorable shows that the source of adorable pugs and my consciousness are not synonymous, and that it is more reasonable to posit a greater reality, of which both adorable pugs and I are derivatives.
Posted by Emilrose 2 years ago
Posted by EthicsPhilosopher 2 years ago
It is a paradox you know.... It can not be won or lost. Does consciousness create reality or does reality create consciousness?

Consiousness can't create reality because in reality, there in consciousness. Reality can't create consciousness because it we can't think, there is nothing. Thus you have to believe there is something more for either to exist.
It is stupid to debate paradoxes...
Posted by ElCorazonAma 2 years ago
dude what the heck? What is this?
Posted by EndarkenedRationalist 2 years ago
The urge to troll with semantics is strong in this one...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Tempted to null this debate, since it's just dressed up solipsism and, to the best of my knowledge, there's no solution for hard solipsism that's been found which at least sorta makes this seem abusive, since Pro placed the BoP on Con, instead of on themselves or sharing it, which I think would be more proper. That said, Con accepted it as written, and failed to PROVE the contrary. As such, I'm awarding arguments to Pro...but I'm not particularly happy to do so. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.