The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
Brainmaster
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

I have existed for all time and I will exist for all time

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 3 votes the winner is...
brian_eggleston
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/23/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,660 times Debate No: 17207
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

No, I'm not claiming to be immortal, but the fact is that I have been around since the dawn of time and will be around until the end of time – indeed, it is even possible that I existed before the dawn of time and will exist after the end of time, but I cannot prove that so I will confine this debate to the space-time that exists within our current universe.

Of course, I haven't always existed assembled as I am now, as a human being living on a planet revolving around one of 200-400 billion stars in one of 200-400 billion galaxies some 13.7 billion years after time (as we understand it) began. [1,2]

However, the atomic and sub-atomic matter that makes up my body, which was originally created in the Big Bang and has been travelling around the universe, in one form or another since then, came together (by happy coincidence from my point of view) to make up the infant Brian Eggleston and all the food and drink I have eaten that has enabled me to grow and survive until now.

Naturally, I am not unique in this claim: you can make exactly the same boast for yourself. It seems incredible that we – that is to say, the matter which constitutes our bodies - were all present at the beginning of time and we will all be there at the end of time. Well, it may seem incredible, but it's true.

Thank you.

[1] http://www.universetoday.com...
[2] http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...
Brainmaster

Con

Thanks for the debate Brian_Eggleston.


Rebuttal_


It is true, the matter that makes up my opponent most likely has existed for a very long time.


However, the opponent's resolution states that "I," (1) as a person, have existed for all time. My opponent does not provide a specifically marked resolution to differ.


Thus, my opponent did not exist as "I" until he was born as a conscious human, and thus has not existed for all time.

"I" is defined as the self, or the ego. (1)


Thank you.



Sources Cited___

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate, Brainmaster. I should like to respond to your rebuttal as follows:

Let's say I'm a master criminal at the weekends and one Saturday night I break into the Tower of London, steal the Crown Jewels, take them home and put them up for sale on eBay.

Now, let's say as I was fleeing the scene of the crime, I was set upon by the Tower's resident ravens and my nose got pecked off before I could make good my escape, and I turned up for work on Monday morning with a big hole in my face.

Now, one of my colleagues, who had read all about the robbery in her morning newspaper and knew that the police had recovered a nose from Tower Green, got suspicious when she noticed that my countenance was deficient in nasal organs to the count of one and she grassed me up to the filth, and when they arrived one of the detectives took the nose they had found, placed it on my face, and it made a perfect fit.

"Is that your nose, sir?" the detective might ask, to which I would be bound to reply:

"Yes, officer, that is my nose. Even though it is currently physically detached from my person, that nose remains a constituent part of my body," before adding "I want to call my lawyer."

But now let's say that I avoided the wrath of the ravens but the police tracked me down using the DNA extracted from the saliva I left upon a cigarette stub which I carelessly discarded in the Jewel House as I was putting the Crown Jewels in my sack.

Now, even though my DNA is microscopic, it still came from my body: it is my DNA; and the same applies to every single atom and sub-atomic particle in my body.

As I stated in my opening argument, I haven't always existed as a human being and one day I will die and my body will decompose, but even though the atomic and sub-atomic constituent parts of my body have not always been, or always will be, physically attached to each other, they remain part of who I am and, therefore, because they have existed for all time and will exist for all time, so have I and so I will.

Thank you.
Brainmaster

Con

My opponent has not answered my argument based on the definition of "I."


"I" does not refer to him as a physical entity, but rather as a soul.


If he dies, he is no longer "I."



Thanks to readers, and vote con.
Debate Round No. 2
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by brian_eggleston 3 years ago
brian_eggleston
@ Thaddeus

The 'correct' Cockney would be:

"Cor blimey guv'ner, that's 'is Mary!"

(Mary = Mary Rose = nose in Cockney rhyming slang)

But I don't see why one of the ravens might say that, maybe the Old Bill when they found my nose might though?
Posted by Thaddeus 3 years ago
Thaddeus
"Corr, thats 'is nose guv'ner" quoth the raven.
Posted by brian_eggleston 3 years ago
brian_eggleston
Interesting rebuttal.

<<scratches head>>

I'll get back to you tomorrow on this one.
Posted by brian_eggleston 3 years ago
brian_eggleston
Cool, hope it'll be a good one!
Posted by Brainmaster 3 years ago
Brainmaster
Finally, a debate with B_E. Been waiting over a week for this.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by baggins 3 years ago
baggins
brian_egglestonBrainmasterTied
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: An invalid semantic attack laziness by Con
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 3 years ago
InquireTruth
brian_egglestonBrainmasterTied
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: Brian's case is always more humorous than his opponent's. It's rare, however, to see a debate where is case is also more rationally compelling. Brian already preempted Con's response in his opening round.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 3 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
brian_egglestonBrainmasterTied
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: "Of course, I haven't always existed assembled as I am now .." - con did you read that part