The Instigator
gryephon
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Commondebator
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

It is easier to prove the soul exists then the physical body

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 11/1/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 552 times Debate No: 64356
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

gryephon

Pro

I think some things that which cannot be seen is easier to prove then things that are seeable, in this case the soul is one of them.


In this debate the word Soul is taken to mean the immaterial parts of the human being.
Debate Round No. 1
gryephon

Pro


How does one know that they have a soul? If you think, you have a soul. Thoughts are immaterial in nature, so if you experience thinking it follows that you do have immaterial parts (a soul). This does also ring true with other immaterial parts such as beliefs or feelings. So coming to knowledge of the soul is very easy because you experience immaterial things all the days of your life.


But we come to an interesting problem when it comes to the physical world, how does one know that this isn’t all an illusion, say you’re just dreaming? While I don’t want to take the position that it’s impossible to prove that the physical world exists, that I don’t know… But I think surely it must be more daunting to prove material objects over the immaterial ones.


Commondebator

Con

My case:

I. Phyical bodies can be dected by human senses, and infared signitures
Phycial bodies have some form of decetrion, where as in souls cannot be dected by anything. Yes, the argument that reality is a dream is valid, but that does not prove that souls are real. Based on the definition of real (to have actual being), we can safley conclude based on our senses, and others with no mental health problems agreeing that a phyical body existing. Thus, making it easier to prove physical objestcs existing. Physical bodies can also be dected by heat singitures, making it easier to assume that the physical body exists.

II. Souls cannot be deceted through senses, or infared signituress. (Or any other valid method of dectection)
Souls, unlike physical bodies CAN NOT be dected through senses, or any other valid method of detection. Thus, making the idea that souls exist, less likley. Throwing out assumptions without any evidence such as "Reality can be a dream", although is possible, it has no evidence to support. Now, you can say it does not need any evidence, but we have MORE evidence that phycical bodies exist rather than souls exist.

Rebuttals:


"If you think, you have a soul."

If you think, you have a brain.


"Thoughts are immaterial in nature, so if you experience thinking it follows that you do have immaterial parts (a soul). This does also ring true with other immaterial parts such as beliefs or feelings. So coming to knowledge"

Thoughts can be dected through electrical impulses through activity in brain, souls cannot. The idea of souls holds no backup evidence, making it MUCH harder to prove souls than physical bodies.

Sources: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://www.scientificamerican.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
gryephon

Pro










Rebuttlals

I. Phyical bodies can be dected by human senses, and infared signitures

My basic refutation is that: You cannot absolutely know for certain that anything is real through the 5 major senses.

How do you know that the body that you have is physical through the senses? How do you know anything is material through the senses? All the 5 major senses (Sight, sound, smell, taste, touch) can be faked in dreams or hallucinations. We hit a roadblock when it comes to proving what we observe as reality is real through these senses because they can be shown to be wrong on occasion, it’s a reliability issue with these major senses. So we have to look for evidence that isn’t reliant on sight, therefore invisible. Likewise it cannot be touched, smelled, heard, and tasted. I think the evidence needs to be immaterial.

Also the soul can be detected through awareness. For example, you are aware that you think, you are aware that you understand. Thoughts, understanding, knowledge are all immaterial things. If you experience any of these then you are experiencing immaterial parts going on in your body, this is what is called a “soul” the immaterial parts of the body.

II. Souls cannot be deceted through senses, or infared signituress. (Or any other valid method of dectection)

My refutation is that “the soul can be detected through self-awareness.”

Now bear in mind I don’t know if I can prove your soul exists or my neighbor’s because my knowledge of the soul is derived from self-awareness. I know my own soul exists because I’m self-aware that immaterial experiences (knowledge, understanding, will, etc) happens within me. I’m aware that my soul exists like I’m aware that two plus two is four, and I’m more confident that it exists then I do with the flesh or any other physical object. I’m not saying that I don’t believe in the physical world, as I think there is sufficient reason to believe these things are real, but I think the evidence is better.

I should point out that self-awareness is the most valid form of detection known to man, if you don’t have awareness, then you can’t be aware that your very own senses, or any other form of detection for that matter, is valid. If don’t believe in yourself, why believe your senses?

If you think, you have a brain.

Good, you see how immaterials (thoughts), implies material (brain)? Which is why I think one can prove a materialistic world from immaterials (thoughts -> Brain) because some immaterials imply physical. It’s a little bit more difficult to deduce the brain’s existence absolutely starting from a physical world (brain -> thought), because you would have to work it out with your senses, which then the question pops how do you know what you see is not a dream or hallucination absolutely? You can’t, not with your 5 major senses. But starting from immaterials such as thoughts, it seems a little bit more reliable because your simply aware that you experience things like thinking, and it’s not from the 5 senses, but by internal awareness.


Thoughts can be dected through electrical impulses through activity in brain, souls cannot. The idea of souls holds no backup evidence, making it MUCH harder to prove souls than physical bodies.

I don’t see how thoughts are detectable through electrical impulses is relevant, the question is if that thoughts are immaterial themselves or not. If thoughts are immaterial, then it’s conclusive that you have a soul, for that’s all you need to prove its existence, something immaterial in the body. The argument could be spun in different ways, “if you understand, you have a soul”, “if you know, you have a soul”, “if you have a will, you have a soul” “If you have ambitions, you have a soul”. The fact that you have anything immaterial means you have a soul.

I feel I should comment on thoughts again, as I’m not sure if you’re thinking that matter and thoughts are somehow one, so I point this out in anticipation of an argument you may or may not make. Saying matter and thoughts are one is like saying rocks can think because they are matter, which is absurd. Therefore I think that thoughts are external from matter, meaning they are immaterial. It might be possible for materials to represent thoughts like how numbers are represented in ink and symbols, but thoughts like numbers aren’t material themselves.






Points

The Reliability Issues

Showing that both the soul and the flesh to exist is pretty easy as there are sufficient reason to believe both. The question that is posed as to which is easier to prove? I as a debater tend to seek evidence that is stronger, and try to avoid the more difficult position. The difficulties in proving the physical body exist is evident because it’s existence is based on the 5 senses, which can be faked within say a dream (questioning it’s reliability). But from the point of view of a soul, souls don’t really have any problem with existing in the dream-world, after all souls are immaterial (and the non-physical is native to dreams), and plus the dreamer is potentially a soul when manifested in the dreamscape.

But all and all, I think you should vote in favor of my position because the other position is more difficult to defend. I think I would recommend the position that the soul exists to a more of a novice debater, and probably recommend the position that the physical body exists to a more advanced debater.


Commondebator

Con

Rebuttals:

I. Paragraph 1:

Yes, it is true you cannot always trust your senses, but I fail to see how this proves my opponent's point. There is no evidence-not even from senses or other ways of detection that can prove the existence of souls. At least we have evidence from our senses, as well as technology that can prove that there is a tree in a backyard. (As an example, some don't have trees in backyards). Where there is no evidence from souls, but just assumptions.

Paragraph 2:

Again, my opponent's logic is that if you think you have a soul, there IS a soul. Thinking there is a soul does NOT mean there IS a soul. It means you have thoughts through impulses in brain, not a spirit of any kind.

II. Paragraph 1:

My opponent has stated he cannot prove other's souls exist, because he does not know what they believe. This means, that souls are a BELIEF through thoughts in the brain. But, I can prove that a tree exists by
A. My senses
B. Other senses
C. Camara imaging
D. Heat signiture

But, my opponent can "prove" souls by
A. He thinks there is one

Even that method is false, because my opponent's logic seems to be thoughts or self awarness means it is true. When really, it means they are just electrical impulses, NOT actual things in existence.

"If you think, you have a brain" Rebuttal
Again, from a logical prepectice thoughts are electrical impulses not spirits or entites.


"
Thoughts can be dected through electrical impulses through activity in brain, souls cannot. The idea of souls holds no backup evidence, making it MUCH harder to prove souls than physical bodies." Rebuttal

Ok, when did thoughts or ideas have to be a determination of existence?

Thoughts are not spirtual. They are simply electrical impulses, and it doesn't mean the IDEA of a soul means the soul exists. But, there is far more evidence for physical objects than something like souls.


Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by LubricantSanta 2 years ago
LubricantSanta
*than
Posted by Commondebator 2 years ago
Commondebator
detection*
No votes have been placed for this debate.