The Instigator
KingKobra
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Skepticalone
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Life After Death?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Skepticalone
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/13/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,167 times Debate No: 68265
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

KingKobra

Pro

If there life after death? Any life at all? or do you just lay their eyes shut for eternal sleep while your body slowly decomposes. I say there is a possibility not sure what. But our soul which is trapped inside of us during life is then released out of us the moment we pass away. but where does it go? I use to believe this is the dream, and the light at the end of our tunnel is the tunnel to a new life. completely opposite of this one. I know there must be someone watching over us. but I do not believe in a god so to speak. What is y'all views.
Skepticalone

Con

I accept this debate.

Definition of life:
the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

I look forward to Pro's arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
KingKobra

Pro

But youre energy. Its scientifically proven energy never goes away. So what happens when we lay our hat?
Skepticalone

Con


Thermodynamics

The first law of thermodynamics does state matter and energy can never be destroyed or created, on that we agree [1]. Life is an open system where energy that is lost (to entropy) is continually replaced from outside the system of the physical body. The energy in the organism is continually replenished in this way enabling the body to resist entropy. When the organism is no longer alive, entropy increases in the body as energy dissipates into the surrounding environment. We can observe this energy transfer into the soil, other organisms, and by way of heat, etc. So, if Pro is asserting the soul is nothing more than energy, then all of it would be lost to the environment. There is no evidence to suggest any energy associated with life has ever been lost to another dimension or even been unaccounted for. The first law of thermodynamics does not help Pro's position.

The Soul

How do we define a 'soul'? According to Merriam Webster it is “the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life” [2] Pro has suggested more than this though. He offered the soul as something akin to an embodiment (or un-embodiment?) of the mind, personality, and/or consciousness. This can also be described as patterns of information in the brain itself. When a person dies, the information in the brain is no longer supported by the chemical processes and diminishes into the environment as energy. Since energy is not a pattern, (like the ones in our brain), it can no longer represent the individual it came from. Basically, the "you" you are familiar with cannot carry on without the patterns in your physical brain.


Back to you, sir.

[1] https://www.boundless.com...

[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Debate Round No. 2
KingKobra

Pro

Have you ever lost a loved one? They watch down on you, im not christian so I aint saying from heaven or anything im just saying their spirit is watching down on you. What do you think happens when we die? We just lay in the ground eyes shut for eternal sleep? Theres gotta be something greater than that. Theres something greater than u n me out there
Skepticalone

Con

Thank you, Pro.

Carl Sagan said,"If some good evidence for life after death were announced, I'd be eager to examine it; but it would have to be real scientific data, not mere anecdote.... Better the hard truth, I say, than the comforting fantasy."

The hard truth is that we all die, and we will lose loved ones in our lifetimes. The comfortable fantasy is believing they live on in another place currently beyond our reach. There is one comfortable truth in death: Our loved ones will be remembered by us, and in that sense they continue to live until we ourselves die.

Pro and I have the same knowledge of the afterlife, which is to say, we have the same ignorance. There is no good evidence an afterlife exists, and to claim it does based on this ignorance is a fallacy.

My points have been dropped, so I extend arguments.

Debate Round No. 3
KingKobra

Pro

Right there is no solid proof so is it safe to say our spirit stays aroud? My brother was paintng s school where there was a suicide apparently he knelt on the girls spirit and she latched onti him. He took her to his bosses house (not knowing) and his wife said he brang her home with him. She was saying she knew our cousin from after he died. And stuff my brother never told antone she knew. Can anyone explain this? No but I think its safe to say we stick around for a while longer more than most think.
Skepticalone

Con

Thank you, Pro.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

- Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio

Shakespeare suggested there are things we do not understand in nature, and certainly the human mind is among them. Pro has conveyed an interesting anecdotal account, but it is not evidence. This story gives us an interpretation of an unusual event. We have no evidence to evaluate ourselves, and Pro would have us rely on his interpretation of the events as evidence. With all due respect to Pro and his family, there are other explanations of these event which are much more plausible. For instance, this could be explained by intentional deception, cognitive bias, or the effects of drugs. I cannot say for sure how probable these explanations are with any accuracy, but I can say these are much more likely than a spirit existing, kneeling on this spirit, having this spirit being able to interact with the material world (latch onto an individual), and having this spirit communicate through unspecified means - especially with no supportive physical evidence. We have an abundance of evidence to suggest humans lie, the human mind can falter, and the effects of drug use on the human mind can alter perceptions. I would love to examine any evidence Pro has to support these claims, but until he does (if he is able), Occam’s razor will cut to the more plausible, simpler explanation. Essentially, it is much more probable this event can be explained by a deliberate deception, or a skewed perception of the event due to the fallibility of the human mind or drug use.

I extend my arguments.

Debate Round No. 4
KingKobra

Pro

KingKobra forfeited this round.
Skepticalone

Con

Pro has provided no substantiation for his claim. He suggested life equates to energy, but I illustrated that is simply not the case. My opponent has shown no way in which life as we know it, per the definition I provided in round one, can exist after death. For that matter, Pro has not shown any verifiable examples of any life after death or any concrete evidence to suggest it is possible. I believe I have provided more than adequate reason to seriously doubt Pro's claim and vote Con. I thank Pro for the debate.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Badger_10 2 years ago
Badger_10
LOL'd at this one.
Posted by Skepticalone 2 years ago
Skepticalone
You are correct, PGA. My definition of life was inadequate since I did not limit it to a specific organism. Fortunately for me, Pro did not take advantage of that error. Thanks for the vote.
Posted by Skepticalone 2 years ago
Skepticalone
I always strive for high school level. I thank you for your optimism.
Posted by PyotrVerkhovensky 2 years ago
PyotrVerkhovensky
Weak opening arguments from both teams, look forward to the high school level argument.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
KingKobraSkepticaloneTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for forfeit. Arguments... I really hate to say it, but BoP. Pro's arguments never rose above the fallacy of argument by assertion, and an appeal to novelty. Sure it'd be nice if there's an afterlife, even the personal accounts sound nice (if a little weird), but no evidence has been laid in favor of it. Con on the other hand was well reasoned, even explaining where the heat from the body goes when we die. Sources tilt toward con, but leaving those tied. S&G was bad, but not unforgivable, perhaps if pro's arguments were longer it would have become annoying, but with such short ones they failed to distract from his points.
Vote Placed by PGA 2 years ago
PGA
KingKobraSkepticaloneTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Welcome to the forum KingKobra! Unfortunately Pro gave no rebuttal of Con's arguments, just made a statement in each of his rounds with nothing to back it up, just stated personal opinion with no external sources or substance of any kind behind these statements. The vagueness of the proposal alone left a lot of room for attack on what was meant and it could have been attacked on both the existence of a necessary being who has revealed as much or on the grounds that there is life after death because we witness life continuing when someone dies. The whole universe does not cease to exist when someone dies but life continues for those still living. Plants, animals and inorganic matter still exists after something or someone else dies. Con's definition of life in Round 1 open up the second option.