The Instigator
truther1111
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Duncan
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Life after death exists

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 6 votes the winner is...
Duncan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/21/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,965 times Debate No: 37966
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (6)

 

truther1111

Pro

No arguments based on religious scriptures please.
Duncan

Con

I'll assume first round is for acceptance. Who does the burden lie upon?
Debate Round No. 1
truther1111

Pro

The burden of proof lies with me.

If modern science states that our lives are an illusion as we are an illusion created by the brain , nuerochemicals that interact with each other inside the brain causing the illusion of conciousness .
Then one might argue that life doesnt really exist.
Therefore how can we die if we werent alive in the first place.

Another way to look at it would be to say does life exist after death, well yes because when i die there are other living beings still alive on the planet and we even if our planet was destroyed by an asteroid then there would be other planets with life on them , therefore life exists after death.

Duncan

Con

Ah, I see that you are going to use the vagueness of the debate title to your advantage.
Firstly, modern science does not state that our lives are illusions, and have set rules on what constitutes a living thing.

1; Organisation
2; Metabolism
3; Growth
4; Response
5; Reproduction

We are alive, death is when we no longer carry out the aforementioned processes. Source, any decent biology textbook. My one is Leaving Cert. Biology. Not every species has a brain, but they continue to live.

I was under the impression that you were referring to a metaphysical afterlife, rather than your simple abuse of the debate title. Your second argument only means that the rest of the universe continues to exist outside of the self, so existence of the rest of the world continues after the death of one organism, is what you meant to say, which is a pretty stupid argument. I am disappointed that you never defined the motion just so you could exploit its vagueness, it's quite the cheap trick you've got there.
Debate Round No. 2
truther1111

Pro

Life by definition in a biological sense doesnt explain conciousness.
Do you accept this definition of life ? Becuase I think my life is more than simply reproduction,response,growth etc.
I have the choice not to reproduce for example.

Mainstream science assumes that the brain creates conciousness via electrical communication between nuerons in the brain. The assumption is based on the fact that if i remove parts of your brain you concious experience changes, for example if i remove your eyes you will become blind or If i hit your head really hard you may lose certain memories.

However no part of the brain explains what causes the actual observer effect or how the material things in our universe such as atoms and molecules somehow form conciousness. We know the process of how they formed into more complicated lifeforms from single cells to mammals and humans etc. but one question remains: How can something as immaterial as consciousness ever arise from something as unconscious as matter?

After a personal experience with the medicine ayahuasca which is from the amazon jungle Im quite convinced that the mainstream idea of our brain producing conciousness is wrong. It may seem that way because the better wiring in the brains of animals or humans the more we experience or are aware of our surroundings and ourselves. But another theory is that the brain is a reciever of conciousness and not a creator of it and that the wiring in the brain is not actually emitting conciousness but recieving it. The brain being like an electric grid does seem like a great instrument to recieve.

What does it recieve , where is this conciousness?
Scientists would say that theres no proof of conciousness outside of the brain so its not coming from anywhere to be recieved.
However scientists look at the material reality of the universe if its not material its not real ..
Quantum mechanics however has shown that the material world is an illusion all matter is really energy which has a potential reality in space/time.The actual energy is in more than one place at the same time untill their is some communication with another potential reality being another wave/particle duo when they communicate with each other a reality is formed.The greater the complexity of connections of all these potential realities into realities form the more complex our universe gets.The universe cools and planets form etc . The complexity grows , the universe is alive.
Duncan

Con

That is the scientific definition of living things. It's odd that you call it "mainstream science". If you remove parts of the brain, the responses that you have change depending on what action. (damage to emotions section results in extreme emotions) Removing the eyes removes the sense of sight. It does not make the person any less alive. Hitting someone's head really hard would be fatal.

You have made a lot of claims regarding science, but you have listed no sources, and explained nothing, only creating assertions with no backing. Even if your faulty evidence was to be accepted, all you have stated is that the human conscience is a complicated entity within the brain, not proved any afterlife. Burden remains on you Prop. See you next round,

Duncan.
Debate Round No. 3
truther1111

Pro

As conciousness is an elusive thing, something that I have shown to be impossible to prove . Does life after death in a biological sense ? , well no and everyone would agree with you that once the physical body dies it rots and 'life' is over.
Can conciousness survive the death of the brain ? Is conciousness reliant on the brain for survival ?

Lets look at the evidence for this now. Sam parnia is a leading expert in the revival of dead people. He was part of studies into the question of conciousness after death.Heres what he had to say.

"Scientists have formerly believed that the brain cannot sustain lucid thought or form lasting memories when the person is unconscious, which simply means, according to Parnia, that 'nobody fully grasps how the brain generates thoughts. The brain itself is made up of cells, like all the body's organs, and is not really capable of producing the subjective phenomenon of thought that people have.'

Parnia's conclusion: Human consciousness may work independently of the brain, using the gray matter as a mechanism to manifest the thoughts, just as a television set translates waves in the air into picture and sound. Just because the brain is damaged does not necessarily mean that the 'mind' is affected.

New techniques promise to even further extend the boundary between life and death. At the same time, experiences reported by resuscitated people sometimes defy what’s thought to be possible. They claim to have seen and heard things, though activity in their brains appears to have stopped.

It sounds supernatural, and if their memories are accurate and their brains really have stopped, it’s neurologically inexplicable, at least with what’s now known. Parnia, leader of the Human Consciousness Project’s AWARE study, which documents after-death experiences in 25 hospitals across North America and Europe, is studying the phenomenon scientifically.


'When I looked at the cardiac arrest literature, it became clear that it’s after the heart stops and blood flow into the brain ceases. There’s no blood flow into the brain, no activity, about 10 seconds after the heart stops. When doctors start to do CPR, they still can’t get enough blood into the brain. It remains flatlined. That’s the physiology of people who’ve died or are receiving CPR.

Not just my study, but four others, all demonstrated the same thing: People have memories and recollections. Combined with anecdotal reports from all over the world, from people who see things accurately and remember them, it suggests this needs to be studied in more detail.'

"Do these memories occur when a person is truly flatlined and had no brain activity, as science suggests? Or when they’re beginning to wake up, but are still unconscious?

The point that goes against the experiences happening afterwards, or before the brain shut down, is that many people describe very specific details of what happened to them during cardiac arrest. They describe conversations people had, clothes people wore, events that went on 10 or 20 minutes into resuscitation. That is not compatible with brain activity.

It may be that some people receive better-quality resuscitation, and that — though there’s no evidence to support it — they did have brain activity. Or it could indicate that human consciousness, the psyche, the soul, the self, continued to function."

http://www.wired.com...

A Dutch study confirmed the same thing and all previous physiological explanations of nde;s were debunked.

"For example, in the past some scientists have asserted that the NDE must be simply a hallucination brought on by the loss of oxygen to the brain [called "anoxia"] after the heart has stopped beating. This study casts doubt on that theory, in the words of its chief investigator, cardiologist Pim van Lommel, MD, "Our results show that medical factors cannot account for the occurrence of NDE. All patients had a cardiac arrest, and were clinically dead with unconsciousness resulting from insufficient blood supply to the brain. In those circumstances, the EEG (a measure of brain electrical activity) becomes flat, and if CPR is not started within 5-10 minutes, irreparable damage is done to the brain and the patient will die. According to the theory that NDE is caused by anoxia, all patients in our study should have had an NDE, but only 18% reported having an NDE... There is also a theory that NDE is caused psychologically, by the fear of death. But only a very small percentage of our patients said they had been afraid seconds before their cardiac arrest—it happened too suddenly for them to realize what was occurring. More patients than the frightened ones reported NDEs." Finally, differences in drug treatments during resuscitation did not correlate with the likelihood of patients experiencing NDEs, nor with the depth of their NDEs."

http://iands.org...


Now the evidence for these experiences being real in my opinion is based on the fact that some of these people that have Near death experiences come back with information that is later verified by people that were alive at the time.

http://www.merkawah.nl...

http://www.examiner.com...

Also people born blind at birth have come back from the dead and have seen whilst being dead.




Duncan

Con

I already said that you cannot mix magic science in this kind of debate. You pull up all these studies, and then go on to say they're proof of the soul? As I've said before, all you've shown is that the conciousness of the human brain is unique, and difficult to explain. The brain is the most complex supercomputer known to mankind, and how it stores memories is still not fully understood, but it can offer some explanation. You see, the brain can survive without the body for a couple of seconds, and you could delay this death in a similar way to freezing the body and removing the blood. And that's only decapitation. These cases were resolved just minutes after the death of the patient, meaning the brain had not suffered oxygen loss and had no damage yet. As long as the brain is undamaged, it can survive the body dying. The way the brain stores memories could also factor into this. If the brain is resurrected, it will begin checking over its memories again, and a dream like series of memories could result from this. Just because the brain is so complex does not mean the only solution can be a soul. How would the "soul" store memories anyway? And how does this prove life after death? The issue is that conciousness, from my earlier definition, is not a necessity for life. You can create an artificial intelligence nowadays, and it has some loose form of conciousness. Does this mean it is alive? No. But it's concious. This doesn't point to any afterlife, on;y just to show how much is left to learn from science.

http://science.howstuffworks.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

And as always, I'll be waiting,

Duncan.
Debate Round No. 4
truther1111

Pro

Electrogmagnetism was Magic science a hundred years ago, everything is considered magick untill science proves it .

Not all nde experiencers died for a short period of time, in fact in many cases doctors were expecting brain damage because the people were dead for so long but they didnt have brain damage somehow

"Parnia: That’s a very important question. Do these memories occur when a person is truly flatlined and had no brain activity, as science suggests? Or when they’re beginning to wake up, but are still unconscious?

The point that goes against the experiences happening afterwards, or before the brain shut down, is that many people describe very specific details of what happened to them during cardiac arrest. They describe conversations people had, clothes people wore, events that went on 10 or 20 minutes into resuscitation. That is not compatible with brain activity.

It may be that some people receive better-quality resuscitation, and that — though there’s no evidence to support it — they did have brain activity. Or it could indicate that human consciousness, the psyche, the soul, the self, continued to function."

http://www.wired.com...

I cant find the study right now but i remember reading a study which showed that people were actually more likely to have an nde the longer they were dead.

The way the brain stores these memories of ndes is not known . Whether they happen after or during the dead stage is unclear. I believe the memories are formed after the person has been dead, but the memories are real from another dimension or universal mind no one really knows .
But the validity of the memories has been shown to be accurate as many people have had no brain or heart activity yet have been able to remember conversations or what people were wearing during death and the details were correct.

Does AI have conciousness , not yet theres no proof of that yet, but i believe once computers can tap into the quantum field they will recieve the universal mind .
Duncan

Con

Your main argument has been that conciousness is still a mystery to us and exhibits dream like symptoms after death, but nowhere have you shown how this points to an afterlife. Even if Conciousness is independent of life, that still doesn't mean any kind of afterlife exists. Your argument has taken odd turns in explanation, and despite your acceptance of the burden of proof, all you've shown is that we still have a lot to learn about the brain. Your reasoning has become irrelevant because of this, and you really should have named this topic "conciousness is independent of life" in that case. In your final line, you suddenly mention the "universal mind", even though you failed to elaborate on it every time you brought it up, only acting as if you'd already listed a source for it. Your points are suited to a different topic and prove nothing in this debate. I would like to thank my opponent for their participation in this debate regardless.

Duncan.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by kawaii_crazy 3 years ago
kawaii_crazy
if i could, id vote for truther1111
Posted by kawaii_crazy 3 years ago
kawaii_crazy
there are two things you should never talk about in a conference, party, the dinner table, etc.:
Religion &
Politics
Well that's unless you want huge fight over the two. I think the same goes for debate.org
Posted by Valar_Morghulis 3 years ago
Valar_Morghulis
This debate reeks of bad voting procedure.
Posted by truther1111 3 years ago
truther1111
The report didnt say that, in fact it claimed that because not all the survivors had low oxygen levels that ndes cannot be due to lack of oxygen
Posted by Biochemistry92 3 years ago
Biochemistry92
This argument regardless of where you take everything as absolutely true evidence still fails to bridge NDE or near death experiences towards an afterlife. No science on earth is close to that sort of thing. Also these studies are bordering pseudoscience, as a Pre-med student i see it as a blatanly false assumption to assume that a patient going into cardiac arrest will suffer from deprevation of oxygen to the brain that "will" (being the keyword here) lead to NDE. This in my mind leads to me setting down the report or clicking back to homepage over that study.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Valar_Morghulis 3 years ago
Valar_Morghulis
truther1111DuncanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: The Con provided the most convincing and concise arguments. Pro went on tangents with little to no organization. Conduct is at tie. Both sides had grammatical errors. Pro used sources.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
truther1111DuncanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: This may look like a votebomb but it is for a good reason. Conduct: Pro's opening argument was a poor attempt at semantics. Arg.: Pro failed to prove that life does, in fact exist after death, thereby not meeting his BOP. Sources: Pro cited a leading expert on "revival for the dead", yeah real credibility there... not. How can you be an expert on a field that doesn't exist?
Vote Placed by Jennifer9 3 years ago
Jennifer9
truther1111DuncanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments didn't seem substantive. His arguments sounded like long-winded assertions. I vote Con.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
truther1111DuncanTied
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: Semantics abuse by pro, and bordering on breaking his R1 rule about religion. ARGUMENT: Let's see pro went into a side talk about his personal experiences with drug use; which has no relavence to this debate. And he outright argues that if all life on earth died, life will continue on another planet; thus imaginary life baring planet has not been named, nor any evidence for it's existence proven. Thus pro is undone by his own case. As con put it, since pro assumed full BoP, he fails this debate since all he did was "shown is that we still have a lot to learn about the brain." SOURCES: I did not see the relevance of any sources provided to the topic.
Vote Placed by johnnyvbassist 3 years ago
johnnyvbassist
truther1111DuncanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:21 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was sneaky and gave a vague debate topic simply to have an easy win. However he flip flopped from his thesis often and gave very little proof. Con did a good job countering the idea but never really made any convincing data, nor used any sources. A terrible debate, simply a poorly executed trap.
Vote Placed by HeartOfGod 3 years ago
HeartOfGod
truther1111DuncanTied
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: Yes, some sort of life would still exist if death occurs somewhere lol Dude to the title of the debate, I have to give the debate to Pro. That's an undeniable argument.