The Instigator
Scy
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MikeNH
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Man will never know reality unless he's dead.

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...
MikeNH
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/27/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 704 times Debate No: 41357
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Scy

Pro

Reality is behind death's door.

This is my own perception of the world and I would be happy to debate and defend it against someone.

Anyone is welcome to challenge just make sure you stick until the end.
MikeNH

Con

Knowledge, using any of it's colloquial definitions, requires some form of active consciousness:
  • a familiarity with someone or something, which can include facts, information, descriptions, or skills acquired through experience or education. (1)
  • awareness of something : the state of being aware of something (1)
  • justified true belief (2)

As far as we know, knowledge involves consciousness, and death, more specifically brain death, entails that the 'mind fails to survive brain death and ceases to exist'. (3) In other words, when you die, your mind no longer exists to do any experiencing, believing, reasoning, or to have any awareness, and thus has no capability of obtaining knowledge in any sense I'm familiar with. It seems as though being alive with a functioning brain seems to be a necessary condition for having knowledge, which means that having knowledge after one is dead seems rather nonsensical.

In order to demonstrate that any human could 'know reality after they died', as you claim, you would have to demonstrate that any function of the mind could exist after death. The burden of proof falls upon you to demonstrate that a mind could do anything at all after death, before you can even begin to argue that knowledge is somehow only attainable post mortem.

(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org...(science)
Debate Round No. 1
Scy

Pro

First of all, thank you for accepting my challenge and let's have a fun debate.

Now I shall begin my arguments.

About what you said about "knowledge involves consciousness", I absolutely agree that knowing stuff needs consciousness. But in this line, "more specifically brain death, entails that the 'mind fails to survive brain death and ceases to exist'.", I don't quite agree on because it's only the brain that died, not automatically the mind. It is possible that a SOUL in the form of mind exists and it is the one giving function to the brain. Consciousness after death is something humans cannot observe but it doesn't mean that consciousness after death is impossible since you can't prove anything. It might be that if a person dies, that is the point when the body and the soul separates and IF that's true, then the person is still conscious even after death and has a shot to know what reality is.

I know that my philosophy about reality is really questionable simply because it's supposed to be that way since I believe that reality comes after death but what I'm trying to prove is the viability of my theory and also that man can never know reality as long as he is still breathing in this world and he can only have a chance to know if he's dead.

The philosophies of Rene Descartes, Jean Paul Sartre and St. Thomas Aquinas are the bases of my argument.

Thank you and I look forward to your next argument.
MikeNH

Con

"I don't quite agree on because it's only the brain that died, not automatically the mind. It is possible that a SOUL in the form of mind exists and it is the one giving function to the brain."

I won't say that it's impossible, but in order to demonstrate even a basic plausibility you're going to need to provide some sort of evidence supporting this idea.



"Consciousness after death is something humans cannot observe but it doesn't mean that consciousness after death is impossible since you can't prove anything. It might be that if a person dies, that is the point when the body and the soul separates and IF that's true, then the person is still conscious even after death and has a shot to know what reality is."

In my opinion, we have no business making assertions about things we have no evidence for. IF something such as a soul existed you'd need to demonstrate this concept is even remotely possible in order to make a next step. If it is something that we couldn't ever observe or have evidence for, we shouldn't hold it as true and use it as a premise in other discourse.



"I know that my philosophy about reality is really questionable simply because it's supposed to be that way since I believe that reality comes after death but what I'm trying to prove is the viability of my theory and also that man can never know reality as long as he is still breathing in this world and he can only have a chance to know if he's dead."

I agree about the questionability of this theory - you are basing your contention exclusively on undemonstrated and perhaps indemonstrable premises. You haven't provided any evidence for me to review, all you've done is make assertions that, honestly, don't make much sense to me. There isn't much for me to rebut, so all I can say is provide me with some evidence and I'd be happy to respond to it, otherwise you have to admit you are believing such a claim based on false/spurious premises.
Debate Round No. 2
Scy

Pro

"There isn't much for me to rebut, so all I can say is provide me with some evidence and I'd be happy to respond to it, otherwise you have to admit you are believing such a claim based on false/spurious premises."

I have evidences and I stated them in my last argument. I said "The philosophies of Rene Descartes, Jean Paul Sartre and St. Thomas Aquinas are the bases of my argument.". I got it from books about philosophy of man. Books about philosophy of man contains various philosophers and handpicked three of them. If you want to see my evidence you could either find a philosophy of man book, since it is most likely to contain the ideas of the famous philosophers or research the philosophies of the three philosophers I mentioned.

Just because I did not show you websites or links it doesn't mean I have no evidence. I based my idea of soul from how Rene Descartes and Thomas Aquinas defined man. I can't show you links because I think some sites are inaccurate and unreliable because the internet is editable. Wikipedia, is an example of an unreliable since it's just a bunch of people who post there about a lot of things and you can't know which of those people are the real professionals because some might just be people who are trolling or people twisting some truths just to prove something. That's why I believe that a book is much MORE accurate since books (scientific and professional) are written by professionals and are checked by editors and publishers word by word but anyone can just post anything in the internet.

Sources:
The Human Person by Eddie Babor
Philosophy of Man by Corazon L. Cruz
Philosophy of Man: Selected Reading by Manuel Dy Jr.
http://www.bbc.co.uk... .. here is a proof of how inaccurate the internet is. This is real evidence since it is shown in TV and has been researched before showing in public.
MikeNH

Con

"I have evidences and I stated them in my last argument. I said "The philosophies of Rene Descartes, Jean Paul Sartre and St. Thomas Aquinas are the bases of my argument.". I got it from books about philosophy of man. Books about philosophy of man contains various philosophers and handpicked three of them. If you want to see my evidence you could either find a philosophy of man book, since it is most likely to contain the ideas of the famous philosophers or research the philosophies of the three philosophers I mentioned."

How could I even begin to discuss this? What you provided was a list of three philosophers and then called it evidence, this isn't exactly a very rigorous, detailed, or even clear argument. What you could have actually done is taken their arguments, claims, evidences, etc., and perhaps quoted them here so I could reference them and we could discuss them on their merits. Instead, you've given me what is essentially an open ended wild-goose chase wherein I would have to read dozens of works without knowing what exactly is relevant and what specifically supports your argument. This isn't a very honest way to go about debating.

I think it's quite clear that pro has completely failed to make any sort of clear case that I could even begin to argue against. I asked him to present evidence that demonstrated his (often unstated) premises, and instead all I got was three names and the titles to a few books. He started with the claim that "Reality is behind death's door" and then you make some vague assertions about maybe there is a soul and maybe its possible that the mind survives brain death, but you have provided no actual claims or arguments, and not one single piece of supporting evidence to substantiate some of the vague claims you did make.

All I can say in response is you have not demonstrated your case clearly, and have not demonstrated that it has any merit at all, and therefore you have failed to meet your burden of proof.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by imsmarterthanyou98 3 years ago
imsmarterthanyou98
ScyMikeNHTied
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: Con had much more convincing arugments than Pro used logic