My opponent exists.
Debate Rounds (3)
You-Whoever accepts this debate
My opponent-Whoever accepts this debate
Exist-To have life; live:
I would like to point out that knowing and not knowing are two very different things. I simply have to prove that some evidence shows that I exist. Since my opponent can give no evidence that I do not exist, any evidence I can give that I might exist will negate his resolution. I must stress that my opponent has to completely negate all evidence that I give.
I assume through the "I think therefore I am" line of reasoning my opponent believes he exists. Is it not such a leap to say that other beings like my opponent would also exist?
There must be a other or others otherwise I would not exist or the world around me would not be what it is. If there is an other who has powers over me who is to say that there are not others in the same situation as myself?
For the purpose of debate let us assume that we have met and that I have physically touched you and spoken to you.
Your senses say that I exist. Have you reason to fault your senses? You have some evidence that I exist right in front of you. You can touch, smell, hear see and although it would probably be unsavoury, taste me. Can you give proof evidence that your senses are incorrect? You may be able to reason that it is possible I may not exist but you have no proof that I do not, rather you have evidence through your senses that I exist.
William of Ockham made the observation that the simplest solution is the most probable. To quote the words of Albert Einstein "Of several acceptable explanations for a phenomenon, the simplest is preferable." I put it to you Octavian that my existence is the simplest explanation of the sensory evidence your brain receives upon seeing, hearing, smelling or touching me.
I ask you Octavian, can you prove that I do not exist? Do you have any evidence that I do not? Basically you have no way of proving that I do not exist. Whereas sensory evidence suggests that I do exist.
To say I don't exist would be to say that your mother and father do not exist. But do you really believe this?
I remind people viewing this debate that I have only to provide any form of evidence, no matter how small, that I exist in order to win this debate. Octavian must refute every point I have made with proof that I am 100% incorrect to uphold his resolution that I cannot provide any evidence that I exist.
To simplify, my opponent has no proof that I do not exist, however, there is sensory evidence that I do exist. I realise that sensory evidence by itself is not 100% proof that I exist, however, it is more proof than my opponent can give that I do not exist.
I await my opponents response.
Now, the burden of proof does rest upon my opponent. For I cannot know if he exists if I have never experienced him with any of my senses, and one should require empirical proof to know if something exists. It is entirely a possibility that my opponent exists, just as it is possible for Flying Unicorns and the Monster in My Closet.
As for the statement, "I think, therefore I am," this holds no real significance now, as there are computers and computer programs that are close to being sentient and can think and reason. (Based off of this definition of think: use or exercise the mind or one's power of reason in order to make inferences, decisions, or arrive at a solution or judgments. Source: http://www.google.com...)
Now, that I have never experienced my opponent empirically, that the argument about thinking constitutes being is entirely false, this makes it very likely that his existence is false. Even if I had met him in person and he was not a computer or a figment of my imagination I could not know or he could not prove to me that he exists unless technology was developed that I could go inside his/her mind.
I cannot prove to a point beyond any doubt or chance that my opponent does not exist, however since no real proof has been presented for his existence. In conclusion, based off mine viewpoint of never hearing, seeing, feeling, hearing, or tasting (that would be weird) my opponent, or his being able to prove he is a living sentient being, there is in the 90% chance range that my opponent doesn't exist.
I accepted this debate under the false pretence that we were acting under the assumption that I could use all empirical evidence possible to show that I exist. You have not made any point in your first round limiting the debate to a hypothetic situation where I can only have contact with you over debate.org. It is therefore possible for me to prove to you that I exist through the empirical evidence that could be provided if I travelled to wherever you are and touched and talked to you ect. I find that you have sprung this on me rather unfair; however, although I have already made points that have in my view, won this debate, I will continue to attack your arguments.
Even if you had limited this debate to me not being able to use most empirical evidence you already conceded when you said "In conclusion, based off mine viewpoint of never hearing, seeing, feeling, hearing, or tasting (that would be weird) my opponent, or his being able to prove he is a living sentient being, there is in the 90% chance range that my opponent doesn't exist." Remember that I only have to provide any evidence at all that I exist. My opponent has basically stated that I have given a small amount of evidence that I exist. I'd also like to point out that your statement that there is a 90% chance I don't exist is not founded in statistics and completely incorrect. If I had to estimate I would say there is about a 60% chance that I do exist from your point of view as without any proof for either side there would be a 50% chance i do exist and a 50% chance i dont exist.
My opponent also stated "I cannot prove to a point beyond any doubt or chance that my opponent does not exist". Octavian has just conceded the fact that he has no proof at all that I do not exist.
As for Octavian's statement that I could be a computer. I researched this statement and found that this was impossible with the current level of technology. I would also like to add that I seriously doubt a computer programme made to debate exists as it would lack the ability to think for itself. Hans Moravec from the Robotics Institute of Carnegie Melon University said "Computers have far to go to match human strengths" http://www.transhumanist.com.... So as we see the human brain is still far superior then any computer and it is ludicrous that I am simply a computer.
A computer is only programmed to perform whereas the human brain can think for itself and react accordingly. computers also have no sense of self, no ego, no emotion and will not stray from the task they have been given to perform. I on the other hand can show all of these things. I am amazing and I am happy that I am winning this debate. XD
The simple fact is that my opponent has provided no evidence for his existence, with the burden of proof belonging to him. Just as well, it is not a 50/50 chance when no proof has been provided, just as it is not a 50/50 chance that unicorns exist. Vote con.
thethickgreyline forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 7 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.