The Instigator
Cold-Mind
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
BVSilverTongue
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Soul exists

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 1 vote the winner is...
Cold-Mind
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 6/13/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 556 times Debate No: 56531
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

Cold-Mind

Con

Definition of soul: the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.
Resolution: We have a reason to believe that soul exists, other then to be more convincing when we say it does.
Pro has burden of proof. Pro will make arguments in Round 1.
Voting rules:
- Reliable sources will not be taken into account
- Forfeit results in loss
BVSilverTongue

Pro

If we look at the world as more then just 3 dimensional(4 incl. time) we would then have to find three-dimensional objects with a higher dimensional aspect.
Where could these greater dimensions be found?
The only place that would seem logical is within.
I will use our minds as an example.
We can move our consciousness from this reality to our own. never truly being in both with complete focus.
We can alter time and space there. It can be considered a 4-d universe of our own we fill with information we gain in life.
It is believed the mind is a result of the brain.
Can the result continue to exist even though what created it has perished?
we are simply a cloud of electrons, if such electrons can not be truly destroyed can this additional aspect of ourselves truly be destroyed? or does it become self sustained and free from its 3 dimensional form?

The soul is a logical possibility, it is a rational expectation.
to prove it could exist is possible, to prove it does exist is irrelevant.
Debate Round No. 1
Cold-Mind

Con

R1) We can't look at the world as more then 4 dimensional(incl. time). We can only look at the world as 4 dimensional(incl. time).
R2) World with more then 4 dimensions(incl. time) is inconceivable.
Q1) What is dimensional aspect and how is it measured?
Q2) Within what?
R3) Consciousness:
1. the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings.
2. a person's awareness or perception of something.
https://www.google.me...
Neither state, or awareness or perception can move.
R4) Mind is not result of the brain, it is function of the brain; One of the things brain does.
R5) Matter is indestructible, it can only change its form. As far as we know, atoms that once were part of human body are no different then atoms that never were.
BVSilverTongue

Pro

Where is the minds place in a 4 dimensional(incl. time) world?
In our minds we can manipulate time and 3-D space, yet the 4-dimensions found outside our mind are not altered making them independent.
we can conceive more then 4 Dimensions.
When one daydreams they are not conscious of their surroundings, only of the alternative world of their mind.
you can then say there are therefore 8 dimensions, 2 independent groups of 4 dimensions. the outer 4-dimensions and inner 4 dimensions with the connection being the brain.
if consciousness were sand and these 2 groups of dimensions were opposite sides of an hour glass. we can roughly illustrate how consciousness can travel back and forth between the inner and outer dimensions.
If the 2 dimensional groups (inner&outer)can not interact without brain, even with the destruction of the brain how can mind completely be destroyed?
only one side of the hourglass is destroyed(outer), not both, making the other half(intact inner half) immortal.
Debate Round No. 2
Cold-Mind

Con

A1) Since I said Mind is a function of the brain, my opponent's question "where is the mind's place" is illogical.
R6) No, we can't "manipulate time and 3-D space", we can imagine world with less dimensions, and we can imagine we are doing something in these dimensions. But, we can't imagine new dimensions. We can only think about 4 dimensions that do exist.
R7) Mind does not have "alternative world". Daydreaming is only brain processing information.
About brain-mind relation: http://youtu.be...
R8) If brain is destroyed, there is no more mind either. Of course past will not alter, all thoughts that were, will remain in the past. But after brain is destroyed, there will be no more new thoughts.

Conclusion: My opponent failed to name a reason for us to believe that soul exists. Vote Con.
BVSilverTongue

Pro

if I imagine a truck driving around, Is there therefore a truck driving around on or beneath the surface of my brain?
The mind does not exist in this 4-D world.
We can run through vivid visualized scenarios in our mind with full control over the objects and time in our minds.
A blind man can still imagine shapes without a visual representation gained through sight.
We may contribute to our minds through sensory organs, but even if we had less our minds would not be less.(Helen Keller)
Mind does not have an alternate world... Mind IS an alternative 4-d world where we manipulate time and space.
The brain being destroyed does not merit the destruction of the mind.
The brain is simply the connection between the 2 groups of 4 dimensions. Destroying the brain is only destroying the connection.
Since the brain is the only connection, the mind becomes intangible therefore Immortal.
Regardless of if you can continue to think or it is partial, it is still there, it is immaterial, it is immortal
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Cold-Mind 2 years ago
Cold-Mind
Bro, you have 3 rounds and you only need to succeed in defending 1 reason. There is more than enough characters to make points. I don't want to waste time reading irrelevant content. I believe you or whoever accepts will figure out how to fit into this reasonable limit.
Posted by Toviyah 2 years ago
Toviyah
Thanks. Another thing before I accept; I think I'll need more than 1000 characters for the argument itself.
Posted by Cold-Mind 2 years ago
Cold-Mind
On 7 point voting system, there is an item "Who used the most reliable sources?". I am saying that particular item will not be taken into account. So, other 3 items of 7 point system will decide a winner.
Of course you can source what you said, it is just you don't get points for it.
Posted by Toviyah 2 years ago
Toviyah
I'll accept, but I want to know what you mean by "Reliable sources will not be taken into account"
Posted by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
ChosenWolff
A philosophy debate? Good luck! Your opponent will have every reputable philosopher giving credibility to his/her arguments. That would be my strategy at least.
Posted by Samreay 2 years ago
Samreay
Yeah, that makes sense if the focus is to be philosophical arguments. I just thought I should given if that was the case I would have phrased it "Sources shall not be taken into account". To prefix reliable seems to imply that unreliable sources may be taken into account, which does indeed seem odd.
Posted by revic 2 years ago
revic
I don't think so, Sam. This is a philosophy debate so reason will be more important than sources..
Posted by Samreay 2 years ago
Samreay
"- Reliable sources will not be taken into account"

I'm guessing you mean "Unreliable sources", yeah?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by revic 2 years ago
revic
Cold-MindBVSilverTongue
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Con showed a reasoning that was to the point, while pro didn't really define what he was arguing for... Pro chose to talk about assumptions of a fourth dimension, however he did not dig into it enough to really convince us of anything. He said himself it was just a probability, while Con has proven that mind is not located in any other dimension therefore if mind would be the soul, then Pro's entire idea falls apart. Instead, pro chose to argue in favor of "mind=soul". That's why con wins.