The Instigator
mega-antitheist
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
jwesbruce
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

The soul is not a real thing

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 4 votes the winner is...
jwesbruce
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/29/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,944 times Debate No: 24501
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

mega-antitheist

Pro

I am on the side of disbelief in a soul. In this debate I would prefer only philosophical or if at all possible scientific arguments no emotional arguments. I would also like to establish the soul as an actual being as it is described in many ancient texts that may or may noy live on after life that controls perlinality and is basically us just traped inside a fleshy body. This cannot be an idea. I would like to prematurley thank my opponent and I hope for a v ery compelling argument reliant on logic.
jwesbruce

Con

By the reading of the resolution this clearly is a "fact" debate.

I look forward to this topic and am very intrigued where Pro will take this.

A couple of things worth mentioning:

BOP is on Pro.

Definition of soul, "The spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal."

http://www.google.com...

Considering the soul as being "traped inside a fleshy body" is rather childish. Most like the childish heaven, "if it exists, exists in the clouds above." If the immaterial exists it is all and consumes all and the limitations of the material and biological become obscure. If the immaterial exists it exists in a fashion thats rather impossible to comprehend while bound in the material world. So knowing that it's "traped" in our bodies is rather ambitious.

This is a debate that often people taken for granted. We're debating something very abstract and something that carries alot of magnitude on the overall picture of the universe.

By the abstract nature of this topic it becomes arduous to interject a logic and scientific argument, excluding Christain arguments like the Transcendental and Cosmos. By the definition of soul it seperates itself from the poducts of science, as it is immaterial. By the definition of soul it seperates itself from formal logical arguments, as it is a product of the heavens, and humans being materially constricted could only know the answer definitively if he or she is in the heavens.

When I die, I go to heaven, so then I definitively know there is soul.

When I die, blackness consumes, then I know nothing because I am dead. But looking at it third person, I know definitively there is no soul.

If soul exists, if it truly exists, then reality becomes much more complex and rich. But to put claim it is such or is it not such definitively, is greatly premature. As this great question in life is only answered absolute in death, it becomes foolhardy to absolutely claim "the soul is not a real thing."

With that preamble,

I await my opponents arguments that there is no such soul-enriched reality, and it is definitively only as blunt as we see it.

An amitious claim, indeed, so like I said I am greatly intrigued how my opponent solves this by the calling of the resolution.
Debate Round No. 1
mega-antitheist

Pro

First off I would like to thank my contendor for accepting my topic, But I have to disagree with your statement that the burden of proof lies on me it is shared between us because you say it exists I say I don't beleive you that means you have the bop, but when I say that it doesn't exist we both have a positive statement therefore we share the bop. Now when you say that it is impossible to have a scientific argument is why I also included philosophical arguments.
Now onto my arguments since I cannot disprove something like this because I don't beleive it, I will have to resort to poking holes in the theory. So when someone has multipule personality disorder do they have multiple souls?
When you say that the only way that you can know that a soul exists is when you are dead then why beleive, there are no other feilds that, that logic would be accepted.
Right now we have a good understanding of the brain and almost all emotions can be explained with chemical reactions and darwinism leaving little room for the idea of a soul.
Since we cannot measure a soul it is impossible to know that it exists and to beleive it until it is proven wrong means that you have to beleive everything, disbeleif is the default position.
jwesbruce

Con

Thank you for your timely response and I apologize for my untimely, clutch delivery. Now lets begin,

BURDEN OF PROOF

Without articulating it "on the nose", my entire first round introduction serves as justification for why it rests solely on Pro. You believe a definitive answer can be made. This is apparent because you clearly agree with the resolution. The resolution is a definitive statement.

I, on the other hand, am Con in the respect that I believe a definitive statement cannot be made on such a topic. Thus the burden of proof on me pales in comparison to what is on you.

This is my actual belief, not my "debate-relative belief." Some of you may know the fine line. Logic and science do not coincide with a soul. Philosophy quarrels never reach a definitive answer, just visit any philosophy convention. So to reach a definitive answer on this topic is impossible.

However, I also do not like to disappoint by taking an evasive, easy route. I know you want a clash, as this is debate. So even though I could just hammer this point all day long and win, I will give you clash.

A DEBATE WITHOUT FOUNDATION

I'd like point out the magnitude of my opponent's arguments. There is none. With so many blips and such lack of warrants, his arguments from Round 2 should be given very minor weight.

Mega-antitheist ponders, "when someone has multiple personality disorder do they have multiple souls?"

First, from what source do you surmise that the soul is connected to the personality. Personality and the actions of person hood are the products of the id, ego, and superego, as it is popularly theorized. http://psychology.about.com.... When someone has a disorder that is the result of a chemical imbalance or reaction to something traumatic in past. I know your trying to defile the sentiment of soul by pointing out something "absurd", but this is trying too hard in the wrong place.

This is the problem I'm getting at with debating this topic. The definition of soul is difficult to even place. Carl Jung believed through his studies that the soul is more collective than people traditionally thought. The Tao te Ching highlighted the vagueness of the immaterial by calling it that "beyond the ten thousand things", "The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and Earth", and "
Oh, unfathomable source of ten thousand things!"http://terebess.hu.... When Buddha was asked about heaven and the afterlife, he famously pulled a leaf from the tree and said I only know but one thing from all these leaves and that is how to get away from suffering.

Basically what I'm showing here is mega-antitheist's excessive ambition in his metaphysical assumptions. He or she is taking the unfathomable, in it's immaterial essence, for granted by assuming it's nature. Then based off that assumption he pokes holes in it, without admitting that his poking is predicated off of his convenient assumptions.

SECOND

Mega-antitheist asserts, "When you say that the only way that you can know that a soul exists is when you are dead then why believe, there are no other fields that, that logic would be accepted."

The answer to this is very simple. My upbringing caused me to become a person of faith by default: due to my environment. My environment fed me the belief. Anyone, though, is capable of spitting out bad food. My personal experience, through practice of this faith, propagated the belief and has slowly throughout the course of my years aggrandized the belief to be the foundation of my life. And that's what faith and spirituality come down to--personal experience. But such a term is and ought to be deemed invalid in the debate world, so in the debate-sense there is no fully satisfactory answer to be given. In the real-world, though, this is the obvious answer.

THIRD

Mega-antitheist's update, "Right now we have a good understanding of the brain and almost all emotions can be explained with chemical reactions"

Agreed. Science has been making good strides.

Any specific point ?

Again, your making an assumption that soul is somehow connected to emotions. Then based off that assumption you refute.

When Buddha left the forest, supposedly connecting to his soul after seven years of constant meditation, felt no connection to his father anymore. He felt no connection to his wife, whom he so loved. He felt no connection to his son. His humanly sentiment seemingly vanished. The basic emotions that plague our everyday temporal state of mind seemed not to apply to him.

I tell this story only to show that accounts of the soul, factual or not, show the opposite that Mega-antitheist is trying to demonstrate. http://www.walmart.com...

*In the introduction of the book, Eknath tells the story.*

FOURTH


Mega-antitheist attempts another connection without making the connection,"Darwinism leaving little room for the idea of a soul."

Once again we read a blip and nothing more. How exactly does Darwinism leave no room for the soul? Were we expecting to find it on the left side of the lung for apes and then on right side for humans?

Once again I'm left with a connect-less argument. But like a I said earlier I do not like to disappoint, as I know my opponent wants a clash. So I'll make the connection for him.

If God then soul. If evolution then no God. If no God then no soul.

Evolution means the biological world went through a change. Change does not discount God. The solar system went through an evolutionary process, the result was earth. This, though, is not highlighted as discounting God. But, when we discover that humans maybe had to go through a similar process, suddenly God does not exist. Everything we observe in the natural world works through the natural order of the laws of nature. The laws of nature is a mechanism. God is an agent. They are two different types of enforcement. This is similar to saying because my car drives, I do not exist. My car is the mechanism of movement but it requires the ignition which requires another level of enforcement--me.

The two do not clash any sort of manner. They operate on two different levels.

FIFTH

Mega-antitheist repeats himself, "Since we cannot measure a soul it is impossible to know that it exists and to believe it until it is proven wrong means that you have to believe everything, disbelief is the default position."

Once again personal experience is the sensible, obvious answer to this. My experience, of course, true and valid to me, warrants my faith.

Now

This is an important word to note--faith.

It is not definitive. It is not absolute. It is faith.

I am not saying anywhere in this debate that the soul is definitively certain.

I am upholding that it cannot be said that it definitively does not exist.

Mega-antitheist upholds the absolute statement of the resolution, as such the burden of proof rests squarely on his shoulders.

I believe I have adequately addressed his concerns, contentions, and blips to the point where his burden is still far being definitively satisfied.
Debate Round No. 2
mega-antitheist

Pro

This whole argument is useless unless you accept that you carry at least some of the burden of proof. You say a soul is real I say it isn't prove it to me you refuse to do that and say that I have to disprove you're beleif therefore saying that beleif is the default position. You need to prove to me that a soul is real do some philosophy show me ehy you believe? And since you dont think that a soul has personality (unlike many other people) and simply believe that it is responsible for immortality then you can't measure it in this life do why believe it because your scared of the consequences if you don't for no real reason other than that.
jwesbruce

Con

You have conceded my rebuttals, as you have no response. And because you can't bring up new items of topic in the final round they have gone dropped.

So even though I told my opponent in Round 2 that I could just talk about BOP all day I won't because that's lame, he has decided to make this about BOP. So lets do so


BURDEN OF PROOF


Mega-antitheist is not understanding what I have been saying this whole entire, so I will explain this in a very detailed manner.

In round 1 I said, "This is clearly a fact debate"

I said this because there is a "is" in the resolution.

"Is" makes a definitive claim because there is no question of validity when something "is" something else. Contrasted to, say, when something "is more probable," which creates a resolution not of certainity but of probability.

But this resolution,

"The soul is not a real thing"

is claiming the soul definitively does not exist.

Therein to prove such resolution one must show how this claim is definitive.

^^^^^That is the burden of Pro^^^^^

So how am I interacting with the resolution?

I am Con, as in against the resolution.

My position is that the resolution is wrong
because it is making a definitive, certain claim on the abtract, immaterial topic of soul which cannot be made until death.

In Round 1 and Round 2 I gave reasons as to why this is.

I have faith souls exist, but I do not know for sure. And I will never claim such.

My opponent says, "You say a soul is real."

Wrong, I said, " This is an important word to note--faith.

It is not definitive. It is not absolute. It is faith.

I am not saying anywhere in this debate that the soul is definitively certain.

I am upholding that it cannot be said that it definitively does not exist. "




SO TO OTHER THINGS MENTIONED


Mega-antitheist claims, "You need to prove to me that a soul is real."

No I don't for the above reason. I'm not taking that approach. I'm saying it's impossible to say that there certainly is not a soul until your dead. Your reading this thus your not dead. Therein you can't know certainly. So inevitably the resolution is impossible for you in your lively form to uphold.


Mega-antitheist runs on with a sentence so let me disect, "And since you dont think that a soul has personality (unlike many other people) [THANK YOU FOR MENTIONING THESE MANY PEOPLE BECAUSE THAT GIVES ME ALOT TO OFFER A REBUTTAL TO] and simply believe that it is responsible for immortality [NOW YOUR STEPPING INTO THE REALM OF THEOLOGY AND METAPHYSICS, WHICH I'M GUESSING IS OUTSIDE OF YOUR LEAGUE SINCE YOUR MEGA ANTI. BUT LETS SAY IT WAS, I'VE NEVER HEARD THE TWO WORDS 'SIMPLY' AND 'IMMORTALITY' IN THE SAME SENTENCE BEFORE. BUT IT ALSO ANSWERS FOR 'SALVATION', 'GRACE', 'FREEDOM', AND 'JUSTICE.'] then you can't measure it in this life do why believe it because your scared of the consequences [FLIP IT!! YOUR SCARED THAT YOU'D HAVE TO ANSWER TO A MAKER AND YOUR NOT THE ULTIMATE GOD OF YOUR OWN LIFE...there's no validility to such statements. Everyone looks for their own truth for distinguishable reasons.] if you don't for no real reason other than that."


Debate Round No. 3
mega-antitheist

Pro

This debate is useless so my opponent can have a free win. :)
jwesbruce

Con

I'm glad my opponent agrees.

The reason I took Con on this debate is to show such a resolution is impossible to detemine.

Pro has failed to determine the resolution is true, and he conceded my BOP analysis in Round 3.

I have shown, as Con, that this resolution in it's definitive claim cannot be determine therefore fails to uphold in it's certainty.



Thank you for Reading!


Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by jwesbruce 5 years ago
jwesbruce
Wo, I wasn't offending you. Bop was not on me bc I was not saying the soul existed. I was saying you can't know certain the opposite, however probable. I was taking the agnostic stance. And dude please you can't even write a grammatically correct sentence, why would I read your stuff.
Posted by mega-antitheist 5 years ago
mega-antitheist
I think that you mid understood me I still do not accept your opinion but it was useless debating somebody as ignorant as you when you won't even accept that bop is on you I will be back though when I expand on my philosophical arguments but not with you you can read it.
Posted by jwesbruce 5 years ago
jwesbruce
I don't think I was clear enough, still.

*sigh*

Whatever.
Posted by mega-antitheist 5 years ago
mega-antitheist
That's not the definition I was using.
Posted by Splashstorm 5 years ago
Splashstorm
The definition of a soul in the Bible is body + breath. So unless you don't believe that people are alive, you definitely do believe in a soul. ;)
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by SuburbiaSurvivor 5 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
mega-antitheistjwesbruceTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: FF, bad spelling, Con gave better arguments that he developed better.
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 5 years ago
InVinoVeritas
mega-antitheistjwesbruceTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro should have made the debate name an affirmative statement to avoid confusion, but the BoP was completely on Con. Arguments and conduct go to Pro for Con's distorted BoP accusations, and S/G obviously go to Con.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Ron-Paul
mega-antitheistjwesbruceTied
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: Wtf waterskier? To quote pro: "This debate is useless so my opponent can have a free win. :)" :Learn to read.
Vote Placed by waterskier 5 years ago
waterskier
mega-antitheistjwesbruceTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: conduct goes to pro, if you don't understand who the bop is on yet, I don't think you ever will. But pro is also wrong on that. 100 of the bop goes on con. Spelling to con. Honestly if I were in the middle, neither one of you would have persuaded me. But I guess pro did a little bit better. Neither one had any sources, so that's a tie