The Instigator
Lemonaids
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Df0512
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Underlying Objectivity and the Theory of an Indeterminable Existence

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/28/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 296 times Debate No: 64131
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Lemonaids

Con

I believe the question searches for an objective answer, supported by something of concrete or absolute value. In this case I would like to infer that there is certainly no right or wrong. 'We' may not dictate what labels something as correct or erroneous, considering our judgement is based off of ideally accepted behaviors and paradigms accumulated over 'our' history in its entirety. This would be excluding the expanse of existence, forming an unrepresentative consensus. Such judgements and dictations of right and wrong do not fit well when we look at the idea of existence as a whole. There is nothing to base right and wrong off of, considering the existential value of things are indeterminable, or are undefined, since everything lacks a basis to make assessments from. This may be supported and/or easier to understand if one takes into account the idea that existence is pointless, or in other words, does not actually exist. We have yet to find out what the conscious mind is (or in other words who we are), and how our 'consciousness' coincides within us. Without this, we are technically nonexistent, considering the only judgements we are able to derive are from a 'consciousness' that processes our values and decision making. Something we do not know of, represents us in everything we do. The fact that we are unable to infer who 'we' are, and whether or not 'we' really exist concludes that we don't actually have the available information to answer such an uncertainty.
Df0512

Pro

I believe the existence is both indeterminable and objective. Existence is defined as the state or fact of existing or being. This means living in an objective reality based on appearance and experience.
My argument is that existence is circumstantial and therefore has no inherited meaning. An inherited meaning of existence would imply a creator, or god, and a partial one to boot. The existence of God or a creator has simply not been proven. This burden of proof lies on the opponent and all those making such claims. Operating in the realm of indifference does not become knowledge. Results or truth can only be achieved through absolutes. "I do not know" is not an acceptable answer. Therefore I state that we do know what we are and what existence is. Arguing the possibilities of what existence is does not already take away from what we know it to be. Existence is the objective experience of our shared reality. Debating the possibilities of what "we" could be will not change what we have already established ourselves to be. We are homo sapiens, we are mammalian, we are humans. The universe has so far only provided us with the overwhelming evidence that an insurmountable amount of odds, not really, was beat in order for us to be here.
Debate Round No. 1
Lemonaids

Con

Lemonaids forfeited this round.
Df0512

Pro

Df0512 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Lemonaids

Con

Lemonaids forfeited this round.
Df0512

Pro

Df0512 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.