What if life was just an illusion and a punishment and death was it's liberation?
Debate Rounds (3)
We are not taught that death is bad, but that it is unwelcome. If death was a liberation from punishment, then I fail to understand why humanity is so adverse about death. It is because life is good, and we are to live it and cherish it and share it and produce it. We are the only species in the world that is cognisant of their inevitable death. This is why we have religions, many of which promise some sort of afterlife, save for Eastern religions, which preach reincarnation. Many religions believe in the sanctity of life, and that it must be preserved (for example, all religions teach that killing is wrong). Why would there be so much effort spent on preserving an illusion?
Sure, the world is spiraling down, but that doesn't make it an illusion or a bad dream. If your grades in school sank, you cannot pinch yourself and wake up to good grades. In fact, calling what horrible things are happening in the world grossly underestimate humanity's darkest moments, such as genocide, fascism, slavery, etc. These things happened. Something caused it, and today has been affected by it. There is a consistent chain of cause and effect that goes all the way up to the very first signs of human life; we call this long chain the butterfly effect. If you've ever played Until Dawn, you have experienced the butterfly effect. What happens to us now is the result of hundreds of different factors. You wouldn't be here as you are today without your parents meeting and having intercourse. What happened that resulted in their meeting? What happened that resulted in your grandparents' meeting? It's a long chain of consequences that goes up to the very beginning of human history and beyond. I have to say, this is a very grandiose illusion. Evolution, therefore, does prove our existence. And if evolution proves our existence, then life has to be real and not an illusion. Also, according to Merriam-Webster, the definition of death is as follows:
Full Definition of death
a : a permanent cessation of all vital functions : the end of life " compare brain death
b : an instance of dying
a : the cause or occasion of loss of life
b : a cause of ruin
capitalized : the destroyer of life represented usually as a skeleton with a scythe
: the state of being dead
a : the passing or destruction of something inanimate
b : extinction"
I would like to call your attention to definition 1a: a permanent cessation of all vital functions: an end of life. How can death be real if life isn't? These two concepts are the ones we both know for certain hold true for each of us, no matter our personal experiences. We live and we die. What happens in between is up to us.
Do you know the story behind "Cogito ergo sum?" Rene Descartes had decided that he would doubt anything that couldn't be backed up with absolute fact. In the end, he only learned that the only certainty was his doubtings! My point is, you are doing the same thing with this question. Yes, we don't know anything about life after death. But that puts an afterlife's existence into question, not death. Everyone knows what death is.
Furthermore, if you wish to doubt everything you have learned throughout your life, you must be aware that our knowledge of the world has been built up for thousands of years upon things called axioms. Axioms, according to Merriam-Webster, are:
"Full Definition of axiom
: a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit
: a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : postulate 1
: an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth"
Axioms cannot be proven, but they are accepted based off of their logical reasoning. So yes, if these axioms were indeed inaccurate, then the whole of human understanding would be called into question. Yes, a scary thought indeed. However, using afterlife as an example, no one knows everything. I don't, you don't, no one does. So, we have to assume certain things at first (axioms) in order to continue on building our human knowledge up.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by paintballvet18 1 month 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:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: I award a conduct point to the Con because the debate innately is impossible. The job of the instigator is to actually provide fair ground in the debate, and that is why Con gets 1 point. Arguments: However, the burden of proof in the debate lies in the Pro's camp. And he doesn't actually provide any arguments for his resolution, while Con bases his arguments on generally accepted fact. Con carries conduct and argument points.
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.