The Instigator
Speakerfrthedead
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Internationalist
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

You are an eternal being

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/12/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 701 times Debate No: 45687
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

Speakerfrthedead

Pro

If you, a physical person is made up of matter and in turn made up of energy. And since energy can neither be created or destroyed, does that mean you can exist forever? - [1]

Or does it mean that You physically can exist forever, but the you right now as a personality exists temporarily?

My vote, you exist eternally.

The way I came to this conclusion is by asking exactly what is time and if every moment we experience exists.

Think of this sequence of events that you observe.

1) An egg sits still.

2) A chick hatches from the egg.

3) The chick grows into a chicken.

4) The chicken becomes obese.

Now you stand there in the farm looking at the over sized chicken and thinking of eating it.

But the question is, what happened to the egg? Well now it is gone, decomposed. But before you saw that the egg was intact with the chicken inside. If you were to go back in time, you would see the egg still intact.

Meaning that experience exists, there is a reality that you experienced where you saw an egg with a chicken inside. But now you see that chicken has grown, so does that mean the reality where the egg was intact just dissappears or ceases to exist? If it doesn't exist now, how could it exist then?

Perhaps by accepting the theory of parallel universes where there are multiple realities. Which means right now, the universe with the chicken inside the egg exists simultaneously as the chicken right now.

Which means that time is just a long stretch of parallel universe that are similar to each other and follow a cause and effect law.

Existence is eternal. You cannot just not exist and claim you 'existed' before because then you never existed.

Aristole argued that existence can never not exist because then it would contradict the definition of existence.

"Everything that comes into existence does so from a substratum. If the underlying matter of the universe came into existence, it would come into existence from a substratum. But the nature of matter is precisely to be the substratum from which other things arise. Consequently, the underlying matter of the universe could have come into evidence only from an already existing matter exactly like itself; to assume that the underlying matter of the universe came into existence would require assuming that an underlying matter already existed. The assumption is thus self-contradictory, and matter must be eternal. - http://en.wikipedia.org...


So we extablished that you as a physical being exists forever. But how does what I have said connect with the You right now as existing eternally. Because the You right now is a unique parallel universe and experience that can never not exist because you already do exist right now.

So this parallel universe you will never cease to exist, it will never die. You may eventually die physically and become dust. But the You right now exists and will exist forever. A person from the future may travel back in time and find you to still be alive and doing something inappropriate. And they can even go back further and see all the other different YOUs that you were.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Definition of existence - the fact or state of living or having objective reality. - https://www.google.co.th...



Rebuttals start immediately in round one.


I look forward to seeing all the future Yous.




Internationalist

Con

I will take the side of con. I will argue I am not an eternal being.
Note: 'Me' and 'I' might be used interchangeably due to grammar but I hope it is clear what I am trying to say.

I will not exist forever and I will give three reasons for this:

1. The matter that makes me is composed in a unique pattern (eg. My DNA and anatomy are slightly different from those who may be similar to me) and this unique pattern is one of two necessary components of the being that is me. When I die and decompose my matter is scattered over a small area and my unique pattern is broken.

2. I as a being constitute more than just the sum of the matter that I am made of. The I that I am is also composed of experiences and other subjective traits that do not exist in a physical sense. This is the second of the two necessary components that it is to be me. During my life and after I die my consciousness will cease to exist and with it as will I as me and my conscious being are nearly synonymous.

3. Eternity, an infinite amount of time, or a timeless state [1]. The most widely accepted theory for the creation of the universe (and therefore matter) is the Big Bang and with that the theory of the Big Crunch for the end of the universe. I will not exist eternally because that, according to these theories, is impossible. As all matter cease to be the moment after the Big Crunch my existence (according to you) should also cease to exist, however you posit the matter I am made from will exist eternally that is that it will survive time itself, this is surely a scientific impossibility.
(This point is more of a technicality with a term I know but I felt obligated to at least point it out)

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Speakerfrthedead

Pro

Thank you Con for making this an exciting debate!


Alright so, Con gives three main reasons as to why he votes that he as a personality and experience will cease to exist in the future. Con also says that matter will cease to exist in the Big Crunch. However I'm not sure if Con really knows the theory of the Big Bang that he mentions.

Anway, here's my rebutal.


1)
The matter that makes me is composed in a unique pattern (eg. My DNA and anatomy are slightly different from those who may be similar to me) and this unique pattern is one of two necessary components of the being that is me. When I die and decompose my matter is scattered over a small area and my unique pattern is broken.


Like I have said before about the chicken observation, you may transform or change over time and patterns may change but the particular universe where you're DNA pattern was still intact, still exists.

One day as I was walking back home I had thoughts flowing through my head and something just clicked.

That which exists will always exist, I realised. Everything that exists, including experiences will always exist. Because what exists, what is here, what is already objective cannot be non-objective or non-existant.

Because how is it possible for something that exists to not exist?


In fact, non-existence by definition deosn't exist.



It is more clear when you ask the question, "does non-existence exist?".


Non-existence is the absence of existence so technically it doesn't exist.

One person replied; "If non-existence did not exist, then everything that could possibly exist would be in existence, which is plainly not the case. " - http://answers.yahoo.com...



But it actually is the case when you look at the many worlds quantum mechanics theory about multiple universes. It says that all possible histories and futures are real. it says there are perhaps an infinite amount of universes that represent all possibilities. - http://en.wikipedia.org...




This means that non-existence does not exist and indeed everthing that could possibly exist already exists. Therefore what exists cannot not exist and will always exist.


And existence cannot come from non-existence, Existence is not subject to time, instead time is an experience inside existence. Think of it this way. If your grandpa died recently and somehow you were able to travel back in time, then you would see him still alive. His DNA pattern still exists. How could this be? If his DNA dissapeared as time went on, then how can his DNA be recreated when you go back in time? The only possible reason is that his DNA pattern exists in a separate parallel universe than the time-traveller's universe. And this DNA pattern will exist in this parallel universe forever.

I realised that this could be a theory for what time actually is. It might be that time as we know it is just a series or collection of parallel universes that when you 'flip' through them, moves like a film. Kinda like a film strip with multiple pictures that when projected make a moving picture.



<a href=http://image.shutterstock.com...; />


Your unique DNA pattern may break in a future parallel universe, but the universe in which it is intact, till exists.


2) I as a being constitute more than just the sum of the matter that I am made of. The I that I am is also composed of experiences and other subjective traits that do not exist in a physical sense. This is the second of the two necessary components that it is to be me. During my life and after I die my consciousness will cease to exist and with it as will I as me and my conscious being are nearly synonymous.

Hmm, there could be an entirely new debate about whether or not your personality, experiences and traits are physical. But I will keep this short.

There are many spiritual theories that I can give but I will keep it logical. Your experiences are physical because your memories that you draw upon are physical and stored in the billions of neurons in your brain. Your language, your favourite memories, personal preferences are all stored as memories that your brain can draw upon. And these memories are physical. These memories being physical will exist in their respected reality alongside with your body and brain as I've mentioned before.

If memories do not make up the you that you are and if you have some non-physical traits that You believe you have, please specify them.

Now about your consciousness being eternal is something I cannot say with certainty. Because if I connect consciousness with my previous arguments then I will be saying that consciousness is physical which can be a debate unto itself.

So let's say you cloned yourself using an advanced machine and this clone has all of your physical properties and not just DNA. So this clone would have the exact same body as you and also the exact same memories. If I were to say that you both have consciousness then I will be saying that you both have identical consciousnesses and that you are the same person living in two seperate bodies.

If you except that consciousness is physical then even if you were to die, there would still be a universe where you're conscious being continues to exist.


3) Eternity, an infinite amount of time, or a timeless state [1]. The most widely accepted theory for the creation of the universe (and therefore matter) is the Big Bang and with that the theory of the Big Crunch for the end of the universe. I will not exist eternally because that, according to these theories, is impossible. As all matter cease to be the moment after the Big Crunch my existence (according to you) should also cease to exist, however you posit the matter I am made from will exist eternally that is that it will survive time itself, this is surely a scientific impossibility.
(This point is more of a technicality with a term I know but I felt obligated to at least point it out)

People have a common misconception about the Big Bang because this theory has been oversimplified. Just because the Universe we live in was created by the 'Big Bang' it doesn't say that time, logic and reality was created, or that it says existence, was born out of the Big Bang. And it also does not say that matter was created by the Big bang either.

The Big Bang


The Big Bang should have been called the 'accelerated expansion' or 'the everywhere stretch' and this is because there is a common misconception that everything in the universe began in a singularity. so this brings the question, what happened before the big bang? Con assumes that matter was created through the Big Bang which is admitingly what I have thought my whole life until l watched a particular video (YouTube is really transformative).

And that particular video is the video shown above. It will also show you how the Universe or multiverse is eternal and might not have a begining at all.




Con says that the Big Crunch or the 'Big Rip' is what will ultimately end all matter in the Universe. But just because one universe eventually tears all it's atoms apart into energy (remember that energy can neither be created nor destroyed) there will still be other universes intact with it's stars and planets in the infinite place of the multiverse.

And it is eternal.

And You are eternal.

And You exist.


<a href=http://www.nature.com...; width="366" height="296" />








Internationalist

Con

Internationalist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Speakerfrthedead

Pro

I do not want to pressure Con so I will wait for his final rebutal in the next round.

In the mean time though, here is a debate/review of the movie, Frozen.

http://www.debate.org...
Internationalist

Con

I'll post this early to make up for my lateness in the previous round.

First I would like to point out that in two of your three points you are under the assumption the multiverse theory is true and your first point leans on the existence of parallel universes.

Your first response particularly relies on this in the use of the many worlds theory. Considerable debate still surrounds this theory and others like it and it would be very difficult to prove. Because of this I don't believe this point to be sufficient enough to your argument.
As a rebuttal to your chicken observation and objective existence of things I'll present a counter example which I'll call the Persian man. This man, born in the Persian Empire in 500bce. A poor man, lived a poor life and died childless. He never did anything noteworthy and so is quickly forgotten by time. His remains lost and decomposed. He may have objectively existed at some point but to every single person alive today this man did not exist and we will never know about him. This is the subjective side of existence, he does not exist to us. The particles that make him up may exist in some form in some places but he, the Persian man does not exist. I apply this to me on the grounds that eventually I too will likely be subjectively non-existent to people.

To your second argument: while my memories and preferences and such may be stored in the physical sense as neurons the whole that they constitute (that which is me) is greater than their collective sum. In other words when these physical parts work together they have an essence in their newfound purpose, that purpose being the average functions of me. But once I die these parts no longer work together. My memories, preferences, ideas, hopes, etc. may exist in some form as neurons but they don't fulfill their purposes as memories, preferences, ideas, hopes, etc. and so they cannot be the same thing they once were. In a similar manner when a car is decommissioned and broken down for scrap we no longer call the scrap a car. It was formerly a car, now just scrap parts.
Towards the other part if this argument, if you could create a copy of me down to the very thought process that behaved like me and made all my choices it would still not be the same person. Unless I am able to experience what they experience simultaneously while I also experience what I experience then they are not the same as I. We would be two independent beings no matter how alike we are.

While I may not be the most well versed on the theory of the Big Bang I am correct in point out that time does begin with it and time will end with whatever is to follow [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. That being said eternity will be impossible for matter in our universe, for even if there are parallel universes the beings that may be my parallel self is still not me as I established in my previous paragraphs. For me to be eternal my essence and my parts would need to survive what will be the end of our universe. If my matter is transformed into energy it would never be said that "this specific collection of energy constitutes what is Internationalist" instead it would be said that "this specific collection of energy constitutes what was formerly Internationalist."
I feel that with this argument I have repeated my previous argument, I apologize for the waning quality of my argument and bid pro good luck.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by MysticMansion 3 years ago
MysticMansion
As a Christian I believe in the existence of the soul. The possession of an immortal soul is what gives human beings both reason and free will. We are immortal but not eternal. Eternal means without beginning or end. We are created without end but with a definite beginning.

When you say energy cannot be created or destroyed that statement should always finish with the footnote, by man.

Read Prime Cause from the Summa Theologica.
Posted by Speakerfrthedead 3 years ago
Speakerfrthedead
It's okay, I thought you left forever. See you in round 3?
Posted by Internationalist 3 years ago
Internationalist
Whoops I lost track of time and thought I still had a day.
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
I agree with the premise. My reasoning is similar, but not exact to Pro's. Looks like this will be an exciting and interesting debate.
Posted by Speakerfrthedead 3 years ago
Speakerfrthedead
But the debate is whether You as the person you define yourself, will exist forever
Posted by Rok 3 years ago
Rok
The atoms that make up our bodies will exist forever, so technically.. yes.
No votes have been placed for this debate.