You do not exist.
Hey first round acceptance.
Second round opening arguments.
Thrid round rebuttals.
last round crystalize points and closeing arguments.
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
The case for Solipsism.(And against your physical existence.)
Firstly anyone who the solipsist position must have entire epistemic certainty.
Solipsism Is take a keyboard or a penny and ask Could that perhaps just be an illusion and not really exist ?.
Yes physical senses can and are deceptive whether delusional and hallucinating for example seeing what ones mind projects it cannot possibly be denied that one's senses have a possibility of being wrong.
The solipsist admits this and adjusts his metaphysical outlook accordingly.
One can never know with certainty that anything outside of one's conscious self certainly exists and thus one would not be justified in believing so.
These are my points.
We can therefore conclude that if my premises are sound you really do not physically exist.
It is possible that physical senses are not registering correctly what one is looking at and thus one can possibly have unjustified belief.
If one's logical reasoning is correct, it is not possible to hold unjustified belief. The rationalistic method of acquiring knowledge is clearly more justified.
Your first point states that you must be completely certain of something to believe it. I'd like to ask you where in your life have you ever been completely certain? Science isn't 100% certain, and neither are your own senses. The Sam Harris books you've so obviously gotten these arguments from must be real to you, or why would you believe in them? Why take something that may not be real and base yourself on it? Can you look at your hands and say they are real? Your eyes very well could be deceiving you too, I assume you know about the holographic principle. It states that the world may be in 2D, but you cannot look around and see in such a way. So, I end this with nothing is certain, but some things are more probable than others. (Such as my existence.)
My own point:
Most of your arguement is about how the world can be doubted, and I found this.
"It doesn't matter whether you exist in some matrix world or not. The "realness" of the universe is not in question. The statement "I exist" is absolutely true, because to argue it, you must first assume it is true. (You cannot argue it if you don't exist.) I suggest you think about it some more.
If I do not exist, how do non-existent beings interact? From the mere moment I started thinking, I existed as much as you. It would be rather odd to talk to someone who didn't exist. If I were to punch you, would you duck? By doing so you would admit I am real.
This is a very contradicted point that you picked just because it's hard to refute, but it's rather trivial. I cannot argue with you that I do not exist, because from the moment you started talking I existed. I cannot prove my own existence in the way you would like me to, all I can say is that it's highly probable I exist, and I myself am definite of it.
Note that Pro's grammar isn't the best. (not to mess around with Muphry's law though, I am sure I made mistakes too.)
“Contradicting P1: Science isn't 100% certain, and neither are your own senses “
Con has nearly all but conceded here con is simply reaffirming my entire case from this we can surely gather that P2 is indeed sound since in con’s words our senses are not certain nothing but the mind is.
Therefore reality exists only in my mind for that is only what is truly justified therefore my premises stand and the conclusion is sound.
I am not doubting the existence of my mind I know it exists since this reality is a product of my mind.
Oh but it does as I proved with my contentions this world exists only in my mind therefore you don’t actually exist.
Conclusion.You do not exist outside of my mind a mere filament of thought.
sparrowlefox forfeited this round.
|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:||3||0|