The Instigator
omar2345
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
LuxCoke
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

We cannot prove our existence

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: 10/24/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,631 times Debate No: 118700
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

omar2345

Pro

Existence:the fact or state of living or having objective reality.

I don't believe we can say we exist.

Open to being wrong.
LuxCoke

Con

I accept the challenge. We have sufficient reason to believe we exist.

This is my first debate.
Debate Round No. 1
omar2345

Pro

This is also my first debate and thank you for taking up the challenge.

To know we exist we must prove we do not exist. From what I know there is not answer for either.

Another reason is to know something we need to know everything.
An example of this would be chess. 
To correctly pay chess we would need to know the rules.
Without knowing the rules we wouldn't correctly know what each piece is or does.
Without knowing the rules of life we do not know something like if we exist or not.




LuxCoke

Con

We have sufficient reason to believe we exist. It is also irrational to be unsure of our existence. The knowledge of our self-existence is deeply ingrained within us, Such that it is impossible to fully suppress this truth. Being made in the image of God, We are endowed with attributes that reflect our Creator, Including our self-knowledge.

Arguments:

Cogito Ergo Sum = "I think, Therefore I am". Descartes set out to believe only that which he is certain about. For him, Certainty meant that something is impossible to doubt the validity of. So he set out to doubt as much as he possible could, Then proceed only on the basis of logic. When you doubt as much as you can, The one thing you cannot doubt is that you are doubting. Therefore, You are certain that you are doubting (this is knowledge). If you are doubting, Then you are a thinking being. There is a "you" behind the thinking being. So thus we conclude that since you doubt, You exist.

Impossibility of Contrary = This very argument presupposes both of our existences. You included the word "we" in the title. This is akin to saying "logic is irrational" or "words are meaningless". You are assuming the very thing which you are attempting to have no proof of. The implications of not knowing this are immense.
Debate Round No. 2
omar2345

Pro

Irrational about being unsure of our existence is better than finding purpose in religion. Religion is based on belief not rationality. If we find the answer to our existence we might find objective purpose, Religion for as long has its been around has not provided one. You also say it is impossible to suppress the truth. I say every religion suppresses the truth by not proving God exists but still believe as though it is the case. Is that in itself irrational? Let’s say Christianity is the right religion why is there 5. 03 billion humans, Who follow a different religion, Not following it? Surely if I was this God I would want what I created to follow me. The will that 5. 03 religious people (excluding Christianity) have is used to go against the true God? Was Ted Bundy, Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler created in God’s image? Extreme examples but it proves God is evil. By giving us life he would allow us to use it to make other people suffer. I am not assuming we are made in God’s image or God endowed us with self-knowledge without proof.

Rebuttals:

“I think therefore I am”. Thinking assumes that we exist. As far as I know thinking can be correlated to existence but does it prove our existence. “The one thing you cannot doubt is that you are doubting”. Doubt in itself does not provide a point of contention. Cogito set out that doubt is the ground of knowledge. As you know doubt is a feeling of uncertainty. Feeling as by itself varies between person to person. This means for someone they have no doubt God exists whereas another person has doubts on whether God exists or not. It is subjective not objective. Existence by the definition is objective reality. Not our own subjective interpretations by itself can lead to an objective conclusion. As far as I can tell you have not provided any proof to existence instead you have given me a telling of someone’s subjective experience. Doubt=Thinking therefore we exist does not prove our reality to be objective.


Can we assume we exist before we prove our existence? This is not akin to “logic is irrational” because rational is using the best methods in order to find out the truth. Logic is the best method we have so far. By definition Logic is rational until we can find a better method. “words are meaningless” is also not akin to my argument because to understand me we must first agree on definitions. Without accepting definitions how do we communicate with one another without knowing what we are actually saying?

It's been a pleasure debating you.

Sources:
April 5 2017: Christians remain world's largest religious group, But they are declining in Europe.
(Exact link is blocked by debate. Org for some reason which is why added the title and date. )





LuxCoke

Con

"To know we exist we must prove we do not exist". To know X to be true, We must prove X to be false? I'm probably not reading this correctly (or perhaps this is a typo), But this seems like a clear contradiction.

"To know something we need to know everything". I actually almost agree with this. There is an insane amount of knowledge in the universe such that we as individuals (or collectively as mankind) know an infinitesimally small percentage of the universe's knowledge. And the little bit that we claim to know, The 99. 999% that we don't know could fundamentally prove everything we know to be wrong. We have to know everything to know anything. . . OR We have to have access to something, Or Someone, Who knows everything, Someone Who is willing to inerrantly give us knowledge. God alone has infallibly revealed knowledge to us, Including our self-existence. This is reliable because God is omniscient, And He cannot lie. He has written it on the heart of every person that they exist. Again, Your belief in your existence is confirmed by your use of personal pronouns. My point is further confirmed that you know real things by your twin statements "From what I know" and "to know something we need to know everything". You cannot escape the knowledge of your existence.

I agree with your chess analogy.

--

I'm not entirely 100% aware of the rules on DDO, But I don't think links are allowed. Spammers ruin every good thing.

I'm also not aware of rules regarding rebuttals. I'm only going to respond to Round 2's argument, Since you do not have a chance to respond to my rebuttal. I think this is fair, Even though I really want to respond to your comments about Christianity. Maybe a debate for a different day?

This has been an enjoyable debate. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Eris2005 3 years ago
Eris2005
Rebuttals:

I don"t understand your philosophy on this round. To know we exist we must prove we do not exist? What? I"m looking through your example, And I see the flaw in your theory.

To correctly play chess we would need to know the rules. CHECK
Without knowing the rules we wouldn"t know what each piece is or does. CHECK
Without the rules of life we do not know something like if we exist or not. STAHP, BACK IT UP!

We do know the rules of life, For we make them ourselves as a society (not religion, For God determines that, We just choose to follow them). Who came up with the idea of killing being wrong in this country (just assume it's your own, Since its illegal anywhere)? The founding fathers, That's who. Life is a game we made ourselves, We were just put on the blank board, Given a pen, And told to make something creative.

I"m surprised that both of you guys have some pretty good arguments for a first time. I hope you have fun. Don"t let these debates get into your heads. GD yall (good debate)

End of my debate "round"/part 3
Posted by Eris2005 3 years ago
Eris2005
Going off of what you say about the amount of Christians, It is important to know that God gave everybody a free will, Free agency, The freedom to choose what they want. That means that they can follow Christianity if they want to, And choose a separate path altogether. Now this made lead to someone asking why God didn"t take away our agency if he wants us to follow him (which he does, Just to clarify), And my answer would be that God loves us. Want a scripture about that? Psalm 86:15. If he didn"t love us, Then he wouldn"t have given us agency, And wouldn"t have cared about what we did. Parents who truly love their children will let them choose for themselves, And let them grow and mature; This is just like with our Heavenly Father. This still doesn"t answer your question on why God would allow people like to hurt others, Like the examples you gave, So let me explain.
It really doesn"t matter who we are, Or what we have done, But we are all God"s children and he loves us equally; That's the beauty of His eternal plan for us. He gave them their free agency because they are just like us, Humans. We were all made in God"s image, That being, Physically in his image; With bodies and minds. Their agency to do something that affected someone else was within their rights (not lawful rights, But rights of their agency). Now i"m not saying that what they did was good, Just that were physically able to. You may wonder why someone who supposedly has free agency would allow this to happen, If they decide that they do not want to be harmed. Well if they had their way, Then the prosecutor would have no free will, So the victim is going to have to deal with what happened any way they want to. God is NOT EVIL, He loves us greatly, And with all of His heart. If all of this is true, And I do testify it to be, Then God really would have given us bodies, And brought us into existence.

End of part 2
Posted by Eris2005 3 years ago
Eris2005
Disclaimer: I was not asked by anyone to write this, I just felt compelled to do so. I am standing with LuxCoke on this one, That we if fact can prove our existence. This argument that I made fits in round 3 of LuxCoke"s argument.

You claim that religion is based on belief, And so it it. Yet you forget to mention that belief is based on evidence that is proposed to that individual. In the words of Benjamin Franklin: "[T]hat the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own free will, But follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds. " People believe and follow their religions because they found truth in what they teach. I can already hear you typing, "why haven"t I found truth in these writings then? " My answer to you, Friend, Is to actually search the scriptures (I say scriptures because the religion in question is Christianity). In the scripture of Matthew 7:7, It states: "Ask, And ye shall receive, Knock, And it shall be opened unto you. " There are many different variations, But they all essentially say the same thing. Have you diligently searched the Bible? I"m guessing not. To find the answers, You have to complete your part of the process, And cannot rely on outside forces. When someone reads the scriptures, And are enlightened by knowledge, It is not irrational, But is rational, Especially when what they read is true. You can"t trust sources that haven"t even deeply studied what they claim to know everything about.

End of Part 1
Posted by canis 3 years ago
canis
Yes. How can I know I take a pi. .
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
missmedic
It's a self refuting argument. How can you ask if you exist without existing. In fact it is the only thing we can know for sure.
Posted by McSloth 3 years ago
McSloth
Somone had better bring up Ren" Descartes during the course of this debate.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
Our?
Posted by deathtank55555 3 years ago
deathtank55555
or just use this argument for pro:
in order to prove that we exist, We must first exist to prove that.
therefore by using any sort of proof to prove we exist, We assume we exist.
therefore you cannot find a logically sound proof that we exist
Posted by deathtank55555 3 years ago
deathtank55555
this debate is so rigged
no offence but at least try to make a debate someone else can win
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.