The Instigator
NoConviction
Pro (for)
The Contender
WinTrain
Con (against)

You do not exist

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
NoConviction has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/28/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 925 times Debate No: 117947
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

NoConviction

Pro

Definitions:

you = people in general

From now on, All (sub-)definitions from Merriam-Webster:

exist = to have real being whether material or spiritual

Sub-definitions:

people = plural of person, I. E. Human being, Whether adult or child

being = a quality or state of having existence

existence = reality as presented in experience

experience = direct observation of or participation in events as a basis of knowledge

Argument:

Granting that all of you are conscious beings following y Ren" Descartes' famous principle of "cogito ergo sum" (I think therefore I am), You are receiving information about everything within and without you through the six senses and countless neural pathways. You are not observing the Universe directly, Therefore not experiencing it, Which means it is not reality as presented through experience, And thus it can't be said to have existence, To be, Except if we trust the honesty of the reality of our senses and neural experiences.

I argue that these senses are most probably not an accurate albeit limited representation of actual truth. In fact, If we acknowledge the possibility of faithful simulations of reality being a technical possibility, The probability of our senses communicating a material reality rather than a virtual one are infinitesimally small, Unless all species die out before they can or else refuse to engage in simulating realities such as our own.

Furthermore, If we admit our ignorance regarding the world, Countless possibilities show themselves. We may as well be in a Library of Baabel of universes, A series of Planck frames tied together by the congruence of physical laws along their course and thus emerging as organized, Isolated quantum systems where we develop brains that differentiate us from low entropy quantum systems in non-thinking material. These frames need not be consecutive or material, They could be part of a random algorithm.

Given these premises, The probabilities are favorable enough to confidently state that you do not exist with the same rigor as the scientific method.
WinTrain

Con

*claps* Well done for a entertaining first post by my opponent, And interesting topic I'm happy to participate in.

Sadly while my opponent cleverly words his sentences, And quotes, He or she (assuming he) is missing the bigger picture on the wall that says "WE DON'T KNOW". You think you know, But you don't know. We think we know the answer, But we don't know. This can be said about Religion on which one is correct, Or if any, This can be said about what happens after death, And this is still being said about consciousness and what goes on in the brain. For example just google search yourself, Many scientists even today are still trying to explain consciousness and come to a definite answer of what it really is. A consciousness IS PART OF YOU, By default you exist even without the senses.
We refer to people individually. Take a basketball game for example, Michael Jordan was using his senses while playing, And because of it, He played differently than the other players. He is the observer in his game. You are the observer in your life. Trees have a way of observing by soaking in the detail, Their pain receptors are different, But they still experience life, Just not to it's fullest potential.

Do we exist? The real and current answer is "we don't know" Cause this topic has not been answered in science or just proven to be one of the two that either we exist, Or we don't. So my opponent is just attacking a straw man. I can say safely without bringing up sources that there are better reasons to believe we exist, Than not.

Humans use their senses to experience reality. Take them away, That doesn't mean we stop existing. That just means we would then just be living without senses. Look at trees and plants for example, They're living organisms, But they don't use most of the senses we do, If all of them actually but yet, They're alive, Yet they're experiencing reality in a completely new way. You can't just make these narrow and defined definitions of a topic of this magnitude cause then you're just not playing by the rules sort of speak. This is a topic just like religion topics and life after death topics where the topic is broad.

It's fun to entertain ones self, Or other people with these topics, I admit, You can bring up that life is just a game or simulation, Or that life don't exist, Or that we have souls, Or are living in some multi-parallel universe and experiencing mandala effects, But you have to play by the rules, And have to understand especially that all these topics are being questioned everyday by scientists, Philosophers, And your average Joe because there is no answer.

I can say that I DO EXIST, I know I EXIST, And YOU EXIST. Again look at plants, And bacteria, And all these living organisms that don't have our senses, THEY EXIST. So while the argument sounds good and is sugar coated and not where the majority of people would side on, It falls flat.

Humans are mostly made up of water, And of course oxygen which resonates to our existence, And most importantly, Scientists and researchers have came to a understanding and an agreement that humans are made up of "matter" and energy" and now there can be an argument that we're just energy but no matter, Or matter but no energy, But just one of the two provides a better answer and world view that given one or two of those things, We exist, And again, MORE PEOPLE on this planet would agree with this statement, And current answer than the argument that my opponent made, And in debates that's really what it's all about sort of speak cause most are just a numbers game on which side has the most people. Well, I'm with the majority when it comes the fact that we have matter, Or energy inside us which is a probability, But a more universally agreed on answer than the whole "no existence" answer.
Even many atheist and well known ones that debate agree that they exist in some form, And would agree on the matter/energy statement. This matters because after death, The matter, And energy is spread.

Even if you removed the whole matter/energy concept, We still exist in some form. I'd say we exist in the moment, But not the past.

It's just selfish to say you don't exist at all when you look outside the box at the trees, The planets, The universe. Now it's accepted by practically everyone in the world that the universe came into existence and wasn't always there. Given that the universe came to be, Why can't we? Just because the answer to some of life's biggest questions isn't answered doesn't mean there is nothing. Look at air for example. Air is real and exist although we can't see it, But we can explain what it is.
Besides, There is ways to experience reality, I mean virtual reality is becoming a thing, Camera recording is a thing, Who says you need your senses to experience reality? ONLY YOU.

https://www. Merriam-webster. Com/dictionary/existence
https://www. Merriam-webster. Com/dictionary/air

A lot of these topics always lead to religious topics/debates and relate to religion SADLY, But I could be one of them crazy people and say "well, The bible says this" but I'll just say if god is real (which god can't be proven to exist, Or not exist) but if god does exist and is the creator of all, Then we definitely exist. However, I don't want this entertaining topic to be spoiled by religion, I'll just throw that out in the open just to remind everyone reading that our existence could definitely be confirmed if god is real or not.

Also about Ren Descartes. . . . . . Descartes concludes that even if he is being deceived, He must "exist first" before he can be deceived. So, To think you are an illusion, To think you don't exist, In essence you must really began to exist before you can even possibly even think about not existing. . . . . . . .
""But surely I exist, If I am deceived. Let him deceive me all he can, He
will never make it the case that I am nothing while I think that I am
something. "A279;" - Ren Descartes
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by WinTrain 3 years ago
WinTrain
@Xiutecuhtli

What you said is very interesting, But my I ended the first round with something that's hard to argue against. From Ren Decartes or whatever.
"But surely I exist, If I am deceived. Let him deceive me all he can, He will never make it the case that I am nothing while I think that I am something. "

So. . . It's kinda true. You really do have to exist before you can even consider the thought of not existing. Also, If this were a dream, Or something simulated, Why can't I have what I want in life? Why can't I make annoying people vanish in a blink of an eye? You can't, Because it's reality.

I will leave you with a really good Youtube video to watch tho. This is part of a lecture Alan Watts did, And someone put music over it. . . It's really good and involves dreams in this speech and being god.
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=wU0PYcCsL6o
Posted by Xiutecuhtli 3 years ago
Xiutecuhtli
;O I hate it when that happens
Makes me sound like a dummy
I guess I am
Who uses emoticons anyway?
;/ I was almost done I was going to say I reason using un-verifiably-true logic.
Posted by Xiutecuhtli 3 years ago
Xiutecuhtli
I am a supporter of undetermination.
You can perceive that something is there, But maybe light is spontaneously generating instead of reflecting.
Or maybe the perceptions of light and touch spontaneously generate in your head.
Or maybe your head is only simulated and the mind is all that's really real, The human mind expressed in computer code. Or the human mind dreaming.

Since the following are possible, Nothing might be real:
A soul existing in emptiness. No other souls are real. It gets very very bored, And daydreams. And the half-insanity from isolation makes it believe the world is real.
OR
500 years in the future, An inventor unveils a 9D theater. It's so realistic that you thoughts are temporarily replaced with the thoughts of the characters in the movie. Ever wanted to live someone else's life? Your thoughts will be disabled and the other thoughts will be part of the perception coming into you.
Maybe thoughts are NOT indivisible from existence. Maybe only perception is indivisible from existence. "I perceive, Therefore I am, " instead.
EXCEPT
The person writing here is writing using thoughts and the brain. The person writing here can be part of the 9D perception. It is not verifiably the surely-existing perceiver perceiving itself. The perceiver might have no thoughts of its own. The mind is thinking it perceives the perceiver, But it is made of matter which is not capable of interacting with meta-reality because brain electrons don't come from seemingly nowhere. The brain can only reference itself, Not a metaphysical reality.
Maybe nothing knows the perceiver exists except itself. Or maybe the perceiver can't know anything either, Because it is devoid of thought or mind. Does anyone actually know a perceiver exists? This speaker surely doesn't. And no speaker ever will. But everything besides a perceiver could potentially be simulated.
And it all gets complicated when dreams can have different logic from the REAL rules. I reason with unveri
Posted by Xiutecuhtli 3 years ago
Xiutecuhtli
but it's the other way around
you guys don't exist and i'm real
Posted by WinTrain 3 years ago
WinTrain
You've been watching too much jim carrey.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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