Instigator / Con
0
1442
rating
52
debates
58.65%
won
Topic
#5100
does the afterlife exist?
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
0
Better sources
0
0
Better legibility
0
0
Better conduct
0
0
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
0
1389
rating
413
debates
44.55%
won
Description
Rules: The burden of proof is on pro.
Round 1
Con
#1
I will start by thanking Pro for accepting the debate. I am sure it will be a nice debate.
First argument: There is no evidence of an afterlife. Although there are many religions that possess supposed religious texts that make claims of life after death, there is no science behind them. There is only faith that these supposed places exist after we die. Faith is no substitution for evidence that can be observed and tested. If no knowledge can be acquired to verify that continued existence after death is true, we cannot establish with undeniable certainly that the afterlife is true.
Second argument: We do not have a universal understanding of what the afterlife is to establish a foundation of the afterlife. When asked the question what is the afterlife? We will get endless different answers. Some believe that the afterlife is a place where you reside with Jesus or Satan depending on how you lived your life. Others Think the Afterlife is not a physical plane but rather a place of enlightenment. Others Still think that there is no afterlife and that we reincarnate when we die. Since we cannot establish that the existence of the afterlife through evidence nor even understand what the afterlife even is from an objective point of view, there exists no logical reason for the need for an afterlife in the first place.
Third argument: For many concepts of the afterlife, a key component is the necessity of maintain a physical form of oneself. This state of being is typically referred to as the human soul. Although the idea of a soul is believed to be true by many, there is no evidence that souls exist. We can x-ray the human body down to its last atom and no souls will be found. If souls cannot be established to exist, much like the afterlife itself, we cannot say for a fact that humans continue to maintain their consciousness or individuality after their body has passed away. There is quite simply no proof to establish it beyond hearsay claims of the faithful.
Conclusion: The afterlife does not exist because there is no evidence to support the idea that it does. The only thing that supports the notion that an afterlife can exist is religious or spiritual faith. Faith is not a form of evidence. We also lack complete understanding of what the afterlife is supposed to be. Some believe that the afterlife exists in the manner of Christianity, Others follow a more spiritual belief such as enlightenment and reincarnation. However, there is no objective truth to be found in any of these ideas as there is no evidence. Lasty, although many afterlife beliefs use the idea that human's possess souls that allow them to continue after death, there is also no proof of that. Research of the human body has found no evidence of the existence of souls. There is simply no evidence of the afterlife, what the afterlife is like, or that we continue to exist after we die.
Pro
#2
When talking about "afterlife", what are we talking about?
After is what is following. What follows life?
What follows any life when it continues or when it ends?
I don't see where the opposing side mentioned this about reincarnation in this way which would be biological reincarnation which is after the life that preceded.
By the way just reincarnation can be called the afterlife because it's after what was which was life.
But biological reincarnation.
Let's start with some examples here of what I'm talking about.
Mr. Swami Satchidananda made an illustration regarding a handkerchief.
You search online if you care to, you'll find many things said by this individual.
The handkerchief changes form. Not just into different physical forms by external manipulation but also in atomic, molecular forms arranged different in matter.
We can look at the handkerchief, a waxed candle melting or a piece of wood that burns. It's a change of matter, change of form.
Even in death of anything, there's a change of form, a transition if you will.
All things of matter and matter making up all things, ashes to ashes, dust to dust.
That body , the corpse that goes in the ground becomes part to the soil. Through insects, to animals(non persons) to persons (animals).
All this is what is meant by biological recycling or reincarnation.
Talking about plants, vegetation, animals(non persons), people, regardless, all have this "afterlife".
I trust the opposing side will be more attentive to what I'm saying compared to the past with others on these points and I'm not making a point for the sake of comparisons.
"The afterlife does not exist because there is no evidence to support the idea that it does. "
This is an invalid incorrect conclusion. We do continue to exist after we die in some form. This is how people are able to have funerals, viewings and burials. Something has remained.
But speaking on the lack of evidence doesn't prove the absence in let's say an experience of going into the light.
There's an absence of it in our minds because we haven't experienced it sure. There are tons of places I haven't experienced but it doesn't serve as proof they don't exist.
Such as various towns in the regional state I reside in. After discovering them , experiencing them, that doesn't mean they just now exist absolutely. They already existed before now. Not to my mind of course but to somebody's. That's how someone can tell me they've experienced a certain town or several towns before me or even before I was born.
So when we're talking about evidence being non existence, it doesn't work the same for everything across the board.
Bottomline, does the afterlife exist?
Yes depending on what we're talking about.
Round 2
Con
#3
First argument: Pro claims that an afterlife exists due to, "biological reincarnation." However, it is important to note that there is no such thing. While reincarnation is a belief that stems from various Buddhist concepts, there is no science behind it as there has been no observational or testable evidence to suggest that reincarnation is real. Much less biological.
Second argument: Pro has not provided any sources that are biological or medical in nature to back up their claims about biological reincarnation. Although Pro does give a name, "Mr. Swami Satchidananda," that individual is neither a scientist or doctor of any kind. He is instead a Yoga Guru. Swami Satchidananda Saraswati - Wikipedia
The handkerchief changes form. Not just into different physical forms by external manipulation but also in atomic, molecular forms arranged different in matter.
I have found nothing that shows Mr. Swami claiming this, but assuming he did, this does not prove reincarnation on a biological level. In fact, the second law of thermodynamics would prove otherwise. Reincarnation is all about the human soul taking on a new form of life than they were originally. Not only is there no scientific evidence of a soul, but this proceed would require creating new life. Life however cannot be created, only replicated thanks to the fact matter cannot be created or destroyed. Second law of thermodynamics | | Britannica
The second law of thermodynamics, lack of evidence of the human soul, and the impossibility of creating new life argues against the idea of reincarnation on a biological level or any other level.
All things of matter and matter making up all things, ashes to ashes, dust to dust.That body , the corpse that goes in the ground becomes part to the soil. Through insects, to animals(non persons) to persons (animals).All this is what is meant by biological recycling or reincarnation.Talking about plants, vegetation, animals(non persons), people, regardless, all have this "afterlife".
What Pro is referring to is neither an afterlife nor biological reincarnation. Although it is true that we will eventually die, go to the earth, and our bodies will be eaten by insects. All of this is happening on Earth. The afterlife and life on Earth are not the same thing, it is also not reincarnation because nothing is being recreated. The person who has died and subsequently been buried and eaten by insects is not coming back from death. Which is the very point of reincarnation being for.
I trust the opposing side will be more attentive to what I'm saying compared to the past with others on these points and I'm not making a point for the sake of comparisons.
Personal jabs do not make for a better argument. Pro should learn to focus their argument solely on the topic at hand instead of personal grievance.
This is an invalid incorrect conclusion. We do continue to exist after we die in some form. This is how people are able to have funerals, viewings and burials. Something has remained.
I grant that our physical bodies exist. However, that has nothing to do with the question of if life after death exists. Hence the term afterlife. Funerals do not suggest we live on after death.
Argument 3: Pro has provided no evidence in their argument for an Afterlife. What little they have offered in form of evidence has been nothing but hearsay, a misunderstanding on the subject of thermodynamics, and illogical arguments of reincarnation being biological.
But speaking on the lack of evidence doesn't prove the absence in let's say an experience of going into the light.There's an absence of it in our minds because we haven't experienced it sure. There are tons of places I haven't experienced but it doesn't serve as proof they don't exist.
Evidence is not a two-way street. When you do not have evidence to suggest something is true, it cannot be proven that it is true, which strengthens the logical position that the subject of the matter is not true. Arguing that something is real because no evidence exists to say that it does not is a fallacy. By that logic, we should not bother with a court system since we can summarize everyone is guilty because no evidence exists to say that they are innocent.
Such as various towns in the regional state I reside in. After discovering them , experiencing them, that doesn't mean they just now exist absolutely. They already existed before now. Not to my mind of course but to somebody's. That's how someone can tell me they've experienced a certain town or several towns before me or even before I was born.
This argument is irrelevant. Experiencing various towns has nothing to do with the concept of an afterlife, much less if said afterlife is real. The only way I can see this somehow being relevant is if pro is trying to say that someone else's experiences count as a substitute for actual evidence, which would be a flawed and weak argument since we cannot confirm if said person's claims are true or not. That is why the concept of hearsay exists to begin with.
So when we're talking about evidence being non existence, it doesn't work the same for everything across the board.Bottomline, does the afterlife exist?Yes depending on what we're talking about.
So, despite giving no evidence, admitting that you have no proof, and ultimately relaying on what others told you. We should agree that an Afterlife, which you never clearly defined, exists simply because you say so and you heard it from others? That does not appear to be a good argument. It certainly does not prove an Afterlife exists.
Conclusion: Pro has not provided any evidence that an afterlife exists. Pro initially claims to not understand the Premus of the debate. Then goes on to make several incorrect assumptions about physics and biology. All to support the idea that the afterlife exists simply because of the fact that our bodies decompose, which pro claims is part of, "biological reincarnation." Additionally, pro has admitted that they have no evidence, but insists that the lack of evidence does not mean an afterlife does not exist. Pro's argument not only does not prove that the afterlife is real, but he also fails to understand the importance of evidence. No proof exists to say the afterlife is a real place.
Pro
#4
The opposing side is lost basically on what I said.
I'm going to try my best to help them understand all I've said.
Uphill battle but been there before.
"Pro claims that an afterlife exists due to, "biological reincarnation." However, it is important to note that there is no such thing. "
First off we have to get an understanding here of what is being said. Before we get to biological reincarnation which is wording I choose to use, what is afterlife period?
Without even thinking about biological reincarnation, afterlife exists.
So then your question should be "what do you mean by afterlife ? " Don't go by how you use the term. You're not talking to yourself.
I said the afterlife is what follows life. Whatever that is. What comes after my life? Same which came before it. Life. Their are things that preceded it and things that come after it. That's whether I'm still alive or buried.
Something is there, has remained before I, has remained during and after. This is the general idea of the afterlife being an everlasting condition.
Now I believe because YOU never heard of the phrase biological reincarnation, you say there's no such thing. Remember what I said about things not existing to you doesn't mean it doesn't exist any where else.
This is where you ask what a person means by something to actually circumvent and possibly rebut anything. The person may not be far from what you're talking about and the disagreement may be an illusion. But you have to make effort in understanding the language.
So I think I gave an example with the handkerchief.
A change of form . Like a change of form with our bodies. That's ALL I mean by biological reincarnation. Do you not believe when you burn wood it changes form? Do you need evidence for that?
Sure and the evidence is something you will be able to see for yourself. Not what somebody wrote but evidence which you can ONLY empirically gather for yourself.
A piece of wood after it's burned up somebody says the wood is no more.
The wood is not gone.
What is left is another form of it after, AFTER its original or preceding life from which came to life out of the ground.
Into another cycle or recycle of biologic processes . Another state after life.
"While reincarnation is a belief that stems from various Buddhist concepts, there is no science behind it as there has been no observational or testable evidence to suggest that reincarnation is real. Much less biological."
You're confusing reincarnation with the phrase I'm using biological reincarnation. Like I say, don't apply your definitions to words I choose to use. Learn what I mean by the specific words I'm using.
"Pro has not provided any sources that are biological or medical in nature to back up their claims about biological reincarnation. Although Pro does give a name, "Mr. Swami Satchidananda," that individual is neither a scientist or doctor of any kind. He is instead a Yoga Guru. "
The source is myself. I put together the words biological reincarnation. Would you believe someone else just because their name is written to a paper or attached to some alumni critically acclaimed book?
Would it make a difference if I had a title of p.h.d., chemist, biologist,funeral director?
A source is not necessarily evidence but what somebody says that it is. I say this to the entire debate world. Always seek what you can witness for yourself.
Swami Satchidananda was a person I referenced to emphasize what I'm already saying. As the fundamental things I've been saying you can observe.
You can observe the change of a handkerchief, the state of matter with wood or any other solid.
"I have found nothing that shows Mr. Swami claiming this, but assuming he did, this does not prove reincarnation on a biological level. In fact, the second law of thermodynamics would prove otherwise. Reincarnation is all about the human soul taking on a new form of life than they were originally. Not only is there no scientific evidence of a soul, but this proceed would require creating new life"
Hopefully you understand by this point all I've said to throw this out what you just said right here.
" Life however cannot be created, only replicated thanks to the fact matter cannot be created or destroyed."
This is a claim that I won't even hold you to because you're just reading things. What about the beginning before anything was, no life anywhere, life would of had to be created at some point being that it's here now as we know it.
I trust you weren't there in the beginning to witness life coming to be. So you have no evidence of life being impossible to create.
"The second law of thermodynamics, lack of evidence of the human soul, and the impossibility of creating new life argues against the idea of reincarnation on a biological level or any other level. "
For the record, a soul and reincarnation have not been disproven. But I'm not even arguing those subjects. Only thing I'm talking about is what you can see for yourself.
"What Pro is referring to is neither an afterlife nor biological reincarnation. Although it is true that we will eventually die, go to the earth, and our bodies will be eaten by insects. All of this is happening on Earth. The afterlife and life on Earth are not the same thing, it is also not reincarnation because nothing is being recreated. The person who has died and subsequently been buried and eaten by insects is not coming back from death. Which is the very point of reincarnation being for."
We're having a big issue over semantics. The human body doesn't cease to exist but changes form down to every cell used as energy or a life force for other life forces(living organisms) . This is recycled energy or what I call, what I call, biological reincarnation or biological recycling.
We're made up of all these different elements of the earth and celestial molecules. These items don't just disappear. What's going on in the earth is in us at some level and we in return to the earth. The cycle of life, circle of life .
I don't think you can disprove this so you pick at the semantics. You're getting extra discriminatory on what constitutes the afterlife and what it is not in which you did not set as a foundation in the beginning round. You touched on several aspects referred to it I guess thinking I was going to try to argue any of them .
"I grant that our physical bodies exist. However, that has nothing to do with the question of if life after death exists. Hence the term afterlife. Funerals do not suggest we live on after death. "
You're misunderstanding of how I'm using the term
afterlife. After life, following life. What follows a person's life ,is typically a funeral. I think you're working in a conventional box use of the word imposing it on me.
"Pro has provided no evidence in their argument for an Afterlife. What little they have offered in form of evidence has been nothing but hearsay, a misunderstanding on the subject of thermodynamics, and illogical arguments of reincarnation being biological"
Hopefully you got the clarity now you've desperately needed.
"Evidence is not a two-way street. When you do not have evidence to suggest something is true, it cannot be proven that it is true, which strengthens the logical position that the subject of the matter is not true. "
Evidence is definitely a two way street when it comes to certain things. On some things it works both ways. What you just said here is your claim but it's not fact. You're contradicting yourself talking about evidence but speaking without it.
Just because you haven't proven God is real, doesn't prove that God isn't real. This is why people say you can't prove a negative. Just because you can't see something doesn't necessarily mean it isn't there. This is one of the oldest golden nuggets in the pot.
"Arguing that something is real because no evidence exists to say that it does not is a fallacy. "
No don't argue something is real because of that but argue that the absence of evidence is not ALWAYS the evidence of absence. Another golden nugget.
"By that logic, we should not bother with a court system since we can summarize everyone is guilty because no evidence exists to say that they are innocent. "
The justice system is flawed anyway and people get wrongly penalized so not going there like the court of law is flawless.
"This argument is irrelevant. Experiencing various towns has nothing to do with the concept of an afterlife, much less if said afterlife is real. The only way I can see this somehow being relevant is if pro is trying to say that someone else's experiences count as a substitute for actual evidence, which would be a flawed and weak argument since we cannot confirm if said person's claims are true or not. That is why the concept of hearsay exists to begin with. "
No I was making a point about the absence of evidence. I didn't say it had to do with the afterlife obviously because I never used the term.
The point is just because you haven't experienced the afterlife doesn't mean it doesn't exist and you can't disprove that.
"So, despite giving no evidence, admitting that you have no proof, and ultimately relaying on what others told you. We should agree that an Afterlife, which you never clearly defined, exists simply because you say so and you heard it from others? That does not appear to be a good argument. It certainly does not prove an Afterlife exists.
Conclusion: Pro has not provided any evidence that an afterlife exists. Pro initially claims to not understand the Premus of the debate. Then goes on to make several incorrect assumptions about physics and biology. All to support the idea that the afterlife exists simply because of the fact that our bodies decompose, which pro claims is part of, "biological reincarnation." Additionally, pro has admitted that they have no evidence, but insists that the lack of evidence does not mean an afterlife does not exist. Pro's argument not only does not prove that the afterlife is real, but he also fails to understand the importance of evidence. No proof exists to say the afterlife is a real place."
My response to alllll of this, hopefully now you got a little more clarity on what I'm saying and you can reread round 1 on how I defined afterlife. I remember saying asking the question what it is. What is after life is what follows life.
Maybe you were looking for the conventional format of the term hyphen with a sentence that follows but just read everything, get some understanding. You mentioned assumptions. I'm giving you what you can see for yourself.
So instead of assuming what I'm saying, just ask questions.
Round 3
Con
#5
I refuse to continue this debate. My opponent is someone who cannot respect an opposing viewpoint or stay on topic. Rather than discussing the possibility of an Afterlife exists in a respectful manner. Mall goes completely off topic. Mall makes arguments that make no sense and when challenged on these baseless positions, goes on a tangent of how I somehow do not understand or mis-quote him despite it not being true. Since it is clear that they cannot maintain consistently with the topic nor treat me with respect, I will no longer be interested in debating with him.
Voters are free to vote however they wish. However, I ask that they do not vote on the basis of forfeit. Because while it is true that I am technically throwing away the debate. I am doing so under aggravating circumstances. And not a desire to give up the debate. I have presented a strong argument to support my position and believe it is far stronger than my opponents largely unrelated counter arguments. Furthermore, should anyone wish to debate this topic with me feel free to let me know in the comments.
Thank you for your understanding.
Pro
#6
"I refuse to continue this debate. My opponent is someone who cannot respect an opposing viewpoint or stay on topic."
Then you concede and you're running. That's it. You have no rebuttals to what I've said which is IN RESPONSE TO WHAT YOU'VE SAID.
This is dodging and being dismissive. You say I'm not on topic then prove it. Demonstrate it. The problem is you want me to look at the afterlife the you look at it .
But you never nailed down what it strictly MUST be in terms of this topic.
"Rather than discussing the possibility of an Afterlife exists in a respectful manner. Mall goes completely off topic."
These are excuses for your evasion.
"Mall makes arguments that make no sense and when challenged on these baseless positions, goes on a tangent of how I somehow do not understand or mis-quote him despite it not being true."
See instead of showing me where you've quoted me correctly, you take the opportunity to just say all this.
Just dodging. Haven't demonstrated how you say my arguments make no sense. Haven't demonstrated any contradictions on my side. These again are just excuses for you running.
"Since it is clear that they cannot maintain consistently with the topic nor treat me with respect, I will no longer be interested in debating with him. "
So you're another that has become fearful to debate. Why are there so many of you guys on here?
Don't be afraid of me. Just stand behind your position and defend it.
"Voters are free to vote however they wish. However, I ask that they do not vote on the basis of forfeit. "
Why? Is it because you know you're forfeiting which would be indirectly conceding?
Trying to evade out of that too.
"Because while it is true that I am technically throwing away the debate. I am doing so under aggravating circumstances. "
You can't stand the heat, stay out the kitchen. Don't allow debates to emotionally sway you. Stand your ground, defend your stance. Then you don't have to throw anything way.
Debates are synonymous with arguing, fighting, back and forth countering and defending like a war. Don't expect an easy relaxing non pressure light exchange.
That's how these exchanges don't affect me the way they do you according to what you're saying. I'm more prepared for them.
"And not a desire to give up the debate. I have presented a strong argument to support my position and believe it is far stronger than my opponents largely unrelated counter arguments. Furthermore, should anyone wish to debate this topic with me feel free to let me know in the comments.
Thank you for your understanding."
No you're dismissing everything and because I'm defending afterlife different from what you expected or have a different definition I guess, you're pretty much saying"no fair, no fair ".
Tip for you. Either buckle down a strict definition for what you're talking about or want to debate on or alternately have a counter response to the opponent's arguments.
See in debating defending your stance or refuting someone, you have to be prepared to debunk anything the other individual might have that technically can apply to the topic.
But I appreciate you conceding and demonstrating you'll never be prepared to refute me so you've written me off altogether for debating.
Another example guys related to my topic about fearing to debate.
Round 4
Pro
#8
I wish when individuals run or quit , the debate itself, whatever is remaining just cancels.
The timing for these arguments at two weeks length just drags this thing out for nothing and with this being somewhat of a waste , I could have my debating space freed up to take on others who don't run.
At least come back to publish something so this can be shut down quicker.
Round 5
No content
Looks like there is nothing here yet
Stupid atheists cannot accept obvious truth, blindly following their preachers. After all, it is obvious that death is not infinity, that is, as atheists say, the end where you forever lose consciousness, memory and thoughts. If that were the case, you would already be dead. It doesn’t matter how long you live, a second or a century, infinity will swallow everything up. Thus, if you are not dead now, but alive, then this proves that you will never die in the future. And the fact that life is eternity, and death is only a moment for the transition to true life. Checkmate, atheists! Oh, that is, autistic people
If things are within existence, it wouldn't always require science to prove their place within existence. Science is not the only way we use to prove the place of things within existence.