Instigator / Pro
0
1502
rating
3
debates
50.0%
won
Topic

All is one

Status
Voting

Participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.

The voting will end in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
0
1341
rating
72
debates
18.75%
won
Description
~ 340 / 5,000

I'd like to start a discussion about whether or not our commonly held belief of being distinct beings is justified. I believe that the self as commonly perceived is not a correct representation of who we are and what it means to be human, and that there is no logically substantiated line between me and another.

Burden of proof is shared.

Round 1
Pro
Identity
There are generally two schools of thought about what constitutes our identities as existences. There is the theory of spatial tracking identity, which states that if you draw a line behind someone or something as it moves, it is the same thing as long as the line isn't broken and continues to follow the person or thing. That is their identity and who they are. Then there is the theory of form tracking identity. This hypothesis believes something can be said to be the same thing if it retains the same structure. In both cases, we are that which necessarily constitutes us. As without the thing which constitutes our being, we have no being at all, so if we're being, the building blocks which lead to our being must therefore also be part of our being and are therefore being too. From this, I can then say my blood is part of my being, as are my arms and eyes, even though I can, of course, lose these aspects of my being.

to use a syllogism to get the idea across.

p1. all being is made from the same substance
p2. all humans are made from substance 
p3. all humans are the same being

What is this same substance, you ask? Well, it's energy. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, which naturally means all that is is simply this same substance transmuting form. Now all I need to do is show that energy fulfills the criteria for both the theory of form tracking identity and the theory of spatial identity, to then make it undisputed that all is one. 

Theory of spatial tracking identity and energy
The universe, in fact, has no center. Ever since the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago, the universe has been expanding. But despite its name, the Big Bang wasn't an explosion that burst outward from a central point of detonation. The universe started out extremely compact and tiny. Then every point in the universe expanded equally, and that continues today. And so, without any point of origin, the universe has no center., This therefore debunks the theory that energy is separate, as there is not even a centre to anything in the universe. A human body has a centre, my car has a centre, but the thing these things themselves are made of have no centre. Therefore, making your form as an individual separated from the whole, simply a stubborn illusion, as your form is simply made of energy temporarily taking on a denser form. How can something that has no center be distinguished from something else? As a non-center implies another part, being, or substance. To use an analogy, imagine you're in a sandpit and you wet the sand and make shapes in it, such as castles. The sand castles are now much harder than the sand surrounding the sand castle, but we'd still call the sand castle sand despite its altered texture. This can be applied to the difference between a rock and a flower all the same. Once we get down to the fundamentals of existence, this is evident. The rock and flower, too are made of the same material, as is the wet and dry sand, simply in a temporarily denser transient state.

Theory of form identity and energy
The theory of form identity is fascinating! Nonetheless, it appears to have a few flaws. According to the theory of form, that which retains the same structure is that which it is. This makes sense until you realize that you from a second ago is no longer you. You from ten years ago appear to be not just a different person, but a different being entirely, as the molecules in your makeup and particles are constantly exchanging, and you appear to be a new being at all times. Well, it just so happens that what creates particles is energy. This energy simply takes on the illusion of a new form, a harder, denser form as a particle, Yet it is still energy. Therefore, that which you are is energy too, just as the particles are energy. This then circles back to the theory of spatial tracking. Since there is no center to energy, there can be said to be no separation or distinctness between any being or substance outside of illusion.
Con
I will attempt to explain self identity.

Here is the foundation and everything given as a basis from the line cut from the debate description.

"there is no logically substantiated line between me and another."

We are all people that can be distinguished from one another.

Someone made a comment that they are someone else while that someone else is still themselves.

Now I'll agree granted that there is an agreeable understanding.

I am you or I was just like you when I was your age. A shared identity, that's correct. But I grew up. I matured as I put away childish things.

An adult identity is not an adolescent identity.

I can agree we have one identity called the human identity.
I agree that we have differences that create individual identities.

I accept both realities. They're not beliefs but realities I acknowledge. The opposing side as it appears does not.

Certainly law abiding citizens and criminals have distinguished or distinct identities.

Truth is, you can find relativity everywhere for universal reasons.

You can also have and do get polarity or dichotomy.

Now looking at some points from the other side.

"all being is made from the same substance
p2. all humans are made from substance
p3. all humans are the same being

What is this same substance, you ask? Well, it's energy. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, which naturally means all that is is simply this same substance transmuting form."

This is all true. Something being the same has commonality.

We're all the same. We bleed the same. We eat, breathe, sleep, all these things are the same.
We have expressions such as "treat everyone the same." We grant equal opportunity because a person is to be treated no different than another. They're another person just like you trying to make a living or what have you.

We share this same identity of a race of people called human.

We are the same as well as different causing distinct unique identities.

How?

I breathe like you do or the same as you in a taller body with darker skin.
That's because of genetics. I'd have to have contrasting genetic material/substance within the same universal matter/substance and energy somehow.

We are the same and different.




Round 2
Pro
Response to mall' argument
Thank you for accepting this debate, Mall. I think you brought up some interesting ideas, you even conceded that we can identify as the same in many ways. Yet you never seemed to argue the crux of the debate. That despite what we choose to identify as, we're the same being. I have a strong argument here, for an objective identity we should all pursue. You didnt address this point sadly. Which is really what needed to be addressed. 

individuality in oneness
Outside of that, it just felt like you were just agreeing with me except expanding on how we can still be unique despite our commonality. I agree as i will demonstrate. consider the commonly known fact that although a snowstorm may produce billions of snowflakes, no two of them are alike. This has two implications that are relevant for our discussion. One is that a snowflake is a relatively simple structure. A human is an almost infinitely more complex “structure” than a snowflake. In other words, the potential to create individual uniqueness is far higher in a complex than a simple structure. So if  individual uniqueness exists in as simple of a structure as snowflakes, do you see that it is far easier to create uniqueness in humans? My point being that you are created as an absolutely unique individual. There is no one like you in the entire world of form. You have the potential to bring a gift to planet Earth that no other being could bring. You are truly unique. How can something which is unique be compared to something else unique?

 Now for the second point. Imagine you meet a scientist who has made ithis life’s work to study snowflakes. This isn’t necessarily odd, but thisscientist has taken his study in a peculiar direction. He has set up an entire system for comparing snowflakes and classifying them into “good” and “bad” flakes. He has created a scale upon which the value of snowflakes can be measured, and at the top of the scale is the perfect snowflake, which it is his life’s goal to discover. Thus, he spends his entire life on a quest that is not aimed at helping humankind make better use of snow but is aimed entirely at finding the perfect snowflake and sorting snowflakes based on his self-created scale of value. You would probably think this was an odd way to spend your life, and there are several reasons for this. One is that it is not a useful activity—it doesn’t have any practical value that helps improve life on this planet. Another is that it is an impossible quest. When you think about it, you realize that snowflakes are unique, so what is the point of comparing them? How can you make comparisons between objects that are unique? And what is the point of assigning values to something like snowflakes? Can you really talk about good and bad snowflakes? And how could there be a perfect snowflake when they are all unique, since perfection implies a comparison to something imperfect?

Well, what is the point in making comparisons between people, when each person is a unique individual? What is the point in assigning values to people’s uniqueness? And can you really talk about good and bad people according to some standard in this world? Humans are the same being, but we're all blessed with our unique Individuality, no comparison should be made between us unless you want to limit your gifts. You can only uplift yourself by uplifting the all.

Truth is, you can find relativity everywhere for universal reasons.

You can also have and do get polarity or dichotomy.
This is exactly why suffering exists, my friend. Polarity of beliefs. For every argument i can make for a philosophy with my rational mind, i can think of an opposite philosophy. Meaning any philosophy made of this world, will inevitably fall into duality, creating brother against brother. One against another, me vs. you. Us vs. them. All promising the elixir, the cure to your human suffering. But its a lie, a dirty lie. 
Con
"you even conceded that we can identify as the same in many ways. "

I don't know if you mean agreed by "conceded". For the record it was never my intention and position that nobody is the same. It's a multiple of perspectives but it appears you're only saying one is valid.
The individual in the comments was pointing out the validity in multiple views.

"That despite what we choose to identify as, we're the same being. "

Works the same way in having unique identities that we have no choice in.

"You didnt address this point sadly. Which is really what needed to be addressed. "

I apologize. What is the precise point you're looking for me to respond to in a few sentences or less?

"Outside of that, it just felt like you were just agreeing with me except expanding on how we can still be unique despite our commonality."

Ok , well I like pizza, you don't. Those are unique identities to ourselves. We're both the same as we both eat . Do you see now?

"do you see that it is far easier to create uniqueness in humans? "

Well yes, regardless,uniqueness exists. Your position is unique to you unless there are others that share it. I don't know of any.

"My point being that you are created as an absolutely unique individual. There is no one like you in the entire world of form. You have the potential to bring a gift to planet Earth that no other being could bring. You are truly unique. How can something which is unique be compared to something else unique?"

The comparison is uniqueness. If we're all unique, we're all the same. We all have one identity. That's true. It's a true oxymoron. Our similarities makes us different still. An interesting true paradox but true.

"When you think about it, you realize that snowflakes are unique, so what is the point of comparing them? "

Outside of the commonality of being unique, there's nothing else to compare unless we're talking about percentages of uniqueness.
Say if one thing has only 1-2 percent contrast with another thing to make it unique, that would make it 99-98 percent the same. So you may have a lot to compare between those two items that are still technically unique.

"How can you make comparisons between objects that are unique? "

Review response above.

"And what is the point of assigning values to something like snowflakes?"

Value has to do with the affect or effect of a thing with something else. That's how anything has value. Like a functionless car has no value to me as oppose to a car that is running.

" Can you really talk about good and bad snowflakes? "

Well, I guess only in a sense of the ones that causes blizzards, perils, fatal vehicular accidents. But people will just use the language of a bad snow storm versus a bad set of snowflakes.

"And how could there be a perfect snowflake when they are all unique, since perfection implies a comparison to something imperfect?"

Well now with talking about perfection, that can be subjective. People use the term perfect but don't believe in it when it comes to certain things. So I wouldn't know how that works or what a perfect snowflake is.

"Well, what is the point in making comparisons between people, when each person is a unique individual?"

Really depends on the individual circumstance. Someone doing it can have a different point than myself. Employers make comparisons between candidates particularly when there's one role to fill or a limited amount of roles.  Same thing in a political election or any election.

" What is the point in assigning values to people’s uniqueness? "

Once more, just the weight of the effect of someone has like somebody's unique credentials may be worth more in salary in comparison to another individual's unique credential profile.

"And can you really talk about good and bad people according to some standard in this world?"

I can't because logically it doesn't follow. How can good do bad and vice versa?

Good can be good because it is good. When it comes to people , we make good and bad choices/actions.

"Humans are the same being, but we're all blessed with our unique Individuality, no comparison should be made between us unless you want to limit your gifts. You can only uplift yourself by uplifting the all."

By saying this that we are the same and unique, you agree with my position.
Which says we have one identity while still having multiple identities. Which I don't believe was your position.

Now with you claiming that position as it appears, your actual position is that making comparisons in people is invalid or should not be .

People can and will compare based on different reasons. I would argue to refute an invalid reason to compare versus making a comparison in and of itself.

Now you may say because we're unique fundamentally is the reason not to compare.

But do you know how many variations of reasons there could be out there to justify making comparisons?
Nobody does, you'd have to know all things. That's why it's justified to wait for the reason somebody is comparing for. Hear out their case.



Round 3
Pro
The point you need to address is the fact we have an objective identity in the same being, regardless if you identify with it or not. You never actually argued against this point.
Con
"The point you need to address is the fact we have an objective identity in the same being, regardless if you identify with it or not. You never actually argued against this point. "

I say it again .

We people are all the same. We all are people, duh. We all are human. 

We are the same with different colors, creeds, religions, minds, shapes and sizes.

Now if you agree with that, then this wasn't much of a debate.