Instigator / Pro
4
1487
rating
31
debates
35.48%
won
Topic
#3542
THBT: Pantheism does not deny the individuality of human beings
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
Intelligence_06
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
7
1731
rating
167
debates
73.05%
won
Description
A lot of people condemn pantheism, as they feel like it destroys peoples individuality and uniqueness, I'd like to challenge this perspective.
Definitions:
individuality: The quality or state of being individual; singularity.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Individuality in oneness
I've already essentially made my first round argument in my "all is one debate" I'm simply going to copy and paste it here (mostly because of time constraints and the argument applies perfectly here too). Rationalmadman believes in reincarnation; although he believes we cannot overcome the body we are born in, as he would say "a down syndrome cannot think themselves out of their retarded brain chemistry," we still have a lot of individuality and unique ways of perceiving the world due to our different bodies and the ways they may interact with the world, due to our different biology's. Is he the same person from a previous life, assuming rational madman is correct in his reincarnation belief? He has the same consciousness, but he is not the same "person" because they are fundamentally different in their capabilities, views and outlooks, and perceptions of themselves and the outside world. As a result, even if we were all the same consciousness in different bodies, our uniqueness or individuality would remain.
- What is unique cannot be realistically judged on a standard in comparison to anything else or it is not unique
- All humans are therefore unique in some degree, therefore retain individuality/uniqueness
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. 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 it his life’s work to study snowflakes. This isn’t necessarily odd, but this scientist 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?
Con
#2
1. Definition
However, if you click this hyperlink, chances are that you are sent to a definition of the word "individuality" as opposed to "individual" as stated. As a result, this should not be a valid definition for "individual" as stated. We need to define again. Since this is essentially a redefinition in this debate of the term "individuality" which is also the only term defined in the description section, this can obviously be seen as shifting the goalpost by changing the definition of a term when another definition of the same word was already being used and agreed upon prior to the debate itself. As a result, this shift is null, let's go back to the first definition in the description.
Let's look at the first definition of "individuality" defined by Pro:
individuality: The quality or state of being individual; singularity.
Except...he again still fails to define what "being individual" is. We know what it is being used as an adjective here.
So, we look at Merriam-Webster, an arguably reliable dictionary.
1a: of, relating to, or distinctively associated with an individualb: intended for one personc: being an individual or existing as an indivisible whole2: having marked individuality3: existing as a distinct entity : SEPARATE4obsolete : INSEPARABLE
Definition 2 can already be dismissed as it is circular reasoning. As for the other definitions, it requires human beings to either be inseparable, or unable to be dissected further(like what we used to think of atoms); Separate, or not being a part of anything; Being an individual(noun), which means essentially the same as "separate"; or indivisible, which means the same thing as "inseparable", unable to be separated into smaller pieces.
If by the entrace of the belief of pantheism, any of those qualities are being altered so the "individual" quality lessened, Con wins as the topic is proven wrong.
We know what pantheism is. The belief of that The universe is The God. By believing in exactly that, you are removing the "separate" quality or "being an individual" because now you think you are a part of something. You are an element of God, included by the universe and therefore God and therefore not separate from everything. Even if you belong to anything else, such as the US citizenship, the Illuminati, or LucasFilm Ltd., the fact that you believe in that the universe includes you automatically makes you non-separate and non-individual from one more thing: God, as opposed to as if you believe the universe and God are two different things(in this case, such as in Christianity, you are not included in the set of "God", you are separate from God.). The conclusion is the same there: Qualities are lessened for what is defined as "individual". And yes, we are a part of the universe, I don't think I would need to prove that going lengths either.
2. Rebuttals
consider the commonly known fact that although a snowstorm may produce billions of snowflakes, no two of them are alike.
Untrue. This is because they are all produced in subtly different environments resulting in them looking vastly different. If we produce them in the same place under the same humidity and temperature and pressure, identical snowflakes can be produced. Again, the reason all people are "different" is because our tech does not allow us to create entirely identical people, as even the twins would get different bedrooms and like different things. The ideal way to raise people identically can be taken from Star Wars II: Attack of the Clones, where people that look exactly identical are all from the genes of one person, raised in identical settings and trained in identical ways(unless they carry different jobs). Until they get out to fight in different planets, they are literally the identical snowflakes of the people, no offense. The reason we do not do this is simply because there is no reason to, we have enough people going into the Army and cloning is ethically questionable as of now.
This point, albeit made, does not stand.
He has set up an entire system for comparing snowflakes and classifying them into “good” and “bad” flakes.
Since Morality cannot be proven to be entirely objective, there is simply no reason to separate snowflakes or people into "good" and "bad". There is no reason for this to be a standing point.
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.
For one, "improving live on this planet" must be proven as something that is seen as good. Also, this is not an impossible quest. You can give me all your bank money with no legal repercussions required, you just don't see enough incentive. That is the same reason this has not been done: They just don't feel like doing it, not because it doesn't save the planet(although this could be one of the reasons.) or is impossible. I rest my case.
Conclusion:
- For the sole reason that you believe the universe is God, you are a part of God and thus less separate and individual.
- The snowflake point does not stand. I can be identical to someone else, it is just there is no reason for such cloning mechanism to exist now.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Definitional typo
No, I don't believe we need to redefine. I simply misspelled individual when I meant to say individuality. The point remains the same, if not strengthened, if I simply apply the word to the definition I intended to use.
Definition of individual
Except...he again still fails to define what "being individual" is. We know what it is being used as an adjective here.
Something is individual when it is singular. I can pluck a piece of my hair from my scalp, and it would be considered a singular piece of hair. In this same sense, other aspects of me can be reduced to singulars or individuals. We can have individual numbers such as one, as long as it is not paired with or contrasted with another number. To win this debate, you ought to claim that only our consciousness creates individuality, and that our personalities and brain chemistry, which dictates how we choose to think, learn, etc., do not create any sort of individuality, but only consciousness itself is dividable. To do this, you also have to argue against concepts such as culture being a defining factor of an individual and that culture does not shape an individual whatsoever.
1a: of, relating to, or distinctively associated with an individualb: intended for one personc: being an individual or existing as an indivisible whole2: having marked individuality3: existing as a distinct entity : SEPARATE4obsolete : INSEPARABLE
In this debate, we assume pantheism is true. Which means, no matter how far we separate things, this sense of perception of separation remains an illusion.
Following the definition of individuality, we have a lack of individuality if me and you share the same hair colour, at least in this aspect. Based on your "syllogism", if we're the same consciousness in separate bodies, we remain indistinct or non individual in this aspect. But we still remain individuals in other aspects, such as us having different personalities.
To use a crude analogy syllogism:
p1. something which is different can be separated from something
p2. something which is separate has its own individuality
P1. i can lose different aspects of my mind separately
p2. there are individual pieces to my mind.
Following on from this, it can be concluded that the brain is an amalgamation or assortment of different mechanisms simply working together. Just like my single strand of hair is individual, different parts of my mind can be reduced down to being individual as different aspects can be lost whilst maintaining consciousness.
This therefore means "I" am an amalgamation of different individual parts. Therefore, even if consciousness itself is one and non-individual, we, as humans and as one being, still have unique individual traits, therefore individuality.
consider the commonly known fact that although a snowstorm may produce billions of snowflakes, no two of them are alike.
Untrue. .This is because they are all produced in subtly different environments resulting in them looking vastly different. If we produce them in the same place under the same humidity and temperature and pressure, identical snowflakes can be produced. Again, the reason all people are "different" is because our tech does not allow us to create entirely identical people, as even the twins would get different bedrooms and like different things. The ideal way to raise people identically can be taken from Star Wars II: Attack of the Clones, where people that look exactly identical are all from the genes of one person, raised in identical settings and trained in identical ways(unless they carry different jobs). Until they get out to fight in different planets, they are literally the identical snowflakes of the people, no offense. The reason we do not do this is simply because there is no reason to, we have enough people going into the Army and cloning is ethically questionable as of now.
Untrue, you claim? I can't seem to open the hyperlink, as it's hidden behind a paywall. On that note, I too can hyperlink a source which disagrees with yours!
Although I feel like this is largely unfair and a borderline strawman, as I have to go down to the molecular level to be correct, no two snowflakes are the same. Hence, I will instead create a steal man argument. Finger prints
No two individuals, not even identical twins, have been shown to even have identical finger prints. The idea that if we raised twins in the same environment, they would be the exact same is pretty ludicrous if we can even see differences on the palms of their hands. The brain is, by and large, the most complex organ in the human body, potentially even the known universe. Your burden of proof is incredulous in that claim. It ought to be backed up. No offense was taken, as both you and I know it's an impossibility. Now if we did cloning, that would be a different matter. Yet then it could be said to be impossible to control all environmental conditions, and truly, it would.
Since Morality cannot be proven to be entirely objective, there is simply no reason to separate snowflakes or people into "good" and "bad". There is no reason for this to be a standing point.
Fair enough.
Links
Con
#4
1. Definitions, still
Following the definition of individuality, we have a lack of individuality if me and you share the same hair colour, at least in this aspect.
That wasn't what I intended to say, but believe it or not this actually benefits CON. If we are in a group before and after believing in pantheism, that means we are never NOT separate and absolutely "individual". In this case, individuality would never be NOT denied as if one is a part of something, he would not be separate at all due to the definitions given literally last round. As for "inseparable", we human beings are never "inseparable" due to that we can be able to be separated into cells. So, all in all, if a human being indeed is a human and is a part of something, he would not be considered "individual" in any of the four interpretations. Taking account into Pantheism(PRO accepts my definition for PANTHEISM), you would be always be a part of something: God, since at this point the universe IS God.
Keep in mind the topic itself states via "Human being". What it would mean is the "human" would require a biological body that of a Homo Sapien, and the consciousness essentially does not matter(as long as it is still in a homo sapien and is not dead yet). Humans can be cut(no source needed, you can cut yourself, although I don't recommend), and thus not inseparable nor indivisible. 2 out of the 4 interpretations are never not denied as long as the entity in question is a human being.
This is on top of that humans are always a part of God according to pantheism, I repeat, it on definition devoids us of being separate due to us deterministically sure of being included within something else, a God. Sure, you can argue that even without pantheism, we are still a part of the universe itself, and you would be correct, in that "individuality" would technically never be not denied for a human being.
Now let's look at the opponent's appendage.
Something is individual when it is singular. I can pluck a piece of my hair from my scalp, and it would be considered a singular piece of hair. In this same sense, other aspects of me can be reduced to singulars or individuals. We can have individual numbers such as one, as long as it is not paired with or contrasted with another number.
Except numbers cannot be individual due to them inherently having an attribute that could be used for comparison and categorization that makes them not entirely separate from everything else. You cannot make a number that cannot be categorized as anything whatsoever, it either is a real number, complex number, or you make a new category being a revolutionary in the exploration of mathematics. Plucking a hair and even cutting an arm off with a lightsaber may result in them being separate from "You", but they cannot be said to be separate from the universe itself(or God, if so), at least not in any tangible method. The "Singular" doesn't mean anything here essentially as it seems, at least not in any meaningful manner.
Or...at least "Singular" is relative, as a hair can be removed from you but not the room you are in nor the universe. You are an individual to some entities, but not to others. In that case, Pantheism adds one thing that you are non-individual to, God, which makes you less individual when considering all and everything. Pantheism does deny you of individuality in some degree.
p1. something which is different can be separated from somethingp2. something which is separate has its own individuality
I will dismiss all these due to them being irrelevant to the bigger picture. No matter who you are or how separate you are from other people, the fact that the universe is considered a God means that you are a part of God and thus not an individual to God, removing a part of individuality definitely.
In fact, such different thing that "can be separated from something" by definition is NOT an individual, violating the "inseparable" criteria. An "individual" must neither be a part of something nor to have parts consisting of it that can be separated. Pro either is misinterpreting or is making a point obviously against the definition he did not attempt to disprove. In this entire section, Pro went out of his way to demonstrate that people can be separated into parts, which are then different, when in fact the definition clearly rules out. Pro just accepted that humans are not individuals, disproving his side as of now.
Untrue, you claim? I can't seem to open the hyperlink, as it's hidden behind a paywall. On that note, I too can hyperlink a source which disagrees with yours!
Says the person who linked nothing. Clicking on that blue link leads to nothing. In that case, this claim is literally unsupported from the beginning, and we should not yet accept it as true. Point dismissed.
I will say this one more time: Being unique does not bar the fact that you are a part of something else, the universe, or even the God. Being unique does not make you indivisible. Being unique and different to everyone else does not automatically grant you the rank of "individual", but Universe the God can take it away from you, because that is how the term is being defined.
And...the fact that we are different only implies that there is no incentive nor technology as of now to create an identical copy of either a snowflake or a person. We understand molecular structures, and if we rearrange all the atoms in a way one-to-one matching an existing person, the product is what? An identical person to someone else that exists. Saying something is realistically not done and saying it is impossible are not the same thing. In the topic, "does not" is is simple tense, which does not specify time nor space. If one ought to explicitly describe "now", they would use wordings such as "does not currently" or "is yet to", etc. Plus, you can never disprove there existing someone entirely identical to you just because this has yet to statistically show up, as to Russell's Teapot argument. Yes, you are the one that has to disprove it! So far, Pro has neither demonstrated sufficiently that uniqueness constitutes individuality(especially since my definitions are not criticized upon) nor that uniqueness is provable. I rest my case.
- A human is always a part of the universe and always dissectable, making humans non-individuals essentially according to a set of definitions yet to be disproven.
- Pantheism adds one thing that a person is non-individual to: God!
- Pro accepts that humans are dissectable, essentially conceding, while not attempting to debunk my definition.
- Per Russell's Teapot argument, Pro just proved that identical humans are just extremely unlikely and so far without a known case, but would otherwise be impossible to prove that identical humans are entirely impossible.
- As a result, Pro's case is dismantled. Vote CON!
Round 3
Pro
#5
That wasn't what I intended to say, but believe it or not this actually benefits CON. If we are in a group before and after believing in pantheism, that means we are never NOT separate and absolutely "individual". In this case, individuality would never be NOT denied as if one is a part of something, he would not be separate at all due to the definitions given literally last round.
You're misunderstanding. Something can be part of a greater whole while having its own unique attributes, which means it can be reduced to being individual. Let me walk you though it; simply using basic vocabulary. Sometimes individual is a way of referring to a person, quasi-formally. You might elevate the phrase "This guy walks into my shop," by saying, "This individual walks into my shop." You might also hear this word when talking about things that are divided: foods designed for lunchboxes, such as potato chips or juice boxes, are often prepackaged into individual servings.
Definitions of individual
- adjectivebeing or characteristic of a single thing or person“individual drops of rain”“please mark the individual pages”“they went their individual ways”
In this same sense, even if me and you are the same being, we can still be considered individuals, or individuals in common language; we still maintain different traits, different qualities, if at the end of it, we're one. Just like it could be said I'm one with my arm (as it is me, or part of me), you are also part of me. But I can make a distinction between me and my arm because my arm has its own unique qualities compared to the whole/rest of me. I'm unsure why you have to think in black and white terms. There is a middle ground, a limbo where things can be one but unique and individual.
human beings are never "inseparable" due to that we can be able to be separated into cells. So, all in all, if a human being indeed is a human and is a part of something, he would not be considered "individual" in any of the four interpretations.
This doesn't do a whole lot for your case. We can lose a lot of our bio mass (cells) and still be here. You can take a shotgun blow to your head and lose most of your mental faculties and senses (cells) and you may still be here to some degree. If anything, you simply build upon my argument that we as humans can be broken down until the point where consciousness no longer remains.
"Keep in mind the topic itself states via "Human being". What it would mean is the "human" would require a biological body that of a Homo Sapien, and the consciousness essentially does not matter(as long as it is still in a homo sapien and is not dead yet). Humans can be cut(no source needed, you can cut yourself, although I don't recommend), and thus not inseparable nor indivisible."
Well, I would always agree that we remain as humans no matter how much of ourselves we cut off. At least until you lose consciousness, which doesn't negate my point that there are individual qualities to the human body that are entirely unique to that person; thus, even if we're the same being, we still have unique biological and psychological traits in our own "persons." You say this is untrue, but it's not. Different aspects of your body have different traits, such as your arms have different functions and capabilities than your legs. This is why we can say you have an "individual leg" and an individual mind. I imagine you view both your leg and mind as part of you none the less, no? If you do such a thing, how is it not contradictory to say we can't with conscious experience itself?
"Except numbers cannot be individual due to them inherently having an attribute that could be used for comparison and categorization that makes them not entirely separate from everything else. You cannot make a number that cannot be categorized as anything whatsoever, it either is a real number, complex number, or you make a new category being a revolutionary in the exploration of mathematics. "
Interesting argument. By that definition, your brain also isn't individual, as different aspects of the brain rely on other aspects of the brain to relay signals and come to conclusions and sensory experiences. With that meaning, there is no "you." Are you prepared to say you're not an individual within your body?
You are an individual to some entities, but not to others. In that case, Pantheism adds one thing that you are non-individual to, God, which makes you less individual when considering all and everything. Pantheism does deny you of individuality in some degree.
We agree.
In fact, such different thing that "can be separated from something" by definition is NOT an individual, violating the "inseparable" criteria. An "individual" must neither be a part of something nor to have parts consisting of it that can be separated. Pro either is misinterpreting or is making a point obviously against the definition he did not attempt to disprove. In this entire section, Pro went out of his way to demonstrate that people can be separated into parts, which are then different, when in fact the definition clearly rules out. Pro just accepted that humans are not individuals, disproving his side as of now.
This is a good argument, but I feel like I've already posited a good counter by showing you your brain is also divisible. Are you not an individual?
Being unique does not bar the fact that you are a part of something else, the universe, or even the God. Being unique does not make you indivisible. Being unique and different to everyone else does not automatically grant you the rank of "individual", but Universe the God can take it away from you, because that is how the term is being defined.
Well, we agree again, we're not overall a different being in pantheism, we simply have our unique individual attributes and abilities as human beings. Just like there are individual aspects to the brain, there are individual aspects to people, such as your arm and your mind, your spine and your muscles. Are you prepared to say you don't exist as an individual because your brain is dividable? Although you will always have the non-individual status of being a human, even if your brain is dividable (everyone else on this site is presumably human), this would not be a sufficient argument against the philosophy I present, because being a human is not individually unique to you, unlike your finger print and overall phenomenological experience, which is truly individual.
And...the fact that we are different only implies that there is no incentive nor technology as of now to create an identical copy of either a snowflake or a person
Well, the burden of proof is on you to show the environment can be controllable in such a case. With a snowflake? its possible. A human? No way.
1. As con correctly pointed out, as long as you're living, certain aspects cannot be divided, such as your "humanhood", but that alone is not a unique quality. Everyone on this site shares this quality, therefore is non-individual.
2. Pantheism adds one thing that a person is non-individual to: God!
2. true, but we're individual qualities or aspects of God. Such as your nails being one aspect of you with their unique attributes and qualities unique to them. The overall burden of proof is not to show pantheism doesn't deny any individuality, just that some form individuality can remain in pantheism.
3. Pro accepts that humans are dissectable, essentially conceding, while not attempting to debunk my definition.
3. Something can be dissectible whilst being an individual, otherwise you must concede your sense of "I" doesn't actually exist. And you're simply an amalgamation of processes working together, meaning you as an individual are an illusion. Once more, your indivisible identity as a human being is not unique to you.
- Per Russell's Teapot argument, Pro just proved that identical humans are just extremely unlikely and so far without a known case, but would otherwise be impossible to prove that identical humans are entirely impossible.
The burden of proof is wholly shared here. You're the one who made the claim to begin with. I let you know it's an impossibility with twins and a practical impossibility with clones, as simply taking one single step differently from the other clone could lead to a different thought leading to a different chain of events (the butterfly effect). Its impossible to if factors were truly controlled for or not.
4. As a result, Pro's case is dismantled. Vote CON!
5. There's nothing more insecure than someone telling people to vote for them. You're aware that people may view me as the victor, so you feel compelled to tell people you are. If you were debating a child, you wouldn't say this.
Con
#6
1. REBUTTALS
You're misunderstanding. Something can be part of a greater whole while having its own unique attributes, which means it can be reduced to being individual. Let me walk you though it; simply using basic vocabulary. Sometimes individual is a way of referring to a person, quasi-formally. You might elevate the phrase "This guy walks into my shop," by saying, "This individual walks into my shop." You might also hear this word when talking about things that are divided: foods designed for lunchboxes, such as potato chips or juice boxes, are often prepackaged into individual servings.
No illustration on how this correlates to any dictionary definition(at least nothing sourced, so we can't determine if Pro is just making it up on the spot). As of this point, this is anecdotal evidence, which is not reliable evidence, at least compared with Merriam-Webster.
As further evidence that this is not reliable evidence, Pro blatantly mentions that this term is quasi-formal, meaning that this interpretation doesn't have to be accurate to definitions. Quasi-formally, we sometimes may refer to the US "American Empire" when the US is being authoritarian in irrational grounds. Quasi means "seeming" or "resembling", while not entirely accurate, so the interpretation that people are individuals, according to Pro, is not entirely accurate, as a result, it should be dismissed upon an agreement, intended or not.
Definitions of individual
Restate that this definition given is not linked to anything, so it cannot be considered reliable sourcing.
This doesn't do a whole lot for your case. We can lose a lot of our bio mass (cells) and still be here. You can take a shotgun blow to your head and lose most of your mental faculties and senses (cells) and you may still be here to some degree. If anything, you simply build upon my argument that we as humans can be broken down until the point where consciousness no longer remains.
...while not refuting my definition that anything able to be divided is thus not individual. Seriously. Pro just tried to expand the application of "individual" to people with a new(and not verified) definition while not anywhere saying how this interpretation is wrong. By reliable definition sourcing, because humans can be divided into cellular level and that humans are individuals never in an accurate sense, humans are NOT individuals.
Interesting argument. By that definition, your brain also isn't individual, as different aspects of the brain rely on other aspects of the brain to relay signals and come to conclusions and sensory experiences. With that meaning, there is no "you." Are you prepared to say you're not an individual within your body?
My brain is not an individual due to it both being able to constitute me knowingly and can be separated into neurons, etc. As to that whether I am an individual or not, I am not. I am knowingly separable and a part of God(Yes, I do believe that the universe itself can be interpreted as some God). I am a person, yes, but not an individual exactly.
You are an individual to some entities, but not to others. In that case, Pantheism adds one thing that you are non-individual to, God, which makes you less individual when considering all and everything. Pantheism does deny you of individuality in some degree.We agree.
Blatant concession. So pantheism does deny people of individuality in some degree, because we are knowingly making ourselves a part of one more thing: God, thus making ourselves non-individual to God and overall less individual. Yes that is restating, we agree.
This is a good argument, but I feel like I've already posited a good counter by showing you your brain is also divisible. Are you not an individual?
To say it again, no. The very fact that something is divisible makes something non-individual according to an interpretation never attempted to be defeated.
Well, we agree again, we're not overall a different being in pantheism, we simply have our unique individual attributes and abilities as human beings. Just like there are individual aspects to the brain, there are individual aspects to people, such as your arm and your mind, your spine and your muscles.
Making your argument while using a word in an interpretation with no proper backing, i.e. incorrectly. *insert CinemaSins Ding*
And...the fact that we are different only implies that there is no incentive nor technology as of now to create an identical copy of either a snowflake or a personWell, the burden of proof is on you to show the environment can be controllable in such a case. With a snowflake? its possible. A human? No way.
Considering that people are just collectives of atoms, arranging molecules in an extremely specific fashion would be extremely unlikely and rare, but the odds are not zero. You cannot absolutely disprove such a possibility, that a person is exactly the same, in body position, in DNA composition, because these things are just arrangements of molecules that are possible albeit with difficulty. Plus, Pro has only shown the UNLIKELINESS of two identical humans, but never shown any evidence that the probability is EXACTLY zero. Note, this is not the default, as the default is neither no pair of identical people nor there being one. The default is the middle ground, where Pro actually has to back up this claim, which he clearly failed to do as he only listed the unlikelihood but not impossibility.
Even in this case, it is shown that in Pro's interpretation "individuality" is not absolute as there is no way to disprove someone with every attribute exactly like someone on Earth, maybe even dozens of sets of them, maybe even millions of billions, render none of our attributes never unique. Pro never disproved this when it is his burden to do so. Russell's teapot still applies here.
Pro again used "individuality" as a definition for "individual", a flaw Pro has already committed in the 1st round, not already mentioning, this alone is moving the goalpost and shall be treated as null. Only the 3rd interpretation was in the description, so these two:
will be treated as null.
Funny enough, Pro's entire case was built majorly upon these 2 interpretations for "individuality", when they were never really valid definitions in the first place.
The burden of proof is wholly shared here. You're the one who made the claim to begin with. I let you know it's an impossibility with twins and a practical impossibility with clones, as simply taking one single step differently from the other clone could lead to a different thought leading to a different chain of events (the butterfly effect). Its impossible to if factors were truly controlled for or not.
Saying that impossibility has been proven despite everything that has been brought up was just that it is improbable, despite it having a chance non-zero. *Ding*
2. CONCLUSIONS
- Pro admits that the interpretation that auto-qualifies humans as individuals is quasi-formal and not entirely accurate as a result. Without proper soure(there is none), this interpretation will be ignored.
- No, formally, neither me nor you are in fact actual individuals. We just call that the same way some people call hot women "pussies" despite the term not applied accurately.
- Pro concedes that pantheism denies individuality to some degree due to it makes us non-individual to more things(including God).
- ...which goes against the topic statement itself. Pro's job is to prove the topic right, not to accept that it is wrong.
- Entirely identical people are never proven impossible beyond attempts to prove that it is improbable.
- It is Pro's job to prove that.
- Pro's case uses definitions that are not only redefinitions to a term already agreed upon(thus moving the goalpost) but a large amount of his case was built upon so-called already-invalid definitions.
- As a result, Pro's case is dismantled. Vote CON!
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
This debate ends up being rather straightforward because of these quotes from Con's R1 and R2:
"If by the entrace of the belief of pantheism, any of those qualities are being altered so the "individual" quality lessened, Con wins as the topic is proven wrong."
"You are an individual to some entities, but not to others. In that case, Pantheism adds one thing that you are non-individual to, God, which makes you less individual when considering all and everything. Pantheism does deny you of individuality in some degree."
Pro never really addresses the first of these quotes, which already sets the stage badly for him since it means he has largely conceded this bit of burdens analysis. As far as I can tell, Pro doesn't suggest an alternate way to interpret the burdens based on the resolution, which is a shame because I think this was arguable. The words "does not deny" have a specific implication, i.e. it must impose some form of denial - I could see that as being rather distinct from choosing to follow a religion, which isn't necessarily an imposition. I could also see the burden being that at least most of their individuality must be stripped out for Con to win. Since his argument basically functions by saying that it's one among many of the ways that the individual is subsumed by some larger grouping or entity, it could be argued that this doesn't make for a big reduction in individuality.
That being said, without a direct response to this, Pro spends the debate mitigating Con's points without recognizing that mitigation does nothing to improve his position. The second quote, which Pro conceded in R3, ends up sinking him by itself in this debate because it's an acknowledgement that individuality is at least somewhat reduced by pantheism. Con told me that that reduction can be any amount to meet his burden. By this point, Pro would have had to argue that pantheism in some way imparts greater individuality to counter this, but instead focuses on the aforementioned mitigation. That doesn't do much to help him and leaves me little choice but to vote Con.
4 days left, 0 votes, care to change that?
Seeing this debate has given me flashbacks to the fact that you don't debate ideas but definitions. I'm going to have to block you whenever i open a new debate and unblock you when someone accepts. I have little time to argue the definitions of words for hours each day instead of discussing the ideas i present in themselves. I've never had these semantic games with anyone but you.
Need votes, plz
Tough one. Both did well
My burden of proof was never to prove pantheism doesn't eradicate some individuality but more so that individuality does remain in pantheism. Even without pantheism you have a lack of individuality in many areas. I felt like that was a strawman that you said that, but that's to be expected (from reading your about me). You cannot divide the user from the account, btw.
AHHHHHH I misused Russell's teapot here.. I meant to say that per Russell's teapot it would be Pro's burden to disprove this unfalsifiable claim(proving the inverse), which he failed to do. The default is neither no god nor there being one. The default is neither there being one nor there being none.
"I'm skeptical of rebirth and much prefer it being called reincarnation if it is a thing. You're only truly born once, the rest are your later avatars. I'm a nature over nurture type of person and I don't see it as pessimistic, instead I understand that an idiot literally cannot think their way out of their retarded brain chemistry, memories etc. This applies to muchore."
I'm unsure why you think the original is any better than the paraphrase. By definition idiot has the same definition of someone with down syndrome, no one uses the word idiot to mean lazy. it means foolish in modern language, but the fact you later backed it up with the r word lead me to believe you didnt mean just foolish people but those with down syndrome. The problem wasn't me taking it out of context, it barely is. You just don't like that others can see it more readily as you care what people on this site think of you.
No, you were not being kind at all. I know/knew a person or two with Down's and they are not idiots.
Idiots tend to be people too lazy to use their brain well, which was why I said brain chemistry, as opposed to those struggling to the best of their ability every day and being actively alert and as useful as they can be.
Do not fucking misquote me and tell me it is a kindness.
Idiot definition:
A person who is considered foolish or stupid.
A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.
I was being kind to you to exchange idiot with down syndrome as its far more respectable, i only used the r word simply for paraphrasing reasons and saying think their way out of their down syndrome brain chemistry didnt sound like it made as much sense. But maybe i should of regardless, and that's something i should of done better.
then use the term idiot please thanks, I never said down's syndrome.
Why are you quoting me without context then? I can also find a harsh or silly quote of yours and ignore the context it was said in at a later point.
simplybeourselves's avatar
simplybeourselves
06.15.20 08:50PM
What's your opinion on reincarnation?
That's between me and the goddess of reality. Are you reincarnating your account?
I'm skeptical of rebirth and much prefer it being called reincarnation if it is a thing. You're only truly born once, the rest are your later avatars. I'm a nature over nurture type of person and I don't see it as pessimistic, instead I understand that an idiot literally cannot think their way out of their retarded brain chemistry, memories etc. This applies to muchore.
"I am not sure where I exactly said the quote Ehyeh is saying nor to I want to be associated with using the term 'retarded"
Its in your answered questions, where you said that. Scoop through them all.
Pantheism can mean multiple Gods, not necessarily though. I believe in a Spinoza form of pantheism, which doesnt get divided into seperate Gods but is simply one with the universe.
"Actually narcissists can be very empathetic"
only in so far as they can relate to you. Narcissists are going to be less empathetic on average compared to people without narcissistic qualities.
Brain chemistry isn't the same as neurological brain structure btw, chemistry refers to hormones.
I am not sure where I exactly said the quote Ehyeh is saying nor to I want to be associated with using the term 'retarded' with regards to people that are mentally challenged, tbh.
I don't know why I am being attributed to that at all.
Pantheism means multiple gods/demigods, you are mixing terms together btw.
I did not say it promotes lack of empathy, it promotes lack of any suffering mattering.
Actually narcissists can be very empathetic, modern usage of the term is too colloquial and fails to understand something about narcissists that are not sociopath or psychopathic.
The point i was expounding was that they have shared qualities in a lack of empathy. I'm unsure how pantheism can promote a lack of empathy. I will debate you on it anytime.
psychopathy and narcissism are not the same thing.
Does this sound like a philosophy that promotes psychopathy to you? Ego or separateness is what leads to narcissism. Narcissism leads to a lack of empathy. Pantheism is extremely humanising of other beings. In pantheism, you can only uplift yourself by uplifting the all. If the ego is the sense of "I" that creates distinction and separateness, then the ego is that which then leads to selfishness through said sense of "I." Therefore, a more universal "I" ought to be adopted so even acts of selfish acts are "selfless."
I will be taking some inspiration from you in my first round argument, potentially some plagiarism.
go ahead, accept sir.
That is blatantly what is meant.
Do you mean "Pantheism does not deny the individuality of human beings"? Change it to that I will accept.