Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
4
debates
25.0%
won
Topic
#4572
There is no life after death.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
0
4
After 4 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
Intelligence_06
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 15,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
4
1731
rating
167
debates
73.05%
won
Description
When you die, there is no afterlife of any kind. Simple, right? As in my latest debate the burden caused some confusion, here it is:
Pro: Must prove that no afterlife exists.
Con: Must prove the existence of an afterlife.
Have a good day debating!
Round 1
Pro
#1
1. Burden of proof
Pro: Must prove that no afterlife exists.
Con: Must prove the existence of an afterlife.
2. Definitions (From: Merriam-Webster)
Afterlife- An existence after death.
Death- A permanent cessation of all vital functions: the end of life.
3. My points (so far)
- The electrical signals going around our brain determine our thoughts, feelings, and consciousness of the world around us. When we die, it only takes around 10 seconds for all sensory input through those signals to completely disappear, (What Happens to the Brain After Death? (news-medical.net) thus our brain stops, and no memories or consciousness remains to go to an afterlife.
- Most religions claim there is a "soul" or "essence" that separates from the body when it dies and goes to the afterlife. Not only do we have no proof of this, but we have knowledge of how we have consciousness with no soul thanks to the theory of evolution and survival of the fittest.
- Many of the worlds smartest and most capable people, whom many regard as geniuses, have openly stated that there is no afterlife, (such as Stephen hawking). To claim the existence of an afterlife is to disagree with some of the smartest people this glorified rock has to offer.
4. Side note
My points are in their most basic form right now as I would like to see cons points before taking any possibly useless paths of argument.
Round 2
Con
#4
Apologies for not realizing I had a rolling deadline for the first round of this argument and congratulations for already gaining a headstart because I forgot to fill in said first round.
1. Topic
To resolve all topics, we need to essentially answer one question:
- What do we really need to prove our side correct?
Let's look at the topic.
There is no life after death.
Now, what is Con suppose to prove? Well, "Con: Must prove the existence of an afterlife.".
And, what counts as proving "the existence of an afterlife”? Exactly. Proving any existing instance where afterlife exists would suffice. One example would suffice.
2. Example
Before just mindlessly offering my example, we need to offer clear definition on what "afterlife" is. My opponent did in fact give a definition, so that is good.
Afterlife- An existence after death.
Exactly, so if in any case an individual is "alive" after considered to be "dead", such an example stands and the Con position is justified.
Let's look at other definitions given.
Death- A permanent cessation of all vital functions: the end of life.
Now, this is truly a word that may cause confusion if you read the further parts of this argument without considering what it means. Let's look at what it means, shall we?
1: continuing or enduring without fundamental or marked change : STABLE2a: not easily removed, washed away, or erased : INDELIBLE sense 1ab: making marks that cannot easily be removed : INDELIBLE sense 1b
In this case, the term "permanent" does not eliminate revival of people from death as even the viability of a revival service still renders death permanent due to the fact that:
- According to entry 1, yes, because when an entity is dead, without external intervention, it stays dead, stabily and persistently.
- According to entry 2, yes, because saving individuals from death is a difficult task with low success rates(but not zero). Source here.
Yes, the example here
Haven't I said that the success rate wasn't zero in the last subsection? Well, let's look at the article.
Clinical death is reversible. Researchers believe there's a window of about four minutes from the moment of cardiac arrest to the development of serious brain damage.1 (as you can probably imagine, that's a pretty hard statistic to validate through a random control trial).If blood flow can be restored—either by cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) or by getting the heart pumping again—the patient could come back from clinical death. It's not a sure thing; success rates for CPR are pretty dismal.
The fact the success rate is nonzero suggests that successful cases of life after death(due to them being revived) do exist. And yes, although clinical death is more reversible and less permanent than brain death, clinical death still nevertheless satisfies both of the two criteria for "permanent".
3. Rebuttals
This is the second round, I suppose I should be able to do somn'.
- PRO: The electrical signals going around our brain determine our thoughts, feelings, and consciousness of the world around us. When we die, it only takes around 10 seconds for all sensory input through those signals to completely disappear, (What Happens to the Brain After Death? (news-medical.net) thus our brain stops, and no memories or consciousness remains to go to an afterlife.
While biological death(brain death) may be irreversible, it is still possible to keep the body alive even when the brain is dead. Source.
Biological death, on the other hand, is brain death, and there's no turning back from brain death.3 That is irreversible death.Just to make things a bit more complicated, however, it is possible to keep the body alive while the brain is dead. The heart is more of a subcontractor than an employee of the body; it keeps its own hours and works without direct supervision by the brain.Since the heart works without brain input, it's possible to keep it going for a long time after the brain is dead. Indeed, that's one way that organ donation happens.
From the same source, loss of consciousness can occur already from clinical death, which IS reversible.
Technically, clinical death requires both the heart and the breathing to stop, but that's just semantics. Breathing and consciousness will cease within a few seconds of the heart stopping.Clinical death is reversible. Researchers believe there's a window of about four minutes from the moment of cardiac arrest to the development of serious brain damage.1 (as you can probably imagine, that's a pretty hard statistic to validate through a random control trial).
- PRO: Most religions claim there is a "soul" or "essence" that separates from the body when it dies and goes to the afterlife. Not only do we have no proof of this, but we have knowledge of how we have consciousness with no soul thanks to the theory of evolution and survival of the fittest.
Except, physical reversal of death already counts as afterlife due to that it is life, after a stage of death, which is supposed to be permanent. Proving a "soul" is redundant as of this point.
- PRO: Many of the worlds smartest and most capable people, whom many regard as geniuses, have openly stated that there is no afterlife, (such as Stephen hawking). To claim the existence of an afterlife is to disagree with some of the smartest people this glorified rock has to offer.
I consider this an invalid appeal to authority. The only example given was Stephen Hawking, who was a physicist and not an exceptional expert on such as psychology, biology and bioengineering. We have no reason to believe that Hawking knows of the most advanced ways people rescue other people from the dead used now due to the fact that he entered biological death without any successful rescuing attempts in the year 2018, which is 5 years ago.
I am not saying that this is no evidence, however, if this counts as sufficient evidence, these ridiculous occurrences would manifest in real life, take a look:
- Asking a Nobel Laureate in Chemistry(that is alive, of course) of which candidate he/she/they will support in the next US president election, then conclude that that candidate answered will win just because an expert expressed support, regardless of the level of compatibility within the fields.
- Asking the US president advanced quantum mechanics and string theory questions that require excruciating lengths in mathematics and physics to do assuming the US president does know the answer, then get disappointed because they discover the US president hasn't learned such because they didn't need such niche knowledge to run the country(regardless if they did a good job, I assume they did a better job than me though.).
- Taking Terence Tao on a TV show without telling him what it is about then asking him questions about the latest netflix show. Seriously, do you think he can answer it?
Now you see how ridiculous it is to use Stephen Hawking out of all people as authority to declare that there is no life after death.
4. Conclusions
- Revival technologies from clinical deaths(which are valid deaths) ensure that an afterlife exists.
- Stephen Hawking and others with incompatible fields do not count as valid appeal to authority.
- I rest my case.
Round 3
Con
#6
4. Conclusions
- Revival technologies from clinical deaths(which are valid deaths) ensure that an afterlife exists.
- Stephen Hawking and others with incompatible fields do not count as valid appeal to authority.
- I rest my case.
Round 4
Con
#8
Conclusions
- Revival technologies from clinical deaths(which are valid deaths) ensure that an afterlife exists.
- Stephen Hawking and others with incompatible fields do not count as valid appeal to authority.
- I rest my case.
Sure!
If this just goes to forfiet I would like to try at debate after current one. You open?