- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
"who were you then, before you?"
You are asking me a philosophical question that has existed presumably since man formulated the first thought, but I will try my meager best to answer. Not without diving into what consciousness is, I would say that I was a collection of cells that functioned together, and during the late stages of pregnancy, developed basic emotions and feelings (hunger, fear, dependency, etc.) and even later still a consciousness developed.
"Did you not hiccup before you could breathe?"
Poetic, but entirely irrelevant.
"We did not know anything else outside our little universe inside our mothers."
This is a false premise. It's impossible to claim that an unborn child is capable of intelligent thought, let alone thought at all. I don't question that it is alive, but rather that it is capable of thought anymore than a spleen is or hair follicles, at least up until the moment of birth. Additionally, there is little to no empirical evidence that everyone experiences "a world of light" or a "tunnel of light". There is less evidence still that one is capable of remembering birth.
It seems that your technique for reasoning in this argument is inductive. However for an inductive argument in this subject, one would need to compile data their entire life until death in order to arrive at a conclusion. The other approach (i.e. deductive) requires one to first believe that their is some afterlife, and then one must somehow compile evidence that indicates specifically an afterlife to support the hypothesis. However, as stated previously, that kind of data is impossible to find without actually dying already first.
As for "what has happened in the past is likely to happen again". This is certainly true in biological terms and sociological terms. However when one speaks of the universe, of the INFINITE universe (a logical response to the infinite universe is that there are infinitely many variables), one must also realize that the chance that something that happened once will happen again will be infinitely small, perhaps even zero. It's the same in a mathematical function where the x-value would be time y is some event. for every x value, no matter the length of the line, there is exactly ONE y value.
The basic problem with your argument seems to me to be a faulty analogy. Please try again.