All Souls Are The Eternal God's Only Illusion

As requested by my opponent, I will reserve the main portion of rebuttals for the next round. However, I would like to ask my opponent to clarify the following points: 1. If my opponent is to maintain the soul is not immaterial – i.e. has a physical manifestation, he must provide evidence of this or retract the claim. (Immaterial: not consisting of matter.) 2. The allon-bacuth refers to the burial place of Deborah in the Old Testament. I fail to see the analogy between this debate and the burial place of a biblical figure. 3. I fail to see the distinction between a spirit and a soul. (Sprit: The soul, considered as departing from the body of a person at death. [2]) 4. I would ask that my opponent clarify the context and meaning of the final paragraph, as well as how it relates to the position that souls are not illusions. Also, the entirety of the paragraph is introducing additional positive claims which have not been cited. That said, I shall proceed to my main arguments and reserve the majority of my rebuttal for the next round. For clarity’s sake, I shall also break my resolution into three contentions, as well as address the burden of proof for each. Original resolution: All souls are illusions, and the illusions, or false ideas, were started by a god, who is eternal. Contention 1: The concept of a soul is false. (i.e. All souls are illusions.) Contention 2: The idea of a soul was started by a god. (i.e. The illusions, or false ideas, were started by a god.) Contention 3: The god is eternal. (i.e. The god that started the false idea of the soul is eternal.) As will be shown, Contentions 2 and 3 are quite trivial, and I suspect that Contention 1 will be the only main point of this debate. I will now address each contention in turn. C1: The concept of a soul is false. On this contention, my opponent is making the positive assertion that the concept of a soul is not false, thus, souls are real. Since Con is making the positive claim here, my opponent has the burden of proof for this contention. To meet his burden, my opponent must show that there is significant, falsifiable evidence that souls exist. I will point out that there is no falsifiable evidence of souls actually existing that has ever been collected, other than the popularized pseudoscientific approach of Dr. MacDougall, which is commonly regarded as having no scientific credibility, and has never been reproduced. [3] Since my opponent has the burden of proof on this contention and has not yet provided an argument for this, I will allow him to make his main argument to this point in the next round, as well as rebutting my arguments. C2: The idea of a soul was started by a god. Here, I am making the positive claim, so I have the burden of proof. By the broad definition of a god previously accepted by my opponent, a god is simply “a being that is worshipped, idealized, or followed.” The proof of this contention is simple. The idea of a soul must have originated from a being, be it divine or human. Since the idea of a soul is commonplace today, we can deduce that people followed the ideas of this being. Thus, the being that started this idea was followed because of its ideas, making it, by definition, a god. Whether the being starting this idea is divine or human is not part of the contention and is a separate issue. Thus, I have met the burden of proof in Contention 2. C3: The god is eternal. Here, I am also making a positive claim, so I have the burden of proof. Again, by the definition accepted by my opponent, eternal is “characterized by or associated with an abiding fellowship with a god.” Obviously, god is associated with a fellowship with god, just as any entity or object is associated with itself. This is so basic as to be axiomatic. Thus, I have met the burden of proof in Contention 3. Summary: I have accepted and met the burden of proof in Contentions 2 and 3, as both were quite trivial. The only unresolved contention is Contention 1. Taking this into account, the reduced resolution would be that souls are illusions; i.e. “Souls do not exist.” Since my opponent is Con and arguing against this, thus making the positive claim that “Souls do exist”, my opponent has the burden of proof. I look forward to seeing his arguments for this in the next round, and wish him good luck in the debate. ===References=== [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...(doctor)