Debates: nothing new under the sun

I've been thinking lately about a lot of debates between protestants and Catholics and between Calvinists and non-Calvinists. It seems to me that pretty much everything that can be said on these subjects has already been said. It's rare that anybody has anything new to add to these discussions that have been going on for centuries.

So, what's the point in having debates on these subjects anymore? It seems like the debates are going to come down to who is better read on the subject or who has more skill as a debater, neither of which can really tell you who is right.

If somebody wants to find out which side is right, all the information that's relevant to the question is already out there. They just have to go look for it. New debates only rehash argument that have already been made. If you're already familiar with the subject, it's like they're just reading a script. You already know what the arguments are, and you're rarely surprised.

For people who are not familiar with a subject, adding more debates just increases the volume of material they have to weed through to familiarize themselves with the information that's available.

Sometimes, I wish there were fewer books and fewer debates. I wish that as a species, we were more efficient with our words. We could provide the world with the same amount of information in far fewer words. Most of it is just repetition. People are just saying the same things in different words. It's all already been said. If we had just a few books and debates, and they were very well done, it would be easier to learn about any subject. Sometimes you have to weed through a lot of material to find a nugget of good information either because you've already heard it all or because most of it is fluff. It can be time-consuming.

This is just something I've been thinking about lately. I'm not sure I would really want to get rid of debates. I enjoy having them sometimes, even though it can feel like I'm reading a script. Debates are entertaining in the same way MMA is entertaining. Maybe they can still be useful by exposing people to subjects or points they aren't familiar with yet and maybe wouldn't have ever bothered to look into except for having been exposed to the debate. So I suppose they can still serve a purpose.

I think people might put too much emphasis on them, though. I used to think debates were important because "the first to present his case seems right until another comes forward to question him." Debates were a way of subjecting a person's point of view to scrutiny and seeing how it held up. I think that is still the case when it comes to novel arguments, but there are very few novel arguments anymore when it comes to protestant vs. Catholic and Calvinist vs. non-Calvinist. Now, I think debates are mostly entertainment. A lot of the internet chatter that comes after a debate often center more around personalities than arguments. It's kind of like how the ancient Greeks used to tell the same stories in their plays over and over again each year, and the novelty was more in the presentation than in the substance.

For people who are new to a subject, debates can be starting places, but nobody should completely change their mind about a topic because of how a debate turned out. They should use what they learned in the debate as a starting place to study the subject more thoroughly. Debates, by their very nature as short interactions, are not thorough enough to base your views on. People do, though.

Debating can be useful to the participants. Participating in a debate can force you to study in a way you might not otherwise. It can force you to think more carefully. So, I guess there's value to debate beyond trying to find out who's right. Debating is a good mental exercise.

One other benefit I just thought of is that debate can keep us from living in a bubble. Catholics, protestants, Calvinists, and non-Calvinists shouldn't isolate from each other because we're all Christians. Debating is a way for us to come together every now and then and engage with each other. That way hopefully we don't take whatever we are accustomed to for granted. It forces us to consider views other than our own. When you live in a bubble, you tend to have cartoonish and inaccurate assumptions about others who believe differently than you. If you're honest and fair-minded, debates can disabuse you of those inaccuracies.

But aren't there enough of them already? Can't we just go read/watch the ones that have already been done? Does anybody have anything new to say?

Debate: The Jehovah's Witness view on death and resurrection is false.

I thought for sure I posted this debate before, but now I can't find it. Anyway, this is a debate I had on debate.org a long time ago on the Jehovah's Witnesses view about death and resurrection. I'm just going to post my opening statement, and you can click the link if you want to read the whole thing.

In the set up for the debate, I explained what I took the Jehovah's Witness view to be, and my opponent agreed with my explanation. Here is the explanation:

Basically, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that when we die, we cease to exist. We are not immaterial souls who survive in any consicous state after physical death. We are purely physical beings animated by what they call a "life force," which in some publications is likened to electricity. But a "life force" is not the same thing as people traditionally think of as a soul. It is not a person and therefore has no personal identity.

After we are dead, Jehovah remembers us perfectly and completely. At the resurrection, Jehovah uses his perfect memory of us to bring us back into existence, albeit with some improvements. Although the resurrection entails physical humans coming into existence, it is not a raising up of the same body that died. Rather, Jehovah fashions a new body which he brings to life.

It is important to note that in the view of Jehovah's Witnesses, the person who rises at the resurrection is the same person as the one who died. That means that we ourselves will be raised up at the resurrection. It won't just be a replica.

Now, to my opening. . .

Con's clarification on the JW view of resurrection is perfectly aligned with my understanding of it, so we can just dive right in.

What I'm going to argue and it's implications

What I am going to argue is that it is impossible for a person to cease to exist, then to come back into existence. And it does no good to appeal to the omnipotence of Jehovah because the impossibility is not due to a lack of power any more than the impossibility of creating a square circle. Regardless of how powerful Jehovah is, he could not make the person who comes into existence actually be the same person as the one who died rather than a mere replica. The reason is because there is nothing that could possibiliy be done that could make the person who comes into existence be the same person who died.

If I am right, then there are two possible implications. One implication is that JWs are wrong to think we cease to exist when we die. If resurrection is a reality, it would imply that we continue to exist in a disembodied state between death and resurrection so that the same person who once animated the body that died can reanimate the body that is raised at the resurrection, therefore preserving personal identity.

Another possibility is that there will be no resurrection, at least not of original people. If there is something like a resurrection, it would only be the replication of previously existing people, which does us no good since we ourselves will have permanently ceased to exist. Either of these possibilities will have even further implications. It will mean that either the Bible does not teach the JW position on death and resurrection or else the Bible is not the word of God. So clearly if I'm right, it will require a paradigm shift in thinking for a JW. As for me, I once held the JW position. After changing my mind, I went with the first option above.

I think the reason it is so hard for people to change their minds, even when the evidence is sometimes overwhelming, is because it's rarely possible to change your mind about just one thing. Changing your mind about one thing has implications for other things because all of our beliefs are connected to each other, and you can rarely just change one in isolation from the others.

By I digress. Let me get into the arguments now.

The arguments

If you've read me carefully, you've noticed that I make a bold claim. Rather than claim it's unlikely that the JW position is true, I claim it's impossible for it to be true, which means it doesn't just happen to be false, but it's necessarily false. My arguments may be hard for some people to understand, but I think they prove with absolute certainty that the JW position is false.

I am going to use some thought experiments to show why it is impossible for a person (or anything for that matter) to cease to exist then come back into existence.

First thought experiment

Given Jehovah's omniscience, his knowledge of you now is just as exhaustive as his memory of you after you're dead. That means whatever information he uses to recreate you at the resurrection is information he already has. It is possible, then, for him to use that information now to fashion a body, bring it to life, and cause it to have all of your memories and personality traits.

But clearly if he did so, that person would not actually be you. You would be you! The other person would be an exact duplicate. It is impossible for two persons to be the same person. The fact that the other person would have all of your memories and personality and even think he was you doesn't change the matter. From the moment of his or her creation, he or she will begin to have different experiences from you. For example, if the person were created five feet away from you, and a moment later a bird pooped on his head by not yours, one of you would experience something the other wouldn't, which makes it impossible that you could be the same person.

If Jehovah happened to wait until after you were dead before he did the exact same thing, it wouldn't for that reason be you that he was bringing into existence. If it's only a replica while you're alive, then it would only be a replica after you were dead because Jehovah would be doing the exact same thing. You're death doesn't change anything.

Second thought experiment

Suppose that at the resurrection, instead of using his perfect memory to bring one person into existence who had died, he brings 12 versions of that person into existence, each exactly alike both physically and mentally. Well, clearly 12 persons cannot be the same person. At least 11 of them are replicas. So which one is the original?

None of them are the original! Thnk about it. If the 12th person is made just like the 11 replicas, then the 12th person is a replica, too. They're all replicas, and there is no original.

It wouldn't change the matter if Jehovah happened to only create one. If all 12 would be replicas if he created them, then if he only created one of them, it, too, would just be a replica.

Conclusion

The only way it's possible for a person who has died to rise from the dead is if they continue to exist in a disembodied state between death and resurrection. If they cease to exist when they die, they are gone for good. At best, Jehovah can create a replica of them.

To overcome this argument, Pro will have to think of some criteria of personal identity that makes the resurrected person be the same person as the one who died. The problem is that there is nothing that could do that. Memories are not sufficient because Jehovah could put the same memories into several different persons, which shows it's possible for two people to have all the same mental properties (memories and all) and still not be the same person. There is nothing Jehovah could do to a risen person that he couldn't do to a replica, yet a replica is still just a replica and not the original person.

Therefore, not even Jehovah can bring a person into existence who has ceased to exist.