The Instigator
Rational_Thinker9119
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
GoOrDin
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

There Exists A Non-Mental Reality

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/29/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,402 times Debate No: 62443
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (22)
Votes (1)

 

Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Most people believe in a non-mental reality... However, I don't think that these people really have any valid justification. This debate is a challenge to anyone who believes that they can demonstrate that a reality exists outside of mind (or, at least that a reality outside of mind is the most plausible explanation for our experiences). The burden of proof will not be shared, as I have defended my position enough in debate. I would like to see some positive arguments for a non-mental reality, my only job will be to show that Pro has not succeeded in his task.

The first round will not be just for acceptance, but for Pro's first round. so we get the same number of rounds to argue (as I am not using this round to argue), my opponent, in his last round, will simply put:

"No argument will be posted here, as agreed."

Failure to give up the last round will result in an automatic 7 point forfeit. Good luck!
GoOrDin

Pro

A gracious thank you to the rational Thinker for providing this debate topic.
I am here to defend the claim that there exists a non-mental reality.
In which case I believe Con is insisting, a reality in which the mind cannot have an omnipotency.
correct or have I lost by default? @RationalThinker

Or perhaps he is indicating the opposite, in which case , Con insists the universe must have an omnipotency:< however I would claim a non-mental reality can still exist within it.

and so, the non mental reality, under both conditions exists as my debate.
I am eager to defend this. {* in hopes Con will rationally explain the defined parameters of a non-mental reality.
Debate Round No. 1
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

"gracious thank you to the rational Thinker for providing this debate topic.
I am here to defend the claim that there exists a non-mental reality.
In which case I believe Con is insisting, a reality in which the mind cannot have an omnipotency.
correct or have I lost by default? @RationalThinker"

A non-mental reality is simply a reality existing outside of any mind.

"Or perhaps he is indicating the opposite, in which case , Con insists the universe must have an omnipotency:< however I would claim a non-mental reality can still exist within it."

I am not insisting that the universe has omnipotence. I am not even sure where this talk of omnipotence is even coming from....

"and so, the non mental reality, under both conditions exists as my debate.
I am eager to defend this. {* in hopes Con will rationally explain the defined parameters of a non-mental reality."

If Pro is eager to defend this; then why isn't he?! I specifically stated that the first round was not just for acceptance, and was for Pro to post his first round of argumentation:

"The first round will not be just for acceptance, but for Pro's first round." - Me

Until Pro presents arguments for a non-mental reality; I have nothing to rebut (remember, Pro has the burden of proof here).

Hopefully Pro doesn't waste anymore time and actually presents an argument next round.
GoOrDin

Pro

My argument that I suggested, was that the non mental reality exists under all circumstances.

It is, simply because it is under all conditions and therefor has no contradictions.

However, if you need a clarification.

The Non mental reality exists because:

A: The Omnipotent is capable of disregarding substance, and ideas. Through this he can remove the burden of proof, by simply stating, "regardless!"

B: The non mental reality exists within the omnipotence of reality, simply as the manifest idea. ~ "Everything that can possibly occur, even in defiance of science and logic, has a fully fathomable existence, that has not been fathomed, cannot be fathomed within true perception, and is therefore a fully formed and developed list of potential outcomes that exists, manifest outside of the mind, as it has not been fully perceived.

This, although it exists outside of the mind, of mortals, comprises the entity of God's reality.

C: Because under all conditions that which is manifest is without mind to take place in or an origin to come from, simply because it as itself is a concept that it exists outside fo the mind. This debate, is assuredly in favor of Pro, the non-mental reality exists.

And the Burden of Proof factually falls upon Con as equally as Pro in a debate*

Your turn. I wish you would have understood my argument the first time. we would have made progress.
Debate Round No. 2
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Introduction

Well, it seems as if this debate has been a big waste of time. Pro hasn't even attempted to establish the resolution in a valid way.

Rebutting My Opponent's Claims

"My argument that I suggested, was that the non mental reality exists under all circumstances."

That's not an argument; that is a bare-assertion (just stating a claim isn't an argument)... Also, it is circular reasoning as it assumes a non-mental reality in the first place to even talk about it existing under any conditions.

"It is, simply because it is under all conditions and therefor has no contradictions."


Why believe it is under all conditions? Why believe that it follows that there are no contradictions in a non-mental reality? Why believe it exists at all? Again, these are just obviously bare-assertions from Pro without a single reason to believe them.

"However, if you need a clarification.

The Non mental reality exists because:

A: The Omnipotent is capable of disregarding substance, and ideas. Through this he can remove the burden of proof, by simply stating, 'regardless!'"

That doesn't even make sense. First of all, why believe anything Omnipotent exists in the first place? Pro keeps mentioning "Omnipotence" but for what reason? Even if the Omnipotent can remove the burden of proof, why believe that it did?

"B: The non mental reality exists within the omnipotence of reality, simply as the manifest idea."

That is a contradiction. "Ideas" are mental by definition, so the idea of an idea that isn't mental is a contradiction! Here is the definition of an idea:

"Any conception existing in the mind as a result of mental understanding, awareness, or activity."[1]

Saying that an idea exists non-mentally is same as saying that something mental exists non-mentally. If that isn't as incoherent as it gets, then nothing is.

"Everything that can possibly occur, even in defiance of science and logic, has a fully fathomable existence, that has not been fathomed, cannot be fathomed within true perception, and is therefore a fully formed and developed list of potential outcomes that exists, manifest outside of the mind, as it has not been fully perceived."

This assumes that something can happen in defiance of logic. Of course, that is absurd. If my opponent wishes to downplay logic like that then his arguments are self-defeating as they presuppose logic. Also, just because something exists outside of perception that doesn't mean it is non-mental; there is more to a mind than just perceptions (such as thoughts and emotions).

"This, although it exists outside of the mind, of mortals, comprises the entity of God's reality."

To be non-mental is to exist outside of mind; not necessarily mortal minds. If it exists in the mind of God, then, self-evidently, it is still mental. Regardless, what supposedly exists outside the mind exactly? This "idea"? That makes no sense as ideas are inherently mental.

"C: Because under all conditions that which is manifest is without mind to take place in or an origin to come from, simply because it as itself is a concept that it exists outside of the mind."

Again, a "concept" is inherently mental. It is incoherent to talk about a non-mental concept so Pro self-evidently fails. Here is the definition of concept:

"An idea of something formed by mentally combining all its characteristics or particulars; a construct."[2]

So clearly, Pro is making very incoherent and absurd arguments. Also, if all that is possible is a mental reality, then all conditions would be mental! Ergo, Pro is also begging the question by assuming that "all conditions" could even include something non-mental.

"This debate, is assuredly in favor of Pro, the non-mental reality exists."

The debate is self-evidently in my favor. My opponent's arguments are either all:

(i) Bare-assertions on huge claims
(ii) Contradictions that are incoherent
(iii) Question begging

Since debates presuppose reason and logic, and Pro's arguments are not reasonable or logical; he is clearly losing .

"And the Burden of Proof factually falls upon Con as equally as Pro in a debate*"

Not this debate. I clearly stated:

"The burden of proof will not be shared"

If Pro didn't like the rules, he didn't have to accept the debate.

"Your turn. I wish you would have understood my argument the first time. we would have made progress."

Pro didn't make any arguments the first time. He only outlined his position and what he wished to do, but he made no arguments in his first round (he didn't even really make any arguments in his last round, he just essentially bare-asserted a bunch of nonsensical claims that don't even make sense in principle).

Conclusion,

Pro's "arguments" were either question begging, bare-assertions (without reason to support the claims), or contradictory (like the claim that "ideas" and "concepts" are non-mental). Since Pro has failed to demonstrate a non-mental reality is more plausible than the negation; the debate is in my favor (as the BoP rests on him).

Sources

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
GoOrDin

Pro

Alright: Bearing the Burden of Proof.

This very reality is a non-mental reality.
The existence of this reality is not dependent on mentality to maintain existence.
Therefor even if God created this reality from his mind, It is a self sufficient entity hat requires no mentality to persist, and as thus is a Non-mental reality.
Justly speaking, I should not be able to lose this debate on that point alone.
ex. to prove my point. (digging in the garden I dig up a carrot. I forget about it or did not see it in the dirt and did not pick it. I am unaware of it and it is mentally unaccounted for. this carrot still exists. The next individual who enters the garden is not a determining factor in it's existence, butt he location of the carrot is static. and thus when found, the existence of the carrot in the second individuals possession is proof of the non-mental reality we live in.)

A concept or idea of the non-mental reality:
Con stated I was incoherent and contradictory in my claim that the Idea of a realm outside of the mind was in itself contradictory to my point. Wrong.
The concept or idea of such a reality is not the reality in itself. Hence, how this discussion came into being.
The non-mental reality, - that exists as a concept and idea, but is factually in existence outside of the mind regardless of how we can fathom it's existence, - consists of ever potential outcome: all scientifically possible and implausible, and math defying properties of any reality Do exists as a realm of potential which is infinite as it's fractal-form as the very continuum of existence being incapable of ceasing.

The Idea that God, who is the Omnipotent (encompasses all things){with not even the slightest iota left with disregard or accumulation] established reality of his mind, and preference, is not required to acknowledge it's existence, and can therefore move any reality into the Non-mental proportions of a reality.

Therefor under all conditions the non-mental reality is factual, exists, and is even more scientific than the mental reality, which is unlike the non-mental reality, subjective.

The non-mental reality is an objective property of existence.

And in addition: Con has yet to indicate or provide evidence that the non-mental reality does not exist. Which, regardless of his claim that Con is not required to provide BoP, he is still required as a contributor to the debate to defend his claim in the very least. **One cannot defend any claim in a debate without BoP.

I have claimed, explained, and supported my half of the debate, that,

~ The Non-mental reality exists under all conditions. ~

I am eager to hear any contradictions.
Debate Round No. 3
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Rebutting My Opponent's Arguments

"This very reality is a non-mental reality."

This is just a bare-assertion. Pro has given no reason to believe that this very reality is a non-mental reality, and according to Monistic Idealism; it isn't:

"In philosophy, idealism is the group of philosophies which assert that reality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial"[1]

Pro would essentially have to disprove Monistic Idealism in order for him to meet his burden of proof on this premise. As this has not been accomplished, this premise can be disregarded.

"The existence of this reality is not dependent on mentality to maintain existence."

This is just a re-wording of the premise before it, and isn't a new premise in an argument at all. Again, he hasn't shown that the existence of this of this reality is not dependent on mentality to maintian existence. For all we know, empirical reality is a collectively shared dream, which would make it mental (as dreams are mental by definition), just as John Lennon said:

“A dream you dream alone is only a dream. A dream you dream together is reality.” -John Lennon

Pro hasn't shown that this view of reality is false. Ergo, he has not met his burden of proof.

"Therefor even if God created this reality from his mind, It is a self sufficient entity hat requires no mentality to persist, and as thus is a Non-mental reality."


If what we call empirical reality is just God's day-dream that we all experience as well, or produced by our collective subconscious, then it is still mental. Pro hasn't shown this view to be false or less reasonable.

"Justly speaking, I should not be able to lose this debate on that point alone. ex. to prove my point. (digging in the garden I dig up a carrot. I forget about it or did not see it in the dirt and did not pick it. I am unaware of it and it is mentally unaccounted for. this carrot still exists. The next individual who enters the garden is not a determining factor in it's existence, butt he location of the carrot is static. and thus when found, the existence of the carrot in the second individuals possession is proof of the non-mental reality we live in."

With the above, my opponent tries to finally justify his claims. However, this justification fails at it assumes the carrot cannot just exist as an idea in the mind of God when no human mind experiences the mental image and experiences we associate with the word "carrot" (the shape, color, smell, feel ect). Basically, this argument from Pro begs the question against Theism, and assumes that when no human mind is looking that entails the carrot is not mental. Either way, we do not even need to bring God into the equation as it is not proof of a non-mental reality that someone else has an experience of a carrot just because I do. If reality is a akin to a collectively shared dream, then all of our experiences would cohere. Since dreams are mental, and Pro has not given a reason to think the reality we exiernece is not akin to a collectively shared dream; this response from Pro fails.

"A concept or idea of the non-mental reality:

Con stated I was incoherent and contradictory in my claim that the Idea of a realm outside of the mind was in itself contradictory to my point. Wrong.

The concept or idea of such a reality is not the reality in itself. Hence, how this discussion came into being.
The non-mental reality, - that exists as a concept and idea, but is factually in existence outside of the mind regardless of how we can fathom it's existence..."

Anything that exists as an idea of concept is mental by definition, so this is still within the realm of the mental. However, Pro also claims that the non-mental exists outside of mind regardless of how we fathom its existence. This claim has not been sufficiently supported, as I have shown. Our collective subconscious could be producing a collectively shared dream that is more consistent and vivid than when we dream at night, but, is nonetheless, a mental reality like the worlds we experience when we dream.

", - consists of ever potential outcome: all scientifically possible and implausible, and math defying properties of any reality Do exists as a realm of potential which is infinite as it's fractal-form as the very continuum of existence being incapable of ceasing."

Most philosophers think that mathematical truths are necessary truths. This would mean, if true, one cannot "defy" math anymore than one can "defy" logic. I am not making an argument from authority here, but Pro has the burden to show that the claims he makes can actually hold up. So far, it is clear that they don't as he is leaving many possibilities untouched.

"The Idea that God, who is the Omnipotent (encompasses all things){with not even the slightest iota left with disregard or accumulation] established reality of his mind, and preference, is not required to acknowledge it's existence, and can therefore move any reality into the Non-mental proportions of a reality."

This assumes that there are non-mental proportions to reality. However, as I have demonstrated, Pro has not succeeded in his task of showing that this is actually the case. Also, why does Pro keep mentioning Omnipotence? Perhaps, if there is a God, he is not fully Omnipotent.

"Therefor under all conditions the non-mental reality is factual, exists, and is even more scientific than the mental reality, which is unlike the non-mental reality, subjective."

This is question-begging. He assumes a non-mental reality in all of his premises just to conclude with the notion that there is a non-mental reality.

"The non-mental reality is an objective property of existence."

Again, Pro has given us no good reasons to believe this. If we are in God's day-dream, or our collective subconscious is producing all of these experiences of ours that cohere in a collectively shared dream, then this accounts for all of our experiences without resorting to the hugely radical metaphysical claim that there exists this magical non-mental world in addition to the mental one.

"And in addition: Con has yet to indicate or provide evidence that the non-mental reality does not exist. Which, regardless of his claim that Con is not required to provide BoP, he is still required as a contributor to the debate to defend his claim in the very least. **One cannot defend any claim in a debate without BoP."

My only burden, as outlined by the debate structure and ruled, is to undermine Pro's arguments for the existence of a non-mental reality; not falsify their conclusions. So yes, I do have a burden in this debate, but it isn't the disprove the resolution, it is to show why my opponent's arguments for the resolution fail and don't hold up. This was clearly stated in the rules:

"The burden of proof will not be shared, as I have defended my position enough in debate. I would like to see some positive arguments for a non-mental reality, my only job will be to show that Pro has not succeeded in his task." - Me

As the rules clearly say, my only job is to show that Pro has not succeeded in arguing for the existence of a non-mental reality; not show that there is no non-mental reality.

Reminder

In order to ensure that we have the same amounts of arguments, the rules state that in the next round Pro will simply put:

"No argument will be posted here, as agreed."

If my opponent continues to argue anything at all then a full 7 point concession entails (if Pro didn't like the rules, he didn't have to accept the debate).

Conclusion

All of my opponent's arguments for a non-mental reality fail, as I have shown. I didn't present any argument that there is not a non-mental reality, but, as the rules clearly state; I didn't have to. Ergo, as by the debate stipulations the debate goes to Con.

Source

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
GoOrDin

Pro

"No argument will be posted here, as agreed."
Debate Round No. 4
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
GoOrDin
a so you do, and tu-shai. you bring in the God-card to contradict my point.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 2 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
No I didn't, read my last round, I responded to it.
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
GoOrDin
Con left out my proof in his rebuttal.

"ex. to prove my point. (digging in the garden I dig up a carrot. I forget about it or did not see it in the dirt and did not pick it. I am unaware of it and it is mentally unaccounted for. this carrot still exists. The next individual who enters the garden is not a determining factor in it's existence, butt he location of the carrot is static. and thus when found, the existence of the carrot in the second individuals possession is proof of the non-mental reality we live in.)"
~ which I stated in round 3.
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
GoOrDin
however, both "manifest" and "unmanifest"are equally effective.
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
GoOrDin
Every time I typed "manifest" I tried to type "unmanifest" incredibly irritating how this happened...
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 2 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
To clear this up for my opponent some more with regards to what I mean by "non-mental":

If X exists outside of a mind, then X is non-mental.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 2 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
To clear this up for my opponent some more with regards to what I mean by "non-mental":

If X exists outside of a mind, then X is non-mental.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 2 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Or, if you want to keep it simple, you can just present some arguments here:

http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 2 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Exactly, I think there is 0 justification for a reality outside of minds. If you would like, I can do two debates of this nature and you can demonstrate your arguments to me.
Posted by debatewiz 2 years ago
debatewiz
So you think there is no justification for a non-mental reality? Really?? I have like 15 arguments which prove that there has to be a non-mental reality of some sort.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
Rational_Thinker9119GoOrDinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: The BoP was explicitly established as not shared, and resting fully on Pro. Pro's case was...interesting, but did not come close to fulfilling his burden and, well, kinda was mostly rambling. Con rebutted what there was to rebut. I wish this debate had gone differently, as I really would like to see more of Con's arguments on this matter (and I think there was a *relatively* simple way to shuffle at least some of the burden on him (technically it would still just be the burden to rebut, but I digress), had Pro done it, but Pro didn't do it. As always, happy to clarify this RFD, but arguments pretty clearly to Con IMHO.