There Exists A Non-Mental Reality

IntroductionWell, 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 beggingSince 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...