There Exists A Non-Mental Reality

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 LennonPro 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." - MeAs 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.ReminderIn 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).ConclusionAll 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...