Instigator / Pro
14
1576
rating
12
debates
75.0%
won
Topic
#522

Materialism Is Sound

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
0
Better sources
4
2
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
1

After 2 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...

MagicAintReal
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
5
1485
rating
91
debates
46.15%
won
Description

===Full Resolution===

Materialism is sound.

==================

=====Definitions=====

materialism - a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being, processes, and phenomena can be explained as manifestations of, or results of, or contingent on matter or any spatiotemporal variables, spacetime itself, massless particles, quantum fields, or quantum fluctuations and their forces.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/materialism

Both Pro and Con agreed to this definition before the debate, so pointing out that it's not exactly the same as the definition provided at the link is irrelevant.
The source was used as a guide for the definitions and both debaters and voters will use these definitions.

sound - based on valid reason or good judgement.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sound#h69867460970160

================

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Arguments: Pro (Pro’s arguments were more convincing {see below}. Con did not rebut Pro’s argsuments/rebuttals made in Round 3.)
Sources: Pro (Pro’s sources were more convincing {see below}).
Grammar/Spelling: Tie (Pro incorrectly used “effect” instead of “affect” in Round 3, just before the one-word paragraph “Boom.”; Con misspelled the name of one source—in Round 1, Contention 2, “Free Will”: Michael “Egor” should be “Egnor”.)
Conduct: Pro (Con forfeited Rounds 3 & 4.)
===============================================
Round 1
Pro: Everything that exists is physical or contingent upon the physical.
-------------------
Con: Immaterial things exist: the laws of math, logic, and physics. They are true in all possible worlds, therefore not dependent on anything physical.
“Key question to pro: Is there any possible world in which there exists a square circle or where 2+2=5? If not, then these statements are not dependent on the physical world.”
Con said that free will exists. If all is physical, free will is impossible. Therefore materialism is false.
Con quotes Michael “Egor”[sic] of the Discovery Institute to support his case. Egnor argues that if “good” were material-based, it would have to be physically encoded in the brain. as an “engram.” Such coding would be “a particular assembly of proteins, [or other things] in a specific brain location.” There being nothing about the assembly that means good, a decoding engram would be necessary. The decoding engram would also require decoding, and so on, ad infinitum. I find this argument unconvincing,
Round 2
Pro rebuts Con’s statement about the laws of logic by stating that they are “an abstract organization of our thoughts ... contingent on neurological substrates.” Pro adds a supporting quote from Cambridge U., which I think strengthens Pro’s argument, to the effect that neurophysiological substrates underlie intentional behaviors.
Pro answers Con’s question from Round 1 (Is there a possible world in which a square circle exists or where 2+2=5?) in the affirmative with “the quantum world.”
Pro rebuts Con’s statement about mathematical laws by arguing that they are based upon “shapes, quantity, and distance,” all physical concepts.
Pro rebuts Con’s statement that the laws of physics are transcendental by arguing that said laws “break down at the quantum level.”
Pro agrees with Con that “If everything was physical, free will would be impossible.” Pro links to an article on Physical Determinism, which seemed equivocal to me on the subject of mental events, so I’m not sure that it supports his argument that everything is physical.
-------------------
Con agrees that certain abstractions such as thoughts, feelings, mind, and intelligence (but not consciousness) are constructs and are dependent upon the brain. In Round 1, Con argued that the abstractions, intellect and will, as well as the universal, good, are “immaterial.” At the end of this round, Con states that mathematics are also immaterial. Con does not provide a method for determining which abstractions are dependent on the brain and which are not.
Con states that to win this debate it is necessary only to prove that something which exists is not reducible to matter.
Con reiterates that laws of logic are valid in all possible worlds. Con then shifts the burden of proof to Pro, to prove that a world could exist in which the laws of logic are invalid, but does not address Pro’s rebuttal in this round concerning the “quantum world.”
Con quotes Matt Slick of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry to the effect that “Logical Absolutes” are transcendent, independent of human minds. Slick’s argument is that people differ about what is absolute and they contradict each other. This argument is unconvincing to me, because some people could be correct and others not.
Con asks how we can trust our brains if they are material only. Con says that we can’t, nor could we trust our logic.
Con then lists four conclusions, which I do not think have been proved: 1) the laws of logic are transcendent - independent of thought; 2) the laws of logic are self-authenticating; 3) They are true in every possible world, thus do not depend on the physical laws of nature or the construct; 4) They are uncreated and uncaused; Thus materialism is false. At this point, I am not convinced that Con’s four conclusions have been proved.
Finally, Con states that mathematics are “rooted in the transcendental laws of logic.”
Round 3
Pro answers Con’s question a second time: human logic breaks down at the quantum level. Pro supports this contention with expanded argumentation and an excellent video produced at the University of Paris.
Pro counters Con’s rebuttal that mathematics are based on the laws of logic by quoting from the Oxford and the Cambridge dictionaries, both of which support Pro’s view.
-------------------
Con forfeited Round 3, and conceded Round 4.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Arguments.

After the first round, it appears both pro and con appear to settle down into an argument that really hinges on whether “immaterial things” exist.

In my view, this approach means con has effectively pulled the burden of proof to him, which is not a great move when you don’t have to. (Feedback, never take on any additional burden unless there is literally no other way)

Con appears to raise a few examples. In no particular order:

1.) Free will.

Con argues free will exists, and as this cannot be explained if all our minds is matter and forces.

Pro explains this by arguing that free will doesn’t exist. While I felt pro could and should have done more here, con didn’t justify why he felt free will exists, so pros return argument is sufficient.

2.) laws of mathematics.

Mathematics, con argues that 2+2 cannot equal 5 in any other universe, I don’t feel he is able to support this. In my view pro doesn’t do a particularly great job of this one either. Con does raise the abstract nature of mathematics and how that pro doesn’t fully cover, in my view.

Part of his main justification, however, is to tie it to the laws of logic, which con does a better job of justifying previously.

3.) The laws of logic.

Cons Argument is predicated in the laws of logic being transcendent, and that there is no world where p = !p.

Pro devastates this argument with his argument from quantum theory, I cannot stress how totally this one is blown out of the water by con.

From this, I can only take the view that pro has not shown anything immaterial exists, and arguments must go to pro.

Conduct:

I would normally award conduct to pro here due to the forfeit, but will cede this time to extenuating circumstances for this single time.