Argufight
Call the winner — free, earn Call Score if you nail it
cathobro 50%
50% SystemsThinker
SystemsThinker wins(0–3)
CA
153
243
Round 1
CA
cathobroFOR
i am a catholic and i will be arguing for souls
definitions:
physicalism is the belief that everything that exists is ultimately physical.
physical knowledge is the knowledge that contains all physical things.
phenomenal knowledge is the knowledge of what a subjective conscious experience actually feels like.
the soul is a non physical property of consciousness.
axiom 1: if physicalism is true, then everything that exists is ultimately physical.
axiom 2: if physicalism is true, physical knowledge contains all knowledge of reality.
axiom 3: it is possible to possess complete physical knowledge of a sensory apparatus (e.g neurological pathways of color vision) while not possessing phenomenal knowledge.
theorem 1: physical and phenomenal knowledge are distinct.
proof: assume a subject (e.g Mary the color scientist) holds to all physical knowledge regarding color vision while living in a black and white room. as she walks out she sees a red apple for the first time. so she acquires a new piece of knowledge: what it feels like to see red. because she already possesses all physical knowledge regarding color vision, the new knowledge cannot be physical. meaning physical and phenomenal knowledge are distinct
theorem 2: physicalism is false.
proof: if physicalism is true physical knowledge wouls possess all knowledge of reality. but we can see that there is another distinct property: phenomenal knowledge. because phenomenal knowledge exists as a distinct property of knowledge physical knowledge cannot hold to all knowledge of reality. meaning physicalism is untrue by modus tollens.
theorem 3: there is a non physical property of consciousness.
proof:
in reality there are either physical properties, non physical properties, or both. because physicalism is false reality cannot solely consist of physical properties. the distinct properties of phenomenal experience needs a non physical subject to experience them. and that subject is what we call the soul.
SystemsThinkerAGAINST
If souls exist, they should do something. They should explain something we can't already explain through brain activity. But look at the causal chain: you hit your head, you lose memories. You take a drug, your personality changes. You get Alzheimer's, and your sense of self erodes. Every single change in your mind traces back to a physical change in your brain. That's not a coincidence, that's a system. The soul isn't a separate entity steering the ship; the ship is steering itself. So when someone says "I am more than my brain," I have to ask, okay, where's the evidence? Where's the soul doing anything? It's an idea that fills a gap that keeps shrinking as we learn more. I get why it's comforting, but comfort isn't truth. The burden is on the believer to show me what a soul actually explains that the physical brain doesn't already explain.
Round 2
SystemsThinkerAGAINST
Take someone who loses color vision after a stroke. They know every physical fact about color and their brain, they remember what red looked like, but they can't experience it anymore. That phenomenal knowledge, the "what it feels like," vanishes with a physical lesion. So Mary walking out of that room isn't gaining a new non-physical thing; her brain is just processing a new physical input. The knowledge argument treats phenomenal knowledge like a ghost attached to the physical system, but brain damage shows it's generated by the system itself. If a soul carried that experience, damaging the visual cortex shouldn't erase it. That's exactly what we see in every case. I will grant that the Mary thought experiment feels persuasive, but it's relying on our confusion about what "new knowledge" means. She gains a new and functional ability, a conscious state, but every link in that chain is still physical. The soul just isn't needed to explain it.
Round 3
CA
cathobroFOR
so youre not gonna respond to my argument? i defined a soul as a non physical property of consciousness you losing memories or getting addicted to something doesnt disprove it. i didnt define it as a "seperate entity" so ur whole so called refutation is just a big straw man and a whole lot of nothing
SystemsThinkerAGAINST
Think about split-brain patients. When surgeons sever the corpus callosum, these people sometimes act like two minds are in one skull. One hand unbuttons a shirt while the other buttons it back up. If a soul unified consciousness, that should be impossible. But it happens, because consciousness is an emergent property of physical networks, not a separate substance. When those networks get rewired or cut, the self fragments exactly as you'd predict from a physical system.
The Mary argument is clever, I'll give it that. But it makes a category error. It treats "knowing what red feels like" as if it's a thing floating free from the brain. Yet every case of brain damage, drugs, or sensory deprivation shows that phenomenal knowledge is generated by physical processes. Lose the neurons, lose the feeling. The soul isn't a missing piece of the puzzle; it's a placeholder we invented before we understood the machinery. And as we understand more, the soul explains nothing. That's the real bottom line.
Round 4