Sorry but materialism is debunked by the fact that the mind can comprehend univerals. Professor Ed Feser lays down the argument here https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14777/

Thank you for the reply Phil, now I'm the one who left you hanging ^^

An Aristotelian-Thomistic conception of the human person would hold that the human intellect (what I would call the person's "belief-making mechanism") is actually capable of coming to truth, and that is actually the end and purpose of the human intellect. But this human intellect is not subject to natural laws so this does not undermine it's ability to come to truth qua truth.

How would you say does being subject to natural laws undermine the intellect's ability to come to truth ?

It isn't because being subject to natural laws leads to mistakes; we already agree that humans can make mistakes when forming their beliefs, whether or not they're subject to natural law.

So where specifically does natural law come in ?

I believe intellects exist. I do not believe that what almost everyone else means by souls exist.

Well, you are in luck! I have been actually working with some of the guys here on some formulations of logical arguments. And I should have an essay that will be posted on Strange Notions within the next several weeks. I'll give you a sneak peak at one outline of the arguments, which hopefully will be the "condensed" version on an argument you are asking about. The form should be familiar as it follows the same form that the series of articles on the necessity of an unconditioned reality followed:

I will be proposing all 3 options for accounting for truth in a materialistic worldview. If all 3 of those options can be reduced to absurdity, then materialism is also reduced to absurdity and rejected. This is just an outline, so obviously the premises that need to be defended will not be done here, but it should give you a head start.

Let us begin!

-----------

I. Either materialism is true, or materialism is false (i.e., not everything in reality is material in nature, there immaterial realities)

II. If materialism is true, we have only 3 options in all reality:

(A) The human person's belief-making mechanisms do not follow complex natural physical laws.

(B) The human person's belief-making mechanisms do follow complex natural physical laws and always lead to true beliefs.

(C) The human person's belief-making mechanisms mechanisms do follow complex natural physical laws and do not always lead to true beliefs.

III. Investigation of the 3 Materialist options

Materialist Option (A)

1) We start by assuming option A is true.
2) Complete skepticism is false.
3) If the human person's belief-making mechanisms do not follow complex natural physical laws, then complete skepticism is true. (This will be expanded in article)
4) Contradiction between premise (2) and (3). Therefore, we reject materialist option A.

Materialist Option (B)

1) We assume materialist option B is true.
2) The human person does not always hold true beliefs.
3) Contradiction between premise (1) and (2). Therefore, we reject materialist option B.

Materialist Option (C)

1) We assume materialist option C is true.
2) Complete skepticism is false.
3) If the human person's belief-making mechanisms follow complex natural physical laws, which do not always lead to true beliefs, then to know whether we have reason to hold certain beliefs as more rational than any other beliefs is impossible.
4) If we cannot know whether we have reason to hold certain beliefs as more rational than any other, then complete skepticism is true.
5) Contradiction between premise (2) and (4). Therefore, we reject materialist option C.

IV. All options for coherently accounting for materialism and truth and been reduced to absurdity, therefore we reduce materialism to absurdity and reject it.

No worries at all, I didn't wanna leave you hanging as well!

That's interesting (I assume you meant "false" beliefs there, it's what makes more sense).

I do actually mean that the human person is capable of believing something to be true that is not actually true. And what you propose above I completely agree with. And this is quite obvious from lived reality. What I do not hold is the two extremes: compete certainty/infallibility or complete skepticism.

An Aristotelian-Thomistic conception of the human person would hold that the human intellect (what I would call the person's "belief-making mechanism") is actually capable of coming to truth, and that is actually the end and purpose of the human intellect. But this human intellect is not subject to natural laws so this does not undermine it's ability to come to truth qua truth.

And capability to come to truth does not equal infallibility or 100% certainty. But not having infallibility or 100% certainty does not equal complete skepticism. It means that if we have true facts and we reason correctly we have actually come to actual truth about reality. (The fact that we can never have 100% certainty was alluded to by you, and is made clear that only someone with a "God's-eye view" could know the whole. We can't since we are part of the whole.)

In other words, doesn't evaluating whether someone came to their beliefs correctly involve using the same tools we use to come to our beliefs in
the first place?

Yessir! And that is bringing us closer and closer to the issue with materialism that I hope to make clear in the essay. Every belief we hold, including evaluating other people's beliefs, rely on proper use of our reason/intellect/belief-making mechanisms.

The problem we run into with materialism is that all our belief-making mechanisms ultimately reduce to matter/energy, since that is all that exists. Well, this matter/energy either follows natural laws, or it does not. So we evaluate both those positions, and if we must logically conclude that they lead to internal contradictions, we must rationally conclude that materialism is false (in regards to specifically the human person).

Ok. I further believe that I exist only when my body, specifically my brain is alive. Not inanimate, whatever that means. I believe when my brain burns or decomposes I will no longer have consciousness or exist. Even if all of the atoms of my brain could be reconstructed exactly as they were when I was alive, I do not believe there would be continuity in "my" consciousness.

This is also why I would never get on the Star Trek transporter.

Of course Ye Old's assertion that intellect cannot exist without a soul may just be a bit heretical, but ymmv...

That is my understanding of historically orthodox Christianity in general. Protestants took it with them more or less intact when they broke away.

I am familiar with this argument and we have discussed this in the past. Not sure what you mean by non-physical, but if you mean non material, I do not agree with the first premise.