Monotheism Reduces to Monism.

I think this debate has boiled down to several points, most of which are really just personal opinion. First, I'm going to attack my opponent's first claim in his syllogism: "1. Being a Self is identical to an experience." My opponent has basically said: "My entire argument rests on the truth of this claim." I) My opponent has repeatedly asserted the validity of this claim based on nothing more than the definitions of the two terms. My opponent has claimed that an being is (in essence) an experience(s). Although I have had no formal training in philosophy nor logic, I believe that my opponent is artificially constraining the definitions of the two terms here to the degree that no matter what I argue, his definitions ENSURES that the two terms are equal (and thus unchallengeable) I assure you that his definition of self: "A self simply is an experience or series of experiences." is not shown in any established dictionary (other than his own). Here is the definition from merriam-webster online dictionary: Self(n): 1) a: the entire person of an individual b: the realization or embodiment of an abstraction 2) (1): an individual's typical character or behavior (2): an individual's temporary behavior or character b: a person in prime condition 3: the union of elements (as body, emotions, thoughts, and sensations) that constitute the individuality and identity of a person 4: personal interest or advantage 5: material that is part of an individual organism I believe that this definition covers the wide range of how "Self" can be defined. Furthermore, the definitions my opponent has advanced for "being" and "experience" entails a certain amount of circular logic (or begging the question). As stated by Fowler's Deductive Logic: "If, however, the relation of B to C is such that they are identical, or that they are clearly convertible, or that one applies to the other, then he is begging the point at issue." Furthermore, self is merely a construct that can be used to refer to NUMEROUS things. My opponent is cherry-picking the definition that best fits his argument. I posit that there is more a set of or series of experiences. I believe it is intuitive that certain elements that entail the loosely-defined concept of self such as reasoning, thought-processes, emotion, action, ect... cannot be confined to the set of all experiences. My opponent mentioned his interpretation of "unprovability", let me add another crtierion for this: "Unprovability due to artificially constraining definitions". If A is artificially made by my opponent equal to B, then of course it is not unprovable. Yet, if I demonstrate that the definitions of self and experience/knowledge are different than what my opponent has stated, I believe that I can demonstrate that his premises are false based on faulty logic and counterexample. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that my opponent has been constraining his definitions of certain terms in order to form tautologies out of his premises – a act of begging the question. 2) Experience = Knowledge In the first round, I posited that there are certain "intagibles" of experiences that are not necessarily knowledge. In order to back this point up, I will again use an objective dictionary (merriam-webster online dictionary) in order to define it: Experience (n): 1 a: direct observation of or participation in events as a basis of knowledge b: the fact or state of having been affected by or gained knowledge through direct observation or participation 2 a: practical knowledge, skill, or practice derived from direct observation of or participation in events or in a particular activity b: the length of such participation 3 a: the conscious events that make up an individual life b: the events that make up the conscious past of a community or nation or humankind generally 4: something personally encountered, undergone, or lived through 5: the act or process of directly perceiving events or reality First, As one can see, all the definition of experience I have listed contains some form of "observation" or "act". In other words, the definitions of experience I have listed are far different than the very constraining definitions of my opponent. In fact, the objective definitions I have listed all either a) state the need for a preceding act or observation in order to gain experience or b) necessitates certain acts of conscious reasoning. My argument is that the existence of rational thinking and the ability to ACT (either passively, via hearing, or actively, via action) is OUTSIDE of the domain the omniscient god, since it is not necessarily experience nor knowledge, but rather an action of some sort. Secondly, Although I have asked my opponent to define experience, he has merely given me several examples. As one knows, an example cannot define something; it cannot an establish a bright line. My definitions from M-W.com not only cover ALL of his examples, but it actually DEFINES what an experience is. Thirdly, my opponent's definition of knowledge and experience is (I believe) again employing some form of circular reasoning(correct me if I'm wrong). If knowledge is defined in such a way it necessitates the existence (persuming the fact) of experience, is it not begging the question? (Not a rhetorical question) Lastly, I posit that words such as "experience", "self", and "knowledge" are merely human constructs used to express abstractions; thus, there is a great deal of confusion over what these terms actually mean. My opponent has defined these words from his own subjective paradigm; however, I have defined these terms objectively, and thus, you, the voter, should place more emphasis on my objective definitions over his subjective ones. My main problem with my opponent's arguments is that he is injecting a fair amount of subjective definitions in to this debate in order to justify his points. However, I agree in essence with his proof for number 6, other than the fact that his premises from 1 and 2 are wrong (and thus the whole first syllogism).