Monotheism Reduces to Monism.

I must ask my opponent to clarify what kind of Monism he is supporting. His definition of Monism is very vague: "I am concerned with the notion that there is only one being or self." Is there an overarching being that composes of ALL SUBSTANCE, or does a distinct individual exist in your system? Or are you proposing there is only ONE BEING (absolute Monism)consisting of only one substance and one being? I believe that this would greatly focus the debate into appropriate area(s). I'm going to go straight to his syllogism: 1. Being a Self is identical to an experience. 2. An Experience is a form of Knowledge. 3. Ergo Being a self is identical to a form of Knowledge. 4. If a being exist who contains all knowledge then it contains such knowledge. 5. The knowledge of every self would be a part of the knowledge of this greater being. 6. Since being a self is identical to such knowledge every self would be identical to a part of that greater being. I shall dispute the following points: 1), 2), 5), 6) "Being a self is identical to an experience" This point raises numerous questions. First, I must ask, what is YOUR DEFINITION of experience? Does living necessarily constitute an experience? Is experience mutually exclusive of the mindset of the person who experiences (i.e can say, a mentally retarded person who is not fully cognizant of his surroundings/experiences actually experience?) Does experience encompass every thought, every action? When does experience begin? at the formation of the being? at the time at which the being becomes cognizant? Secondly, What identifies as a self? "Self" and "Experience" are human constructs that defines our lives/conscience does it not? Although this may seem stupid, do ALL animals necessarily experience? Does every material object experience (because, are not boxes (or *insert material object here* themselves or being?) What is self? Is self the existence of something, or is the cognizance of existence? Thirdly, is not an experience an afterthought? What I mean is that you have to "be" first, before you can experience. Thus, does not the "being" part is necessary for experience. Thus, if "being is necessary for experience", then we can question how God receives such experience (what's the first cause argument, ect) =============================== "2. An Experience is a form of Knowledge." Yet, is there not an intangible part of Experience that does not necessarily constitute knowledge? What does experience suggest? The doing of an act and subsequent knowledge gained from it, does it not? In order for experience to be earned, an action (active or passive) must be performed or done. I posit that this "action" is not necessarily under the general umbrella of knowledge. In other words, the performing of the action is mutually exclusive from the gaining of the knowledge, and since God did not perform this action and it is not in his knowledge, the being is not a part of god. Thus, your syllogism breaks down, since if a being has some part of "experience" that does not necessarily fall under knowledge, then it is not part of the whole. =================== "Being a self is identical to a form of Knowledge" Since i disputed your first premise, this conclusion does not make sense. ================= "6. Since being a self is identical to such knowledge every self would be identical to a part of that greater being." You have over extended your argument. All you have proved thus far (assuming your syllogism holds up thus far), is that "being a self" is "being part of the knowledge that the Greater god possesses". You have not formulated a separate argument to show that the "being a self" = "being part of the greater being". The fundamental question is: Does a omniscient god and does each being consist exclusively of knowledge/experience? My position is that knowledge/experience does not necessarily constitute being part of the greater being. In order for a self to be part of the greater being, it has constitute more than experience (i.e Soul, free will ect ect we can argue this if you want). Secondly, you have not shown that being a self CONSISTS ONLY OF EXPERIENCES (and thus knowledge), you have shown that being a self is a form of experience. If being a self only consisted of Experiences, then your syllogism might hold up. It is intuitive that our lives are more than the accumulation of knowledge. Thirdly, since being must come before experiences, and it is only the existence of the being that can produce experiences, it shows that experiences are not necessarily the equivalent of "being" (leading back to my former arguments). They may be similar, but one necessitates the other, so they're not the exact the same. IN conclusion, my opponent has several holes and unanswered questions in his syllogism that needs to be plugged in or answered.