Monotheism Reduces to Monism.

By Now Most ReAdEr'S probably have a (((VOICE))) inside them that is saying, "ok, enough already… this is too long. I'll skim it and get to the point." Please ignore that voice. Relax…. And take ur time reading this. My argument does not rely on our common conceptions (or misconceptions) about what a self is and what experience is. Instead it relies on long philosophical debates about these conceptions. Any standard dictionary is required to define terms according to our common conceptions however wrong our conceptions maybe. People are probably now thinking, how could a definition ever be wrong? If you define a Doifub as a sea urchin then "Doifub" is simply a word that means sea urchin. I ask u to plz hold back ur disbelief while I explain this. Definitions are constantly changed. For example: In Europe in the 1600's swans were defined as always being white. Then in 1790 the black swan was discovered. Society was shocked, the word swan had to be redefined. http://nzbirds.com... I brought up this debate not to argue that our common conceptions of self and experience are identical because it turns out that when you analyze our common conceptions of these things they fall apart. http://www-usr.rider.edu... http://cogprints.org... http://www.cnsspectrums.com... When philosophers ask themselves, what is a self? What I am actually? Do they say, "Oh Wait!... I'll look it up in the dictionary! Yeah that's it, that solves this whole problem." NO they DON'T. They try and figure out what the self actually is by thinking about it logically. This whole debate is centered around questioning what the self is and coming to the conclusion that it is identical to an omniscient God. (Assuming god exists) If my opponent will not allow me to question what the self and experience actually are than we can only debate the common conceptions of these things. I would never in a million years even attempt to debate that our everyday usage of the term "self" is identical to our everyday usage of the term "experience". What I have tried to do is give a brief view into the window of the philosophy of self and experience so you could see that these things are not what our common conceptions hold them to be. My opponent has used dictionaries to bring the definition of self and experience back to our common conception of these things. I have spent the last 2 rounds arguing against the validity of these common conceptions. Instead of countering my argument my opponent has simply restated what the common conceptions are. If he is to show that a self is not what I argued it to be then he must address my argument. I truly hope that people will be able to see this point. "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." Again.. In order to demonstrate that my premises are false you must counter my arguments for their validity. I have spent the last 2 rounds proving the truth of my premises. Instead of countering my arguments you have simply restated that a self is the very thing I proved it isn't. Let me restate my argument in laymen's terms. This argument includes reasons for believing: -the self is not exactly what our common conceptions claim but is actually identical to experience -that experience is not exactly what our common conceptions claim but is actually identical to a form of knowledge So I ask you; if we take away absolutely everything you are experiencing, do you exist?? Regardless of whether you have a soul or not, if you are not experiencing anything at all how could you ever claim to exist? You see, this is why I claim that you simply are your experience. That's not to say that your body or the physical world doesn't exist. It's to say that what is "you" is not identical to your body, but identical to the processes in your brain that produce your experience. These processes are your experience, which is you. Lets suppose an all-knowing God exists. He knows absolutely everything. Would it make sense to say that God doesn't know what you are seeing right now? No it doesn't. God would know what you are seeing right now. He would know what you're seeing and EXACTLY the way you are seeing it. He would know everything about what you are seeing and how you are seeing it with such exactitude that He would have to experience it exactly the way you are. (of course He has the liberty of experiencing it in many other ways as well, but He would have to at least experience it the way you are.) Now we can ask the same question about what you're hearing and you get the same result. We can then ask it about what you are smelling, tasting, touching, feeling, thinking… etc. etc. until we have covered absolutely everything you are experiencing and we get the same result. If you are your experience then ultimately there is no difference between everything that makes up you and that which is (at least one piece of) god. Because God would be His experience as well, and some of His experiences would be identical to your experiences. "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" My opponent claims that the act of thinking is not an experience! How can you have a thought without experiencing it? I know of no one who would claim that the act of thinking is not an experience. I'd like to see you show me that it isn't. The irony here is that my opponent's own definition of experience includes "conscious reasoning." If my opponent claims that rational thinking is not an experience then he has just contradicted himself. Besides almost anyone who believes in an omniscient god believes that He knows what everyone is thinking which would circumvent the problem, if there was one. "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." " I have not begged the question. Arguing for identity does necessarily entail "begging the question". Otherwise mathematics would have no basis. Quoting something out of context (especially w/o a source) does not prove any point either. If you still hold that I have begged the question than show me exactly where in my argument I have done so. Do not forget that I have posed arguments for my identity claims. >Nowhere have I claimed that knowledge necessitates the existence of experience. I have claimed that experience is identical to a portion of knowledge. Knowledge may exist w/o experience. Experience is one form of knowledge. You asked me to define experience: It is the combination of three actions: sensing, feeling, and thinking. Knowledge is the acquisition of information. Those three actions are different ways of acquiring information. Therefore experience is the combination of three different forms of knowledge. Experience is identical to a portion of knowledge. Furthermore, I have not simply defined these words according to my own subjective paradigm because I have provided logical arguments for my definitions. Thanks! Really great debate Alvin!