This debate is primarily between@Saeko, and myself, we have agreed, once recognizing some shared definitions, to post 8 posts each and every official post shall be enumerated as such. I would ask that other posters refrain from interrupting the debate with their own comment until Saeko and I have finished our posts.
In essence, I was challenged to debate my claim that Phenomenal Idealism (Immaterialism) and Trinitarian Theism is true. Following the rules of classical disputation, I from the outset listed a series of outcomes which would qualify as a definitive victory, the one to which Saeko and I agreed was that I merely had to the establish the existence of the mental as non-physical or not physically reducible.
The success of this constitutes a victory, but the failure to do so does not necessarily mean defeat, only that the debate did not conclude with a definitive victory, a checkmate, a KO.
Indeed, the only way my opponent could land a KO would be disprove the possibility of a non-physical mental reality altogether.
That being said, here were the terms agreed to for this debate:
I. The Terms of The Debate.
What follows are the agreed-to terms of the debate. I was challenged to prove the existence of a non-physical mental reality contra my opponent’s position that there only exists a material reality. Likewise, I will also satisfy my opponent’s request, for me to unveil my proof for the existence of the Trinitarian God which is claimed to be necessarily inferrable as both existent and Trinitarian by my system of Phenomenal Idealism. Given that these terms were posted in a direct conversation with Saeko, they will often be in the first and second person voice. I only post them here for public awareness. Any additional comments I have chosen to add to the terms since the initial agreement shall be specified by the term: NOTE.
Here thus are the terms which I laid out for Saeko, to which she agreed:
1. I will demonstrate the existence of a mental reality and that such cannot be reduced to physical properties without engaging in fallacious reasoning. I will also attempt to argue beyond this that no mind-independent reality exists. Regardless of whether I will be able to demonstrate this position conclusively to anyone’s satisfaction within 8 posts is indeed a tall task and I do not expect to do so; however, at the very least, all will have a sure grasp of what my position actually is.
2. The laws of reason and discourse will be the governing principles of the debate. If we notice fallacies in the others reasoning they must be identified by name and why the fallacy obtains must be briefly explained. These can be rebutted, of course (but we shouldn't let this sort of thing bog us down). NOTE: This standard for debate is that which governs all matters pertaining to philosophical debate (especially the metaphysical). Scientific “evidence,” is not the ultimate standard and is often disqualified purely in virtue of reason’s application (scientific arguments often rely on inductive inferences and the hypothetico-deductive method which are fallacious, as well as assumptions regarding causation which are also often fallacious, or at least ambiguous).
3. Questions asked by each side shall be answered as succinctly as possible in the responding post. Every question asked should not warrant 18 paragraph answers, likewise we should ask questions with the intention of getting simple responses unless we specifically ask the other debater to explain themselves or to expand on their point.
4. Questions that we intend to have answered by the other poster (that are not intended as rhetorical) shall be numbered, even if they are the only questions asked in the post. This will prevent confusion and the ever-annoying forum demand "answer my question please."
If the questions we want answered are always numbered, with the response identified numerically as well, we shall keep that portion organized.
5. We will allow a couple of posts for general housekeeping and definitions before we start "counting our posts." NOTE: I reserve the right as the one presenting my position to give my own definitions (a common rule in disputation); however, I will modify these definitions if they radically depart from common understanding as they are definitions that both sides will need to use in the course of the debate.
6. I suggest 8 full posts each to be the limit for the debate, I shall initiate a separate thread for the debate which shall count as my first official post and will include my definitions. We can then do the unofficial posting to make sure we are on the same page as far as definitions and when you are comfortable you will make your "First" main post of your eight and then we will go-back-and-forth until the debate has concluded. NOTE: (Outlined portion was applicable prior to this thread’s formation). NOTE: Section in Bold has been changed: NOTE: I will be posting my first official post of the debate after we have confirmed agreement on the definitions and a review of the terms.
7. I will be posting this thread with the next week or two and we should try to "get to" each other’s post within a week of it being made. Worst case this means the debate could go 16 plus weeks. Hopefully we can keep that from happening, but whatever. If we can't post for an extended period for any reason, we should declare it in the thread (vacations, etc.). NOTE: (Outlined portion was applicable prior to this thread’s formation.).
8. After the conclusion of the debate, regardless of whether I have convinced you or not, I will
(assuming the Idealist paradigm) give my proof for God's existence and why God must necessarily be Trinitarian after and in the specific manner as given in the Latin version of The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. NOTE: I have decided to include this proof in my first post in this thread instead of waiting until later to do so, in spite of this fact, the debate will not go further than 8 official posts each between Saeko and myself and will still mainly revolve around the existence of the mental as independent of the physical.
This section with the terms above shall be the substance of the first initial posts by Saeko and myself prior to me posting the first of my 8 posts (once a general agreement has been reached on my definitions and the terms).
Not all definitions in a debate as broad and as ambitious as this could possibly be laid out before hand; however, several key definitions must be made clear.
Phenomenal Idealism (Immaterialism): negatively, the denial of matter and a physical reality, positively, the claim that the only thing that exists is the mental, or, to put it better, all that which exists is either a mind or mental content, esse est percepii aut percepere.
Physicalism (Materialism): negatively, the denial of any entity or cause that is not physically reducible as being existent. Positively, the assertion that the only things which exist are fundamentally physical or material in nature.
Causation: a necessary condition or relation, comprehending the notion of ultimate origination as well. Delineated according to antecedent or contemporaneous causes primarily.
Percept: an object of perception/experience (e.g. table), a bundle of sensations. Synonyms: Phenomena (sng/plur.), Physical object.
Matter: Neither a mind, nor mental content (exclusively), mind-independent by nature and definition. This term is that which is comprehended as the constituent aspect of reality in physicalism or materialism and is typically also understood as being philosophically basic, metaphysically fundamental, and timeless in some sense.
Sensations: A qualitative state; e.g. “redness” “hardness” “stinkiness,” “loudness,” “sweetness.” Et al. comprehending both primary and secondary qualities. (synonyms: qualia)
Consciousness (mind): an awareness, that which has percepts or mental content (thought). Higher and lower levels of such are acknowledged, the lower being in regards to direct perception and sensation with the latter (higher) levels refer to complex and abstract thought.
Transcendental: Providing the preconditions of intelligibility.
Omnipotence: A State of Being Dependent on Nothing Outside of Oneself.
Omniscience: A State of Being The Source of All Mental Content (knowledge).
Omnipresence: A State Of Being Spatially Unbound (Not Subject To Spatio-Temporal Restrictions).
Self-Satisfaction: a thought of oneself from which once achieves fulfillment and from which pleasure is derived. The affection of satisfaction itself may also be called love.
Idea: an object of thought (may also be referred to as such), distinct from the one thinking it.
Pure Self: the true subject, independent of any object of thought.
On God and What Is Meant By Trinitarian; what is meant by these terms is limited to what is expressed in the Creedal formulation given in the link at the bottom of the post. Nothing shall be added to this.
https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/c ... cene-creed
I now await my opponent to discuss or agree to the definitions given and to reaffirm her agreement to the terms, conditions, and purpose of the debate itself.
"It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals... is incompatible with freedom."
- Patrick Henry