"I refute the proposition in its entirety, precisely because I have overcome it by:
(1)Application of the "Law of the Vacuum" in relation to thinking.
(2). the inception of a particular concept, solely peculiar to the required absolute solution and proof of the refutation of the proposition, presented herewith as - THE IDEA.

THE IDEA

The IDEA is to assume that Absolute Being Exists, and is therefore the Whole Truth, in that the Truth is simply - 'That which is so'.

The nature of THE IDEA, is such that it is necessarily always actually and/or Potentially, embryonically (unless already conceived), available:-
(1) as an 'instance of conceptualization', of our Real Identity
(2) in relation to the 'limit of perception' of any individual Homo-Sapiens
(3) freely accessible in accordance with the application of any individuals own "Conscious Effort", to free themselves from the 'limit of perception' that denies it's inception as a concept in the first instance- irrespective of any immediate environmental circumstance that appears to indicate the contrary.

Furthermore, THE IDEA invalidates most, if not all of the assertions, proffered as corroboration of the 'so-called' proof of the propositional challenge. It does so, by revealing that all thought is apparently subject ONLY to the same limitation as 'the limit of perception' , of the individual Homo-Sapiens to whom the apparent limitation may apply.

THE EXPLANATION

1. The challenge does NOT require the proof of the existence of Absolute Being.
2. The existence of Absolute Being may therefore be included as - " ('x' - the Unknown factor of existence)". This is a perfectly normal and accepted scientific pursuit, and therefore remains within the required 'limits of reasonableness'.
3. By assuming that Absolute Being Exists, the 2ND premise of the proposition is answered (see 1. above), within the bounds of the limits of reasonableness (see 2. above).
4. The premise that we exist, is a self-evident fact of the "unknown factor 'x' ", as it has been assumed in THE IDEA. The 1ST premise is therefore also answered within the limit of reasonableness. 5. The 3RD premise is 'null and void', and not at all central to the requirement.
The fact that our conscious knowledge is representational is relative to a particular individual, and therefore irrelevant to the challenge.
Just as the proof presented as the proposition to be challenged, is merely someone’s representation of an idea, so to is THE IDEA I have provided herewith, a symbolic representation of my thinking, albeit abstract. In fact symbolic representation is more often than not, precisely the means by which the abstract is represented, in order that a 'limit of reasonableness', may be verified.

I see no coherently logical or rational 'limit of reasonableness' in that which is referred to as the defense of the 3RD premise. However, due to the enormity of all the evidence presented as defense, I am happy to attend to a dispute of any particular point therein, in the event that it may relate to my refutation of the challenge, as a "constructive criticism" thereof.

It is more valid to assert that conscious knowledge is representational of a 'limit of perception', when it is 'indirect knowledge'. To put it simply - surely we may all agree that 'Limited Perception' is subject to improvement or enhancement, by means of education.

.."our limited perception" respectfully infers a general malady symptomatically recognizable as "indirect knowledge". But unless the Organizer(s) of the challenge can 'prove' that there are NO Homo-Sapiens who have overthrown this affliction, they cannot Rightfully and truthfully declare, that "direct conscious knowledge" is, in fact, not also representational within the species, or indeed, indigenous to it.

CONCLUSION

1. The nature of THE IDEA as presented, inherently and simultaneously depicts The Absolute Will and Independence of the Absolute Being.
2. We may therefore rightfully and truly know our Identity as the "WILL" of The Absolute Being.
3. This true knowledge of our Identity is then the quantification of "who we Are", and the irrefutable identification, that the qualification of "who we are", can never be other than what it is.

FINALLY - I hereby contend that the concurrent occurrence of the true Quantification and true Qualification of "who we are", has been demonstrated conclusively, in accordance with and in relation to THE IDEA as presented.
.....(1) The Absolute solution has been shown by THE IDEA
(2) The refutation of the proposition is proved by the explanation
(3) THE IDEA, THE EXPLANATION, and CONCLUSION ...together with 'this' FINAL statement as here presented, contain all the evidence necessary to withstand "Constructive Criticism" within the 'limits of reasonableness' they have produced.
(4) As THE IDEA both proposes and imposes a new or different Method of conceptualization (and/or perception), 'Itself', and within the 'limits of reasonableness' already presented, I am Impelled to reject the notion of 'constant criticism' in favour Of 'Constructive Criticism'.

This concludes the summation of my entry and thereby my entire and precise refutation of the propositional challenge."

protomutant June 25 2002

Response:

We agree that according to your system of thought, or "absolute solution", you have "entirely and precisely" refuted the challenge proposition. The ground for your refutation and self-knowledge with absolute truth-value is the "assumed" absolute solution that absolute Being exists, and that it is always conceptually available in relation to the limit of our individual perception. Viz., you are claiming that our true knowledge of Being is always available outside of our indirect conscious knowledge. However, your refutation rests on the assumed existence of absolute Being without having shown any evidence supporting the assumption. So in essence all you have done is created a system of thought based on our assumed ability to truly know who we are (absolute Being), and thereby you have established the mere possibility of truly knowing who we are. You have not established the more reasonableness of truly knowing who we are, except within your system of thought.

To more reasonably establish true self-knowledge, (i.e. the consistency and soundness of true self-knowledge over all known antagonistic positions), you need to take your position further by defending the assumed existence of absolute Being which according to you is always conceptually available. To argue that your position or representation of your perception is just as valid as anyone else’s representation of their perception, only establishes the possibility of your position. Also, though limited perception may be subject to "improvement", and limited perception itself cannot rule out the possible existence of "direct conscious knowledge", limited perception does not necessarily show the existence direct conscious knowledge. Moreover, since your position is "imposed", it follows that neither constant criticism or constructive criticism is relevant, because imposition leaves no room for any criticism, unless it is part of the imposition. (On this point, you have allowed for constructive criticism, but it appears that "THE IDEA" (or assumed truth) precedes any constructive criticism.)

The question you need to answer to possibly to take your position from mere possibility to more reasonableness is why should the assumptions that an absolute Being exists, and it is always conceptually available be more reasonably accepted? What is the ground for your assumptions of absolute truth-value? How can imposition be a ground for absolute truth-value?

352. Entry:

Dispute of the response to Entry 351

"I do hereby DISPUTE in it's entirety, your response to my Competition Entry #351, for the 'more reasonable' preciseness (as requested by yourselves) hereunder:

RQ - as presented herein, shall refer to RESPONSE QOUTE as produced by Yourselves in response to my entry - #351 dated:25/0602

1 - My proof has nothing to do with my system of thought. It has been achieved by utilizing, the system of thought YOU IMPOSED as a condition of the competition.

2 - RQ - ‘Viz., you are claiming that our true knowledge of Being is always available outside of our indirect conscious knowledge.’

NO - quite the contrary. As I prove in my entry & again show herewith, it lies within the 'limit of perception' & 'more reasonableness' that You imposed. I contend that I have not, as you suggest, simply shown the 'possibility of a possibility', for I have 'more reasonably' shown here, that I have achieved what I had already achieved with my entry - I.E. - that the ‘POSSIBILITY IS POSSIBLE’ .

3 - RQ - ‘..without having shown any evidence supporting the assumption’

The ONLY evidence to support the assumption, is the fact that ‘Absolute Being Exists’. Once having assumed it, it is readily available as a FACT, for the precise purpose of refuting the proposition. I was NOT required to prove that IT EXISTS, and made that clear in my explanation.

The onus is clearly on the Organizer(s) of the competition, to show with 'more reasonableness', in what way an assumption is unreasonable within ‘our limit of perception’.

4 - RQ - ‘So in essence all you have done is created a system of thought based on our assumed ability to know who we are (Absolute Being) & thereby ESTABLISHED THE MERE (?)* POSSIBILITY OF TRULY KNOWING WHO WE ARE.

*My question mark

..MERE ? . I have not established the mere possibility, I have established THAT IT ‘IS’ POSSIBLE ‘WHEN’ ABSOLUTE BEING EXISTS - and thereby refuted the proposition.

'Limited Philosophic Perception' as it applies in the field of Metaphysics has long ago accepted the LAW OF ASSUMPTION as fact. Whilst 'Mundane Academics' may politely dismiss that it is AXIOMATIC, they can no longer contradict themselves, for the simple reason that they themselves employ it as a means of deduction. The most recent investigations of some of the world's most ( so-called ) elite scientists, into the nature of the Universe, is finally impelling them to admit one by one, that they must admit to also having long ago included the LAW OF ASSUMPTION as an IRREFUTABLE AXIOM.

Their failure, to date, to openly & 'en masse' declare the inclusion of the ‘Law of Assumption’ as axiomatic in their research is indicative of an Inexplicable desire to shield the ‘apparent exclusivity of their knowledge’. Why else would they prolong the process of their own ignorance (limited scientific perception), knowing full well that they are in fact, NOT ignorant?

Enough said...'more reasonableness'... go figure friends! Will YOU continue to support the conspiracy to ignorance ? Or will you bravely admit to that which ‘academics generally’ is neither inclined or encouraged, nor for that matter required, to adhere?

5 - RQ - ‘You have not established more reasonableness of truly knowing who you are,...EXCEPT WITHIN YOUR SYSTEM OF THOUGHT’

Again - NOT TRUE !
I have utilized a perfectly legitimate (I.E. - more reasonable) technique, which is used daily by Mathematicians & Scientists in order to solve equations. i.e... to ASSUME - ‘X’ - as the unknown factor, in order to work from relative quantities that are known (limited perception).

Surely there are ‘Academically Informed’ members within the Committee who have themselves utilized this self same technique. There is Absolutely no Validity to your implication that I have ‘uniquely assumed a system of thought peculiar to myself’.

It is commonplace, both in the academic & non-academic pursuit of our daily lifestyles, to draw upon the unseen dimension(s).

I therefore strongly contest that this is ‘my’ system of thought. It is plainly, simply (more)*, & reasonably (reasonableness), the utilization of the 'limited perception' to which YOU refer, as being ‘ours’.
*From the Dictionary - more = ‘ neither/nothing more or/nor less than simply, plainly’

6 - RQ - ‘.you need to take your position further..’ - WHY? - Is there a New Competition I am unaware of’ ? How much ‘more reasonableness’ 'do' you require? I have consistently remained within the 'limit of perception' you imposed as a condition of the competition.

7 - ‘.you need to take your position further by defending the assumed existence of Absolute Being’.

I have already done so in points 2 - 6 above.

8 - RQ - ‘.which according to you is always conceptually available.’

Yes, quite so, and I have conceived it by ASSUMING IT - (TAKING IT FOR GRANTED).
To limit the application of ‘assumption’ to 'my system of thought' - you would have to be unable to apply ‘assumption’ yourselves - right? Well what EXACTLY is stopping you from so doing? I have NO Patent or Copyright on ‘assumption per se!

To PROVE that you are unable to do so, you would have to refute, most, (if not all) the academic theories etc. currently accepted as normal - YOUR CALL!

9 - RQ - ‘To argue that your position or representation of your perception is just as valid as anyone else's representation of their perception only establishes the possibility of your position.’

Of course it does, I don't disagree. BUT it ALSO establishes the possibility of anyone else's position.

You yourselves, have stated the ‘transparency’ of the Competition.

10 - RQ - ‘’limited perception’ does not necessarily show the existence of direct conscious knowledge’.

Yes it does! - Precisely as I have proved it in my refutation of the proposition. I.E. - ‘WHEN’ Absolute Being Exists’ - ‘Direct Conscious Knowledge’ exists.

11 - ON CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM - I apologize if I have mislead you in my entry with this reference. I omitted to define:-that by the term ‘Constructive Criticism’, I meant - within the bounds of the 9 Premises YOU have defined for the Competition. Is this not fair? Would it not be 'more reasonable' to confine criticism to the existing Premises + and including any others you may realize within the duration of the competition?

12 - RQ - ‘The question you need to answer...more reasonably accepted?’

I insist that I have done so, by showing that ‘Assumption, per se’ is not limited to ‘my system of thought’ ( as you insinuate), because it's availability IS REPRESENTATIONAL. If you insist that it is not, you must prove why you yourselves, or anybody else, is unable to ‘Take For Granted’(I.E. - ASSUME), that Absolute Being Exists.

FINALLY - The ground for the assumption of Absolute truth-value has been shown in the IDEA.
In other words, if 'we' assume that Absolute Being Exists, then obviously, 'when' it does, IT IS THE TRUTH.
Imposition is a ground for Absolute truth-value, when the TRUTH has been established, and, as I show it is established as a perfectly natural FACT, 'when we' assume that Absolute Being Exists.

Those who are unable to do so, are simply afflicted by their own ‘limited perception’, within their OWN (not mine), cozy 'systems of thought', which may be loosely/precisely termed, ‘PHILOSOPHIC RELATIVITY’ - as it applies here directly. The circular nature of the reasoning as it appears in 'this' competition, is merely a snippet of what I am referring to, in relation to Homo-Sapiens as a species.

Many, now stand poised at the borders of ‘limited perception’ to ‘Assume the Intangible as Reality, in favour of Relativity, and thereby precipitate a New Way of Life on our planet. Some have already achieved the required translation.

FINALLY - As the proposition HAS been refuted by establishing TRUTH as described herewith, I am prepared to GAURANTEE HERE & NOW, that there IS NO OTHER WAY to refute the proposition.

The question YOU must answer, is whether you can within the 'limit of perception' you have imposed - 'more reasonably' DENY WITH PROOF the following:-

‘That WHEN Absolute Being Exists ( as it certainly does in my IDEA), irrespective of IF it exists, it is an acceptable & more reasonable method of procedure, for the refutation of the proposition’ - as presented, and within the conditions required by the Competition itself.

TO CLARIFY - I ‘Irrevocably Insist’ - that WHEN Absolute Being Exists ( as it certainly does in my IDEA), on the basis of 'more reasonable' Assumption by 'our limited perception' AND ‘Irrespective of IF it exists’ - the IDEA as presented in the Original Entry #351 - and the 'more reasonable' explanation requested & provided in this DISPUTE - ‘Both’ (either separately or together) - concisely, precisely & conclusively refute the proposition in it's entirety.
For The Record: - Let it be noted as additional evidence of 'more reasonableness', that the majority of philosophically inclined individuals, both academic &/or non-academic, will NOT be strangers to the system of thought I have in fact used in my refutation of the proposition. Suffice it to say, I will refer to it as APPLIED ONTOLOGY & additionally submit that it includes ‘Pure Logic’ as a means towards conclusive physical & metaphysical analysis of that which may be required as ‘Knowledge’."

protomutant June 27 2002

Additional comment (Excerpts from a letter by protomutant dated June 26 2002)

"... As ‘We’ are aware, even from 'our limited perception' that we exist, but are unable to conclusively show ‘HOW’ or ‘WHY’ we exist, it is 'more reasonable' for us to assume that we exist in/as or from ‘SOMETHING’.

Therefore to identify our REAL IDENTITIES it is 'more reasonable' to begin by ASSUMING that THE ABSOLUTE does indeed exist, rather than that it does not.

... I have shown that we ‘can’ when a particular condition exists, and I insist that to expect an ACTUAL PROOF of that condition as an entire Refutation of the proposition is no longer 'more reasonable', but unreasonable."

Response:

We disagree outright with your dispute. You have not more reasonably shown that we can truly know who we are. Rather, you have shown from your limited perspective the possibility of truly knowing who we are.

Your argument centers around the observation that all human thought is defined at some level by assumption. (What you call the "Law of Assumption".) You then argue that your use of assumption is more reasonable. Or as you indirectly say,

"I have shown that we ‘can’ [truly know who we are] when a particular condition exists, and I insist that to expect an ACTUAL PROOF of that condition as an entire Refutation of the proposition is no longer 'more reasonable', but unreasonable."

There are serious flaws with your argument that need to be addressed.

First, the anchor of your true knowledge is the more reasonableness of assumption, and yet you concede that the more reasonableness of assumption is determined from our limited perspective, and therefore it cannot be a ground for knowledge with absolute truth-value. Viz., the more reasonableness of assumption does not establish knowledge with absolute truth-value. Even if we were to accept the "irrefutability of Law of Assumption", it means that any assumption could used as a ground for truth, which would leave us with contradictory truths, or no way to distinguish truth from non-truth since all thought is defined by assumption.

Also, just because assumption itself is more reasonable, does not mean its application is more reasonable. Viz., what are the reasons for assuming absolute Being? To rely on assumption itself is to leave a gap in your argument, not to mention face the problems with assumption itself.

In an attempt to take your argument further than just relying on assumption itself, you argue that "to identify our REAL IDENTITIES, it is more reasonable to begin by ASSUMING the ABSOLUTE..." However, you are assuming that we have REAL IDENTITIES that can be consciously identified, which may not necessarily be the case.

In summary, though you are correct that assumption appears to more reasonably define all human thought, it does not follow that the more reasonableness of assumption can be equated with a ground for knowledge with absolute truth-value. (Viz., the Law of Assumption shows that knowledge with absolute truth-value cannot be known and we know that it is, including the Law of Assumption itself!) So your position merely establishes that the possibility of truly knowing who we are is possible from your limited perspective. To take your position further, you need to find a more reasonable ground for knowledge with absolute truth-value.

353. Entry:

Dispute of the response to Entry 352

"Again - I dispute in it's entirety your 'disagreement' of my DISPUTE which has apparently become a New Entry #352.

I contend that you are avoiding the REAL ISSUES of my DISPUTE of Your response to my original Entry #351 by the fact that you have generalized your response to the Dispute.

Be that as it may, for the time being, I shall address THE ISSUE AT STAKE from a different point of view with 'more reasonableness', in the first instance.

Then, I shall deal with your "outright disagreement" point by point, in the manner I did with your first response to my Entry #351 in my DISPUTE, which has now become an Entry.

THE ISSUE AT STAKE = THE PROPOSITION

THE PROPOSITION:

we cannot truly know who we are, in part or in whole, and be who we are at the same time,

is NOT valid WHEN Absolute Being Exists.

I.E. - It is TRUE to say with equally similar 'more reasonableness'.

"When Absolute Being Exists, we CAN truly know who we are, in part or in whole, and be who we are at the same time"

Therefore the original Proposition has been refuted simply by the introduction of a NEW proposition.

In order for the original proposition to refute the NEW proposition, it would necessarily have to read as follows:

"We cannot truly know who we are, in part or in whole, and be who we are at the same time, if Absolute Being does NOT exist"

but, the latter, is NOT the original proposition & therefore, cannot with 'more reasonableness' be construed to be so within the conditions of the Competition.

To do so, by insinuating that the ACTUAL existence of Absolute Being is a requirement, in order to confirm the refutation, would be unreasonable by default.

I therefore submit, that the original proposition has indeed been refuted in it's entirety, by Entry #351

AND SO IT IS

Now I will deal directly with your Response to my DISPUTE. Again - RQ shall refer to Response Quote:
1 - RQ - "You have not more reasonably shown that we can truly know who we are. Rather, you have shown from your limited perspective the possibility of truly knowing who we are"...
Lets clear this up here & now. You are attempting to impose upon me the condition whereby I am required to SHOW - "HOW" - "we know who we are", whereas I am only required to show that is NOT IMPOSSIBLE that "we can know".
N.B.
*Contestants are required to DISPROVE whether "WE CANNOT TRULY KNOW & *BE WHO WE ARE". *.NOT.
*AND I REPEAT "NOT TO PROVE" - "HOW WE KNOW WE CANNOT TRULY KNOW & BE WHO WE ARE"
*Exactly here lies the bone of contention. It is simply a matter of Semantics.
Rather, YOU are increasingly showing that you are either willingly/or unwillingly, but certainly unreasonably(i.e. - without more reason), unable to understand the requirement of your own proposition as you have stated it in simple English.
I.E. - I again insist that I have refuted the proposition - "WE CANNOT TRULY KNOW WHO WE ARE, IN PART OR IN WHOLE, AND BE WHO WE ARE AT THE SAME TIME"
You are insisting that I have not proved ANOTHER proposition .
I did NOT AGREE with the ASSERTION made in the Original proposition, therefore I am NOT required to answer the alternative, but ONLY TO OVERCOME THE ORIGINAL .
2 - RQ -" There are serious flaws with your argument that need to be addressed. First, the anchor of your true knowledge is the more reasonableness of assumption, and yet you concede that the more reasonableness of assumption is determined from our limited perspective, and therefore it cannot be a ground for knowledge with absolute truth-value. Viz., the more reasonableness of assumption does not establish knowledge with absolute truth-value. Even if we were to accept the "irrefutability of Law of Assumption", it means that any assumption could used as a ground for truth, which would leave us with contradictory truths, or no way to distinguish truth from non-truth since all thought is defined by assumption. "

Nonsense - you are disagreeing with my dispute by repeating your response to my entry, when I have already answered that response in my dispute. I PARTICULARLY made a point of showing that the 'more reasonableness' of assumption was possible by means of 'limited perception' in the same manner that academics use "x - as the unknown factor" when working from the relative - i.e. from limited perception. You obviously have a serious limitation problem - so lets use an example:
I assume Absolute Being Exists in order to refute the proposition.
A Mathematician assumes x as the unknown factor in order to solve an equation.
From a limited perception, I don't know whether the Absolute Exists or not, so I assume it as the unknown factor.
From his limit of perception he does not know if an answer exists or not, so he assumes "x" as the answer (unknown factor).
AGAIN I CONTEND THAT THE APPLICATION "IS" REASONABLE A RELATIVE ANSWER IS ASSUMED AS BEING REAL IN ORDER TO DEDUCE "THE REAL" ANSWER.
In each instance we are working from "our limited perception."
.RQ.not to mention the problem with assumption itself. ?????.this is "VERY" vague & speaks nothings to me.i.e. What exactly IS the problem ? YOU MUST ANSWER THIS TO SHOW THAT I AM NOT EXERCISING "MORE REASONABLENESS" Once having Assumed the Unknown Factor it is then used as though it were the Answer - or Absolute Truth Value, as you put it, that it is trying to achieve. In other words it is automatically introduced into the equation as a fact in order to PROVE the fact.
You are basically saying to me that you would tell the Mathematician to do away with "X" - in which case, I ask YOU to show with more reasonableness how you would instruct him to solve the problem and how you would explain to Mathematicians & Scientists the world over how they must proceed with their research when they have discarded the method of Assuming "X" as the answer.
Or perhaps I was mislead by what I assumed the Committee in fact knew in the first place.
I.E. - The Law of the Vacuum - "THE SUBSTANCE EXISTS BEFORE THE VACUUM"
There are serious flaws in your responses!
3 - RQ>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The balance of your response is a rehashed attempt at insinuating exactly the same things I already attended to (in the DISPUTE & my Original Entry), in a GENERALISED fashion with no specific order, thus making it extremely difficult & necessarily long-winded for me to respond to Yourselves.
IT is plain for everyone here to see that I have taken great pains to respond specifically to ALL the particular points you have thrown back at me. Yet when you answer you generalize. Well, I guess as long as there is NO WORD LIMITATION & you are prepared to read, I shall accept it. I do contend though that PARTICULAR points are more easily & quickly addressed & resolved one way or another by not beating about the bush.
4 - The question of REAL IDENTITY has again already been addressed I.E. - when the Absolute Being Exists bla bla.it is part of my original Entry. Pse. Address issues in a specific order, I fear you are beginning to get yourselves in a bind.
5 - RQ - Also, since apparently there is no knowledge with absolute truth-value we can know...???.
More reasonableness [of assumption] does not necessarily equate with absolute truth-value.)
=Of course there are (knowledge) - and of course it does, when Absolute Being IS the Assumption.
Goodness gracious me, I am simply repeating myself over & over - WE HAVE A PROBLEM . Not only have I already addressed every point in your original response, I have done so in a number of ways. May I ask, are you unable to see that whilst responding to my dispute you basically repeated the response to my Entry in different words ? Herewith I contend that the Original Entry #351 stands as an entire & precise refutation of the proposition."

protomutant June 28 2002

Response:

The requirement of the competition is to more reasonably disprove that we cannot truly know who we are (or more reasonably prove we can truly know who we are). More reasonably disprove is not the same thing as showing the non-impossibility of antagonistic propositions to the proposition. If that were the case, the competition would have long been over, because considering that there is no knowledge with absolute truth-value we can know that we know, any participant merely has to assert an antagonistic proposition to establish non-impossibility, and thereby overcome the proposition.

Turning to your position, you argue that by assuming the existence of an unknown variable called "absolute Being", you have created a situation when the proposition is overcome. (i.e. a situation in which it is not impossible to truly know who we are.) From this conclusion alone, you maintain that the proposition is overcome. However, the requirements of the competition, as mentioned, is not merely to show the possibility of truly knowing who we are, but more reasonably showing how we can truly know who we are. It should be pointed out as well that the possibility of truly knowing who we are is essential to the competition because without its possibility, there are no grounds for the competition itself. (See the response to Entry 168 on the contention that possibility precedes impossibility.)

For you to argue that the insertion of an unknown variable into an equation as a fact in order to prove a fact is a more reasonable procedure which is used by mathematicians and scientists the world over, ignores the relevant question of whether or not the unknown variable assumed as a fact is more reasonable or not. Or in the context of your position, is the assumed existence of absolute Being as defined by you more reasonable or not? You have repeatedly ignored this question, and yet it is the most important question in terms of evaluating the comparative reasonableness of your position.

If we evaluate your notion of absolute Being as presented by you, it is unclear how you can know something absolute from your causal perspective. So as you have conceded your assumption of absolute Being as fact is unsupported, because you cannot support something that is not known. Also, it is unclear from our limited perspective, in which our thoughts face infinite regress when epistemically broken down, how we could ever know something in absolute terms, like absolute Being, and know that we do. Moreover, since our conscious knowledge is more reasonably based on interaction and thereby representation, it is unclear how we could ever know something with absolute truth-value. Further still, if we consider the apparent interconnectedness of things, it is less reasonable from our perspective that something like an absolute Being could exist outside of interconnectedness, and yet be connected to it.

In support of your position, you argue that the "Law of Assumption" is "irrefutable", and thereby your assumption of absolute Being is at least more reasonable. Though the Law of Assumption, like any other conscious thought, faces infinite regress, and as mentioned, just because the act of assuming is more reasonable, does not necessarily mean that what is being assumed is. Moreover, you argue that since it is more reasonable to assume that "we exist in/as or from something", it is more reasonable to assume absolute Being exists. The problem with this position is that though it is more reasonable that we exist in some form, it does not necessarily follow that we exist from something as in absolute. In fact, according to the law of causality, and our causal perspective, it is more reasonable to assume that we exist from an infinity of things rather than a thing-in-itself.

Based on the points attacking the notion of absolute Being and the weaknesses in your support of the notion of absolute Being, we must conclude at this stage that the existence of absolute Being is less reasonable than the non-existence of absolute Being. Therefore, we determine that your position based on "THE IDEA" (Entry 351) fails to more reasonably overcome the proposition.

The key points from our response are that the requirement of the competition is to more reasonably disprove we cannot truly know who we are or more reasonably prove we can truly know who we are, and the more reasonableness of assumption does not necessarily mean what is being assumed is more reasonable. Hence, the challenge you face is to take your position further by more reasonably proving the existence of absolute Being as defined by you.

Entries 345-350 Entries 354-358