This is a rough sketch of what I’m prepared to defend… my replies will be the great sketch
4 Proofs for ambiguous:
Why existence exists
Freewill - it exists
Politics - liberal direct democracy
Abortion - pro choice
First: two definitions
1.) definition: what we use to describe self evident delineations
2.) proof: When it’s shown impossible for a self evident delineation to exist if it’s false
Why existence exists:
The lack of existence existing is a lack of itself: everything we see is the exact opposite of “isn’t”
absolute non existence is: isn’t
by definition, not there nor could ever be there.
We are the opposite of that, by definition: not there.
Thus, existence has no choice but to exist.
that’s why existence exists.
Why freewill exists
Freewills’ existence is defined by the limit of absolute will and absolute lack of will.
This limit is put in place by this string of sentences as true by definition:
For a being to know very reason why it knows every thing that it knows, there are two limits:
All of those reasons are external to it (absolute determinism)
All of those reasons are internal (absolute creationism)
Using the proof that otherness is existence, we can show that the first proof renders the being incapable of perceiving a self when it process acting agents outside of itself at 100%. Likewise, if such a being is 100% creative, there is nothing outside of this being with which such being can perceive itself as existing relative to other. Existence is other, thus such a being cannot exist, because in both instances, it’s not other in any possible way.
What this proves is the compatabalist argument, that every being has a measure of freewill and restriction.
We perceive this proof constantly… in order for me to freely smoke cigarettes, i am restricted to having lungs, a cigarette, a lighter, and a way to light the cigarette with the lighter (amongst at least 10 other necessary restrictions ) For everything that comes of will, there are necessary restrictions. The will is not 100% percent free, nor, because of the lack of 100% determinism (the state where all causes are external), it necessarily has a freewill to some degree.
Politics: The solution is liberal democracy
Liberal simply is a self preserving ideology, instead of a self destructive one. By this, I mean that people who don’t accept our differences and respect them are anti liberal… they are conservative.
This all sounds counter intuitive, but conservatives are primarily defined not by fiscal aspects, but rather social aspects. A true conservative adopts through social conservatism, the stoning of people who have sex wrong, because thats what people in the past did. So they are called, social conservatives. In another very long proof, that’s not in the breadth of this, I can prove that people only stone the people who did the correct actions.
It’s all counter-intuitive because these terms have been rendered meaningless by the puppet masters of society. Technically, the conservatives should be ravenously protecting the environment. Since they are not, the award goes to the liberals, who are trying to pass their memes to infinity… so a liberal says to themselves, in a survival mode: I can’t be a liberal if there is no environment, so to be myself, and pass this meme on, I must protect the environment.
Conservatives don’t operate from self preservation, even though thats how they’re defined in the dictionary.
By definition, conservatives don’t accept anything new that can help the species though in terms of revolution of ideas. Since this is vital to our survival and enjoyment of life, the liberal wins, and the liberal is also protective of liberalism continuing, which guards them against destructions that would prevent this. They are conservatives, but better.
Democracy, if you look it up, literally means that something comes to a vote and the majority wins.
Theres so much disinformation, that this is misleadingly called “direct democracy” now. An educated populace has the right to have the largest vote win, such that it eradicates the corruption of power, which history has shown time and again, benefits only a handful of people at the expense of everyone else.
Abortion: pro choice
Unlike the above proof on democracy, which isn’t proven as rigorously (but is true), this is actually another limit proof, the pro choice proof.
There are beings born here who nobody wants here, including themselves, we incarcerate, or even execute these people. So we know that not every birth will produce even a marginally desired participant of our world. However, we do know, that by definition, if a being is desired by everyone, including itself, such a being would be impossible to abort or kill, by definition of the ideal. The problem people present about abortion, that we’d kill a “jesus” for example, is by definition, false. So we don’t have to worry about that. Being that the only other possibility on the limit (remember, this is a limit proof) is a being that nobody wants here, abortion, is not evil.