All reality is consisting of one substance

I would like to request the opposing side to make a practical empirical if possible modern example in a concise manner of what the opposing stance is.

Not super technical but just simple and straightforward.

I'm going to go through my side very plain.

My side is opposing to all of reality made of multiple substances.

All substances come from where?

According to the big bang, from everything hence consisted.

True or false.

Simple enough.

According to God that takes the credit for everything that was made and without God was not anything made, made everything from one substance.

Either way, we have a singularity, don't we?

Everything is interconnected all throughout all the cosmos. A network of matter, right.

What do human beings consist of?

A couple of hints ...one word begins with star.....and it is associated with the cosmos.

Readers go ahead and Google it, type it in the comments.

I yield.

CON would also like to mention that the postulates and the definitions are quite understandable on their own, and, PRO may object to a postulate without understanding the entirety of the accumulation of the point being made; the point of a dialogue is to find points of agreement and from each side and try to use those agreements to prove a claim true. If there is no disagreement on the postulates then try to find a flaw in the validity of the arguments made via its figure, mood, or another way. Otherwise, CON is just correct on this matter; a chain of reasoning that only contains true premises and valid logic necessarily means every conclusion within said chain of reasoning is true. Trying to write it in prose feels like it would only muddy the waters in terms of understanding the totality of the argument being made.

PRO has not made a substantive rebuttal or explanation to how a reality consisting of one substance is able to cause multiple unique modifications. Which was the entire point being made. Essentially, this is not a response to anything CON has said, and so, still stands; no reality is a thing consisting of only one substance and all reality is a thing consisting of multiple substances.

Gonna assume that when the big bang was referenced PRO actually meant the initial singularity, as the big bang theory is not the actual cause of the universe (1). Rather, it just describes the beginning of the universe (1) (2), making it a part of substance. Which is pretty much used interchangeably anyway in articles, but it's good to be specific as the one is well-established while the other is not so much: the initial singularity is merely speculation (3) and pose problems to the understanding of physics and math (4), so CON would assert that the argument lacks solid empirical grounds. Furthermore, the question arises: does a substance cause another substance mean there are more than one substance? This is more applicable to the god, but will come back to the initial singularity on this question specifically since it will be more understandable if it is explained with god first.

Firstly, god itself would be substance; god is or has an underlying reality. If not, how in any sense can god be said to exist? Well, god cannot be said to exist, and if that is the case, then god is not the cause (meaning substance does not "have a singularity" as proposed by PRO). Now, god being a substance then means a production or creation of substance (as directly said by PRO) necessarily imply a different substance. Meaning that there are two different substances; how can a substance produce another substance without being a different substance? It cannot, even the conception of it seems to be impossible.

In terms of the initial singularity, the manner in way PRO speaks implies that substance has a cause - but what exactly is that cause? Well, the cause needs to necessarily be a substance as it has an underlying reality - otherwise, it's not even an entity in the first place to be the cause. Meaning, again - similarly to the appeal to god, for a substance to produce or cause another substance necessarily implies there is more than one substance.

The argument that because substance has a point of creation or causation in it's totality is not a good argument when considering the thing doing the causation itself necessarily has an underlying reality and thus also counts as a substance. The lack of foresight to this problem is quite glaring.

*Also, readers, CON recognizes that substance is ontologically independent. However, CON will just engage at face value.

___

I would like to request the opposing side to make a practical empirical if possible modern example in a concise manner of what the opposing stance is.

The opposing side has not done so. It appears all the opposing side can do is speak technical jargon.

The opposing side has not demonstrated or proven or disproven whatever created or caused everything, all of reality is not the one substance to cause all things to be thereby interconnecting them to logically classify them under the one substance.

The characteristics, traits , that what constitutes a nature to create one thing is that same nature to create another. This is that one substance one thing shares with another by being in existence or begin to exist under that same substance.

I'm going to put forth this straightforward empirical illustration unlike the opposing side, I am able to draw out.

A host of miscellaneous items and things catch on fire, engulfed in flames and consumed thereby.

This is the reality of all those things being charred and scorched. That's how they're all connected by that single substance.

Notice the topic says "All reality". Why is it singular reality ?

Its's because everything altogether makes up what's called reality. One thing exists with that same reality of existence as another. One substance, all matter.

Doesn't matter the type of form no pun intended.

A solid, that's matter,a liquid, that's matter. The substance of matter is all of reality.

The only technical jargon brought up was modifications, which was clearly defined and pretty widely used to discuss substance. CON is honestly asking if the postulates and definitions themselves are hard to understand, and if not, what is the difficulty PRO is having. All this avoidance seems to be an attempt to make CON try to make an argument in a less straightforward and linguistically ambiguous manner. And if CON does not make an argument in a worse way so PRO may pick it apart, they would simply have an excuse to not respond.

CON does not need to disprove or prove whatever caused everything? PRO has claimed that either this one substance is caused by a singularity; god or the big bang. The big bang is, by its nature, not the cause of everything while god needs to be substantiated. This specific claim has a burden of proof that rests on PRO, not CON. All it seems like is that PRO has dropped the singularity point with the realization that CON is correct.

Either substances are differentiated by their essential properties or accidental properties. If a substance creates another substance, they may have the same essential properties but they necessarily have a different accidental property: causation. Offspring may be caused by the parent, and they may have the same essential properties to be the same kind of animal but they are still not one as they are different via accidental properties; location, size, being caused, and so on.

The analogy used doesn't even prove or explain the point, it merely explains how one substance can conceptually contain multiple modifications.

Finally, it is incredibly ironic and ridiculous that PRO would demand CON to make their argument in a less technical manner when they would critique the topic sentence of this debate because it says "all." How is it expected for CON to even make a less technical argument when PRO makes this kind of critique here and even in other debates in the past? The critique doesn't even make sense, a pluralist view can have one reality where it is composed of multiple underlying reality. It would be akin to critiquing the statement: "All reality is composed of multiple atoms" because it cannot be the case since reality is singular; substance and reality are different things. Just because substance underlies reality to it's more enduring and fundamental state doesn't mean they are the same thing.

The opposing side has made no rebuttals to what I stated last round.

I rest my case.

I guess I will recap everything then, and would encourage the viewer to fact-check the corresponding bullet points to round-argument.

As shown, everything as been a direct response to PRO. From this point forward CON will not respond to anything PRO is going to say, as they have done the same.

The entire debate PRO has not substantiated anything, shifted the burden of proof, pivoted away from the singularity point, refused to engage with CON's argument, and refused to engage with the rebuttals CON gave. Disappointing, really.

I would also like to point out that, as Mall previously debated me, would know how I argue my position. And would point out that he has made continual idiot of himself in past debates, but despite that, I have given olive branches again and again and again. If Mall would just ask a question about a definition or postulate in my argument, then what would be the result? In my past debates I only make these structured arguments with my starting argument. Everything else is, what Mall would say, not "technical." So it would be reasonable to think I would respond to Mall's questions in a non-structured manner, avoiding the matter of just demanding me to make my argument in a non-technical way. And I have been asking him to do such the entire time. I wish there was a term for someone asking something but then acting or asking in a manner that obstruct the wanted answer implied by the question. It's very common, usually manifesting as asking a question multiple times - interrupting the person answering. Bad-faith question? Performative question? I guess in this example it is more of a request. Imma coin it that.

✨ Performative request ✨

Anyhow, bottom line, CON has proven their claim untested. PRO has attempted to prove their claim, but has be rebutted-pivoted while shifting the burden of proof-then refused to continue on.

I'll just present in this round directly to the audience.

I don't know where the opposing side is going. I've tried to get the opposing side to be on center down to earth. 

The opposing side, I just don't have a concise lead on where the opposing case is going. Just out there somewhere with a bunch a calculations and chalkboards and whatnot. I mean just communicate regular colloquial down to the earth.

There's nothing much technical about the example I gave with the fire. I didn't get a straightforward response to that. It can't be countered so it just gets a lot of technical mumbo jumbo .

"All reality is consisting of one substance"

All reality . Not all realities. 

See how I'm just straightforward with not a lot of verbosity and technical ramble.

Now ... reality is what?

Singular. You can call me whatever names you wish. Many that can't refute me resort to that. 

All reality is made up of what?

Substance. What is that substance?

Matter.

Here comes the opposing side....."oh no no .. it's TWO substances or three or four" , whatever.

Ok. It's made up of multiple substances. It's one substance which is matter. If you say it's more than that, what are the other substances then?

If you say anything else than matter, demonstrate that.

If it's just more matter or matter as well, ok that's THE substance of matter.

I'll give another illustration very straightforward. Sit back and learn. Learn from the one you name call.

An ocean is made up of a wet liquid called water. How many waters is that?

How many substances is that?

It's just one substance of matter that takes the state of liquid called water.

Even upon looking at earth, it is layered with water.

Is it multiple waters?

It's one substance or a (singular) substance known as water.

Now in the final round I'm going to expound on this and explain how all of this is connected integrated under a single source or one source in which we know as all of reality. Singular.

Once the opposing side tests the opposing claim, it will prove false.

Dignifying anymore of a response feels like an insult to the readers and myself, so I wont.

Case closed.