A Non-Violent Solution?

[Abracadabra]

I can imagine many natures of spirits that do not fit with my philosophy, starting from the mysterious aether. But my creative thinking and imagination have no bearing on reality. Any nature of spirit I can imagine, I can also rule out by applying rational thinking.

Then by your very own confession, you have a limited creativity and imagination.

What I stated were inescapable axioms, which means that either they are applicable to any concept spirit you can think of or your concept is self-refuting.

There is no such thing as an inescapable axiom. All that truly exists in that regard are overly-arrogant philosophers who have erroneously convinced themselves that their personal opinions cannot be dismissed.

And here is the evidence that you actually did not understand my argument.

I didn't "rule out" the possibility that life is an illusion. In fact, I even accepted this premise in my criticism of the perpetual dream argument. What I showed you is that even in this case, the axiom of existence is still applicable to the reality outside the illusion.

No it wouldn't. And I've already explained why this isn't the case.

Your "axiom of existence" (by your very own definition) is based on a your own preconceived notions of what you believe to be 'reality'. You've already demanded that in order for your axiom to hold two things must be in place:

1. Structure can exist independent of consciousness.
2. Consciousness must necessarily be the sole product of structure.

You can't prove either of those two assumptions. Especially with respect to any concept of reality that may be totally different from the illusion of dichotomy created by a spacetime universe.

So your "axiom of existence", is already based on the very limited view that the structure of our spacetime universe, and your imagined dichotomy between structure and consciousness must hold in every possible description of an underlying reality.

You have no justification in demanding that.

So you're just filled with hot air.

Clearly you just think you know far more than you do.

As far as I can see you simply have a very limited knowledge of logic, and you totally ignore the dependencies of your axioms.

There's no point in discussing this with you any further until you go back and pay attention in the foundational courses.

You are erroneously assuming way too much about the power and applicability of your basic "axioms" (i.e your foundational assumptions).

That's all there is to that.