You're introducing new definitions for nearly every term

a) "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no NEW thing under the sun." ~Ecclesiastes 1:9

b) The word "introduction" represents a synthesis of intro (inward) duc (to lead) tion (action) aka action leading inward into reaction. The actual process of action leading into reaction implies an analysis...not a synthesis. It's your consent to the suggested word, which inverts analysis into synthesis within your mind.

c) The word "term" implies boundary; end... https://www.etymonline.com/word/term

Few suggest terminology to confine many within the boundary of logic by choosing one side (new) over another (old). Choosing either puts both sides in conflict against each other which is called "reason".

d) A word can only be shaped within sound...holding onto a word based DEFINITION makes one a DEAF PHONETICIAN aka one deaf to phonics (sound).

Furthermore...DEFINI (affixed) contradicts TION (action) making the word definition a contradiction in terms.

Definitions....God, action, reaction, truth, knowledge, will, capacity, identity

a) If one defines God; action; reaction; knowledge or will; then one ignores the implied motion.

b) Truth implies holding onto something; capacity implies ones memory allowing one to hold onto something; identity implies ones ignorance of perceivable differences by mentally slapping identity (sameness) upon it.

you haven't argued why those definitions should be accepted.

An arguing mind implies a reasoning mind aka acceptance versus denial, with versus/verto - "to turn" implying an artificial circle shaped within the natural line (inception towards death) of progression.

How does one argue? By using free will of choice to choose one side over another...doing so binds ones free will of choice into a conflict.

So why would free-will-of-choice willingly bind self to a conflict in-between acceptance and denial?

Instead of accepting any synthetic definition; I use analysis to break apart de-fini-tion (division of finite within action) or ac-cept (to take) or de-nial (division of nothing)...that's how one sustains a sound mind free from synthetic definitions suggested by another.

Most of your conclusions

Few shape many into a most vs least conflict of reason by tricking them to join each other, which establishes con (together) clude (to shut)... https://www.etymonline.com/word/conclude

One shuts self when joining together with others, because proximity restricts expression.

If solution (inception towards death) generates dis-solution (life); then conclusion shapes congestion.

Could you state your argument in premise-and-conclusion form without redefining common words?

a) Argument implies a circle (versus)...that's the conclusion shutting one mentally (logic) and physically (reason) off from linear reality.

As for premise aka pre (before) mise (to send)... https://www.etymonline.com/word/premise That's God sending each being forwards....not a circular conclusion, but a linear solution.

b) Being within God implies partial within whole...few suggest words to shape a COMMON consensus among many who ignore that.

Com (together) mon (to change)... https://www.etymonline.com/word/common contradicts that change applied to togetherness sets apart.

Whatever artifice one builds together; nature sets apart. Whatever one wants to hold onto; one needs to let go of. As above (life); so below (inception towards death). Whatever goes up; has to go down and vice versa.

tl;dr: tempting many to hold onto artificial definitions, while ignoring natural motion...that's the conspiracy theory few are running. I break definitions apart to expose ignorance to motion...ignorance doesn't like change at all. Ignorance wants to hide from change.