God is known by intelligent thinking on logic and facts

[valekhai]

It saddens me that your way of thinking is so, forgive me, naive.

It is not intelligent thinking, it is not grounded on logic and facts.

Forgive me, if you take an IQ test and answer the items there according to the way your brain works, as is conspicuous in the manner you insist that the creator of the universe is not the God of Christians, Jews, and Muslims: because being creator of the universe does not implicate being omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, etc., then I fear you will certainly flunk the test and will not qualify for college work in a decent college, not any diploma mill.

Okay. I’m running out of patience with you. I’ve tried to overlook the other little digs about my intelligence that you’ve made during this thread, usually made when you’ve misunderstood something I’ve said, because I’ve assumed from the start that English is not your first language. I’ve assumed this because your posts are awkwardly phrased and a bit difficult to read. I’ve also assumed that my posts probably look that way to you, so I’ve tried to be charitable because of it, but you’ve really crossed the line here.

If you want this conversation to continue, first you’ll need to knock off the condescending nonsense like what you posted above. Second, you’ll need to give me your reasons, based on intelligent thinking about logic and facts, for why you think the creator of the universe must be an intelligent being. You keep asking me to tell you why I’m not convinced that it is, which I have done, but you have yet to provide any arguments about why it is; you’ve only provided assertions. Give me a reason why you think the creator of the universe is an intelligent being or there’s no real point in continuing the conversation.

 

[mattdantuono]

Hello valekhai, and thank you for your response. I think I am understanding your position better and we are getting somewhere in this conversation. I apologize if I do not always answer right away, but my schedule does not always allow for me to keep constant monitor on my internet discussions.

I am being told that this post is too long, so it will have to two posts. Sorry for the length.

I can’t agree. In as much as anything about intelligence or the mind can be said to have been accounted for, it’s been accounted for in a physical framework. I can’t recall ever hearing anything non-physical added to the mix that did anything except add more complexity and mystery.

When I say “stores information,” I’m talking about how sense experiences are encoded within physical structures in the brain.

If you say that a brain can’t do something that a beach can’t because they’re both just collections of molecules, you’re ignoring the fact that they are different arrangements of different molecules. Those differences allow for a vast array of different abilities.

A block of ice and a pool of water both are made of H2O. They are made out of exactly the same kind of molecule, but just because of a structural change in the way those molecules bind due in different temperatures, each can do things the other cannot. You can carve a sculpture out of a block of ice and you can swim in a pool, but you can’t sculpt the water in a pool or swim in a block of ice. “At the bottom they are the same,” but a simple change in structure makes for completely different uses. So even though a pile of sand and network of neurons are on some level made of the same stuff, that’s no reason to think that the neurons can’t do something just because the sand can’t.

You make a good point about the difference between the two, and I am not trying to deny the difference. You also make a good point about the way sense experience is encoded and stored within the brain. I am not denying that there are physical processes that go on in the brain when we perform any mental act.

My point, however, is the similarity between the sand on the beach and the human brain if all they are are atoms. Sand on a beach can “store information” as well, when people write in the sand. Whole messages have been composed, and entire collections of complex sculptures have been arranged by people.

I want to point out here the difference between merely storing information and understanding what is stored AS information. A computer stores something, but that something is not information until it is interpreted by a human mind as information. 0s and 1s do not themselves constitute information. Even what appears on a screen is not information in itself. All of that is only matter arranged a particular way. Only when a human mind can perceive that matter and abstract an interpretation of it does it become information.

Perhaps a better example than the sand illustration would be the brains of other animals. Darwin once commented, “Who would trust the convictions of a monkey’s brain?” Again, the point I am making here is not that monkey’s don’t have sense perception (I believe they do), but that their brains do not form trustable CONVICTIONS, judgements about truth, beauty, goodness, justice, logic and mathematics. All of those are abstract, non-physical processes. I agree that the brain does physical things while human beings make these judgements, but the brain, by itself, cannot account for that process, just as we would not trust the outcome of similar processes in the brain of a fish or a hedgehog.

Again, I am not ignoring the difference between the sand and the brain, but only trying to highlight the fact that matter, by itself, can only do material things.

 

[mattdantuono]

Ok, here is part 2.

I actually have seen the number two. So have you. Here it is: 2.

Remember, “two” is just a word. Don’t confuse the word with the referent. “Two” refers to a particular quantity. Actual quantities are physical, and potential quantities are entailed by the existence of actual quantities. The ratios and other relationships of those quantities – real or potential - form our language of mathematics. The language of logic is something similar, a way of describing relationships between real or potential things.

Nothing I see in this necessitate the existence of anything non-physical.

I agree that “two” is just a word, but I would also argue that “2” is just a symbol, and the symbol ought not to be confused with the referent.

Also, I would say that quantities are not physical. Quantities are abstract concepts that we have abstracted from our experience with physical things. The number two does not magically exist in material form when I have two pencils, two pianos, or two fingers. We need these abstract mental concepts in order to do mathematics, and all of these types of relationships (as you described) are also abstract entities that exist only in minds, minds that have the potential for abstract processes because they themselves have some non-physical component.

You tried to show that Being had will by calling what it does “creating” and comparing that to an artist “creating” something, which is an act of will. But like you just admitted, we are talking about two very different things (creating from nothing vs. rearranging existing materials), so will being a part of one process does not necessarily entail it as being part of the other. That would need to be demonstrated.

In fact, the “rearranging matter” type of creating doesn’t even necessitate will. A painter exercises will in creating a painting out of a canvas and paints, but a hailstorm does not exercise will in creating a pile of broken glass out of an intact window.

Maybe you can show that Being has will, but you can’t do that just by saying that it “creates.”

I agree with almost everything you wrote here. There is a difference between what the artist does (which hail could do to some degree) and “creation from nothing.” The point I am trying to make which I don’t think you responded to is how the universe (potential being, etc) came into existence from the uncaused cause (necessary Being, Being itself, etc) without a willful act on the part of Being itself.

“Fizzy” describes a liquid that is releasing carbon dioxide that has been dissolved in the liquid.

This is fun! I cannot say I had thought about this particular example! Here I would say that fizziness, as the process of liquid releasing CO2, is a result of the limited nature of the liquid and the CO2. It is a quality of that combined substance. The substance is a combination of potentialities and actualities according to its limited nature, and all of the actualities and aspects of its nature take their being from Being itself. Most importantly, it exists, it is something actual. And that existence can only come from the essence of existence, Being itself. As matter, it is limited in space and time, which is a lack of the perfection of atemporal and non-spatial. It does not have the perfection of intelligence at all(as far as we know).

I know this all sounds far fetched because of the nature of the example, but I am only trying to find the logic and the definitions. Ultimately, everything that exists, because it exists, must derive its being from Being itself. Any properties of those things (like fizziness) result from the specific combination of potentialities and actualities according to the nature of the object, which results from limitation of being (i.e. absence of certain perfections).

 

[KingCoil]

Dear valekhai:

The issue of this thread is:God is known by intelligent thinking on logic and facts.

The God I am talking about is the creator of the universe that has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago, according to science; and this creator of the universe is the God in the Christian faith Who is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, etc…

You agree that there is a creator of the universe which begins to exist 13.8 billion years ago according to science.

But your point is that the creator of the universe is not the God I am talking about, because the God I am talking about is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, etc., while the creator of the universe is not.

That is your point, and you don’t accept the existence of the God Who is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, etc., although you accept a creator of the universe.

And therefore there is no God for you as far as an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, etc. God is concerned.

At this point I keep telling you that the creator of the universe creates also humans who are intelligent, prolific and versatile in producing all kinds of things useful to themselves, who work justice, practice love and mercy, and conduct themselves according to goodness.

And the implication is therefore the creator of the universe has all the best qualities of his creation, mankind, and that to an omni degree – omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, etc., thus He is the God of Christians, Jews, Muslims, namely the God Who is known to be omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, etc.

You say, not so, because according to polls by you and I presume also by scientific pollsters: the creator of the universe for believers in God is not God: because their God is endowed with omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, etc., while the creator of the universe does not necessarily possess these attributes.

Right away, I like to ask you, and no dodging here, do you have the polls you have made of Christians and other believers in God, and also polls by scientific pollsters, that they believers in God do not recognize the creator of the universe to be God: the omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, etc. entity of the three Abrahamic faiths?

For the present, focus on that issue, because if you cannot prove that such is the position of the adherents of the three Abrahamic faiths, starting with the Christen faith, then you have no issue at all: you cannot insist that believers in God make a distinction by which for them the creator of the universe is not the omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, etc. entity God in the Christian faith, etc., etc., etc.

The way I see you, you are beating a strawman, and generally you have learned to fool yourself with pseudo issues, owing to your gripes against God, whatever these gripes are.

Okay, no dodging now, you state categorically:

valekhai’s post #60.

Here’s a fact: the overwhelming majority of people who I speak to consider God to be something more than just “the uncaused cause.”
Another fact: most of those people use the word “God” to describe some sort of omnimax personal being.
Yet another fact]: if I distilled the word “God” to mean something much more basic than what the majority of people around me mean when they use it, they’re going to think that I’m talking about something else when I talk about “God.”

So, prove the existence of your fact.

The way I see you, and I am doing a charitable fraternal correction on a fellow human endowed by God with the power to think intelligently according to logic and facts but persisting in beating strawmen, you do not have the habit of systematic and disciplined thinking intelligently grounding your mind on logic and facts.

When you reply to this post, present your facts of polls conducted by you and also I presume by scientific pollsters.

KingCoil

 

[valekhai]

Okay then. I asked you to stop with the condescension. Let’s see how you did on that.

…you do not have the habit of systematic and disciplined thinking intelligently grounding your mind on logic and facts.

Ooh. Not so great. Still, it’s tolerable. Let’s move on.

I asked you to provide an argument for why you think God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. Let’s see how you did.

At this point I keep telling you that the creator of the universe creates also humans who are intelligent, prolific and versatile in producing all kinds of things useful to themselves, who work justice, practice love and mercy, and conduct themselves according to goodness.

And the implication is therefore the creator of the universe has all the best qualities of his creation, mankind, and that to an omni degree – omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, etc., thus He is the God of Christians, Jews, Muslims, namely the God Who is known to be omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, etc.

Okay. You have the beginnings of an argument here – that God must possess the best qualities of its creation to an omni degree – but you present it as an assertion, not an argument. You still have some work ahead of you.

You also followed up your assertion with another one, claiming that possessing those three omni qualities means that God is the Abrahamic God. This is a non sequitur, though, since Sikhism and some schools of Hinduism also believe that their God has those qualities. So, again, there’s still some work ahead of you. At least there is if you actually would like to provide an intelligent argument founded on logic and facts.

And then there’s this bizarre request:

Right away, I like to ask you, and no dodging here, **do you have the polls you have made of Christians and other believers in God, and also polls by scientific pollsters, that they believers in God do not recognize the creator of the universe to be God: the omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, etc. entity of the three Abrahamic faiths? **

Wow. So you’re asking me to provide you with polls to demonstrate something that not only is something I never said, but is actually the exact opposite of what I said. That’s…incredible.

You even double down on it:

For the present, focus on that issue, because if you cannot prove that such is the position of the adherents of the three Abrahamic faiths, starting with the Christen faith, then you have no issue at all: you cannot insist that believers in God make a distinction by which for them the creator of the universe is not the omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, etc. entity God in the Christian faith, etc., etc., etc.

The way I see you, you are beating a strawman, and generally you have learned to fool yourself with pseudo issues, owing to your gripes against God, whatever these gripes are.

The only straw man here is the one you apparently think you’re talking to. And I’m really not sure where it’s coming from, especially since you went on to quote me saying that “the overwhelming majority of people who I speak to consider God to be something more than just ‘the uncaused cause,’” and “most of those people use the word “God” to describe some sort of omnimax personal being.” You know, the exact opposite of what you’re trying to get me to prove with polls and such.

So, yeah. Go ahead and keep up with the “charitable fraternal correction” in the conversation you’re having with someone who apparently isn’t me. It’s entertaining. Meanwhile, I need to go prepare some responses for the real conversation I’m having with mattdantuono.

 

[KingCoil]

Dear valekhai:

Am I factual that you have just dodged the request I made on you, to namely attend to the request I made on you:

…]

Okay, no dodging now, you state categorically:

valekhai’s post #60

Next, it is a fact that you have dodged this other earlier request I made on you:

…]

Oh, I almost forget, you say:

“But if you really, really want me to, I can make an argument against omniscience.”

Go, make an argument against the omniscience of the creator of the universe, and we will work together to see whether it is an intelligent argument grounded on logic and facts.

I see you to be a dodger.

Now, let us go to your assertion that I don’t have an argument that the creator of the universe has omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, etc.

…]

I asked you to provide an argument for why you think God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. Let’s see how you did.

Originally Posted by KingCoil
At this point I keep telling you that the creator of the universe creates also humans who are intelligent, prolific and versatile in producing all kinds of things useful to themselves, who work justice, practice love and mercy, and conduct themselves according to goodness.

What you have are objections to my argument, but you have no argument that the creator of the universe is not omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, etc.

Your objection that my argument is all an assertion: well, then state each statement in my argument that is just an assertion and not a part of the whole argument.

As regards your objection on non sequitur whatever, I will just tell you that God is the creator of the universe and is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, etc., He is the same God for Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, etc., who do hold God to be substantially the same identical being for all humans who hold Him to be one God, one entity, one creator of the universe, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, etc.

We will attend later* to this non sequitur objection of yours, first you produce all the statements from my argument which are every one an assertion; here is my argument again:

Originally Posted by KingCoil
At this point I keep telling you that the creator of the universe creates also humans who are intelligent, prolific and versatile in producing all kinds of things useful to themselves, who work justice, practice love and mercy, and conduct themselves according to goodness.

And the implication is therefore the creator of the universe has all the best qualities of his creation, mankind, and that to an omni degree – omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, etc., thus He is the God of Christians, Jews, Muslims, namely the God Who is known to be omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, etc.

The way I see you to be, you love to muddle up the issue, you are a muddler.

So, let us be systematic and disciplined, produce each statement in my argument which is an assertion, so that all my statements are assertions, and thus the whole argument is an assertion.

You have learned well but perversely from atheists’ dodging and muddling ways of writing, like this line repeated time and again by them, “We [atheists] just deny one more deity than you Christians” – thinking that they are so clever, clever yes, but in a perverse manner.

KingCoil

*I will just say now that is it an irrelevancy.

 

[KingCoil]

Exactly what is the point of valekhai?

The way I see him, he is of the idea that yes there is a creator of the universe which has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago, but this creator of the universe is not the God of Christians, which God of Christians is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, etc., while the creator uncaused cause of the universe is not.

And this God of Christians is the God that he is being an atheist to.

I hope I get his idea correctly.

And he is of another idea in support of that idea, that it is the common position of Christians that the creator of the universe is not the God of Christians with omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, etc.

How he ever got this idea that Christians do not accept the creator of the universe as the God of the Christian faith, which God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, etc., so that even if the creator of the universe is the uncaused cause of the universe, he this uncaused cause of the universe is still not the God of the Christian faith or of Christians: namely, so Christians do not accept this uncaused cause of the universe to be their God Who is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, etc.

The way I understand the God of the Christian faith or of Christians is that the uncaused cause of the universe is indeed – and from thinking intelligently on logic and facts – the God of the Christian faith, with all the attributes Christians know to be possessed by God: hence the uncaused cause of the universe possesses omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, etc.

The uncaused cause of the universe is identical to the God of Christians, with all the attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, etc.

Why velekhai has this kind of an a-rational idea – a means a prefix indicating bereft of, I see it to be a retreat into more un-intelligent thinking not founded on logic and facts, but moved purely by the desire to be a stubborn a-rational and even irrational atheist.

That is the retreat of atheists with the finding of science today that the universe does have a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.

Now that atheists cannot insist that the universe is everything there is ever and forever, they still resort to the stubborn denial that the God of Christians is existent: because the God of Christians is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, while the uncaused cause creator of the universe – which science today tells us has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago – is not.

This is a very silly and infantile escape, only a-rational and even irrational atheists can indulge in owing to their gripes against God: whatever these gripes are, they should examine themselves honestly, to come to terms with.

Anyway, I am waiting for valekhai to explain why the creator of the universe cannot have omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and more importantly where he got the idea that Christians do not accept the creator of the universe as their God Who is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, etc., while the creator of the universe, the uncaused cause of the universe does not necessarily possess omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, etc., of the God of Christians.

I confess for myself that if the God of Christians is everything but did not create the universe at all, then He is not deserving of my respect whatsoever: He is worth nothing of any kind of reverence at all from humans.

KingCoil

 

[Partinobodycula]

And he is of another idea in support of that idea, that it is the common position of Christians that the creator of the universe is not the God of Christians with omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, etc.

Actually, you have gotten valekhai’s position completely wrong. What he stated was exactly the opposite of what you claim it to be. Here is what he said:

**Here’s a fact: the overwhelming majority of people who I speak to consider God to be something more than just “the uncaused cause.” **What valekhai is saying here, is that most people, including Christians, consider the term “God” to mean something more than just an uncaused cause.

**Another fact: most of those people use the word “God” to describe some sort of omnimax personal being. **Again valekhai is saying that most people, Christians included, believe that the term “God” refers to a being with, omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, and perhaps other omni qualities as well. You somehow seem to interpret this as meaning the exact opposite, although I am not sure why.

Yet another: if I distilled the word “God” to mean something much more basic than what the majority of people around me mean when they use it, they’re going to think that I’m talking about something else when I talk about “God.” And finally, valekhai says that when he refers to “God” as simply something along the lines of an uncaused cause, he is concerned that most people, including Christians, will misunderstand what he is referring to. Because unlike him, they automatically equate the term “God” to mean a personal being with omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence.

valekhai is clearly stating that most Christians that he has spoken to, believe God to be a personal being with omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, yet you continue to attack him based on something that he clearly did not say. Like valekhai, I assume that English is not your first language, and so you have a difficult time comprehending what he was trying to say. Hopefully I was able to clear at least some of it up for you.

I know that I should have left it to valekhai himself to do, but I just thought that I would try to help.

As for any other misconceptions that you may have, I do not believe that I can help you with them, but this is due to shortcomings on my part, as much as anything else. I do not wish to get into a discussion about the nature and logic of God. I find such debates to be somewhat childish.

 

[KingCoil]

To Partinobodycula:

Tell me, does valekhai accept God as the creator of the universe and this creator of the universe is the same God of Christians, and thus the creator of the universe possesses the attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, etc.?

You want to speak for valekhai, but he is all silence for the present.

Anyway, I welcome you to be spokesman for valekhai, so carry on.

Or you mind your own ideas, and speak for yourself, and let valekhai speak for himself, although he is all silence at present.

On your part, tell me do you accept that the creator uncaused cause of the universe is identical to the God of Christians as Christians declare with Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God made heaven and earth,” and also Christians declare in the first verse of the Apostles’ Creed, “I believe in God the Father almighty creator of heaven and earth”?

Go and read all the posts of valekhai in this thread and come up with what he is really saying, instead of just reading one or two posts.

Paging valekhai, what exactly is your point or points, namely, two?

1. You deny that there exists God of the Christian faith Who is believed in by Christians to be omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, etc.?
2. You maintain that Christians do not accept the uncaused cause creator of the universe to be identical to the God as called God by them in their Christian faith?

So, please, valekhai, come forth and clarify what exactly are your one point or two points, or your are all into dodging and muddling up the issue that God is the creator uncaused cause of the universe, and this uncaused cause of the universe called God by Christians is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, etc.

Well, I must apologize to everyone here for my English, but I try my best even though it is not my mother tongue, and also my temper – or more precisely my enthusiasm for my idea that God is known to exist from our intelligent human thinking grounded on logic and facts, and God is foremost and above all and before anything else, is the creator of the universe which has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.

I hope you all here with English as your mother tongue get to understand my point, namely, that the creator of the universe is the same identical God Who is to Christians omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, etc., and valekhai is indulging in dodges and muddles on the issue by making a distinction between the creator of the universe not being identical to the God of Christians, because the God of Christians is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, etc., while the creator of the universe is not so.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

…]

… Like valekhai, I assume that English is not your first language, and so you have a difficult time comprehending what he was trying to say. Hopefully I was able to clear at least some of it up for you.

I know that I should have left it to valekhai himself to do, but I just thought that I would try to help.

As for any other misconceptions that you may have, I do not believe that I can help you with them, but this is due to shortcomings on my part, as much as anything else. I do not wish to get into a discussion about the nature and logic of God. I find such debates to be somewhat childish.

Let us not be childish.

You know, now you have introduced the issue that I have got valekhai all wrong.

Have you read all the posts of valekhai in this thread?

I have read again all the posts of valekhai in this thread, before I sent my last post here prior to this one.

You seem to be a nonchalant writer, calling yourself what, a Solipsist?

I love to ask you on the basis of intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, what exactly is your point or your philosophy about being a solipsist?

This is a deviation, but please accommodate to my request, you see you describe yourself to be a solipsist?

Have you ever at all examined your being a solipsist on the basis of intelligent thinking grounding yourself on logic and facts?

Solipsist – One who adheres to the theory of solipsism.

Solipsism – (philosophy) the philosophical theory that the self is all that you know to exist.
See, WordWeb one click online dictionary.

google.com.ph/search?q=WordWeb+one+click+online+dictionary&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb&gfe_rd=ctrl&ei=lHYKU53lL8SdiAfO24GgDA&gws_rd=cr

WordWeb: English dictionary, thesaurus, and word finder software.
wordweb.info/‎
WordWeb is a comprehensive one-click English thesaurus and dictionary for Windows. It can be used to look up words from almost any program, showing …

I look forward to discuss with you via a brief deviation from the topic of this thread, on what you have for an idea you have of yourself, by which you describe yourself to be a solipsist, but please employ intelligent thinking founded on logic and facts.

Or you have the what I might call contention, that intelligent thinking on logic and facts, all are somewhat childish.

KingCoil

 

[Partinobodycula]

This is a deviation, but please accommodate to my request, you see you describe yourself to be a solipsist?

Since you are the author of this thread, I will take a very brief moment to address your questions about solipsism.

Solipsism asserts one single solitary belief, that all that can be known with absolute certainty, is that I am. Everything else must be accepted on faith. The world may indeed be real, but I will never know. All that I can ever be certain of, is that I am. And no amount of logic or evidence can ever change this.

Contrary to popular opinion a solipsist isn’t egotistical. A solipsist doesn’t believe that I alone am everything. Rather a solipsist understands, that I…alone…am nothing. For it is the world that allows me to love, and cry, and wonder, and suffer, and persevere, and struggle, and hope, and believe. And without these things, what am I? I am nothing. Even if I should live forever, without these most cherished of treasures, what good would eternity be? What good would my soul be? I may owe my soul to God, but its beauty, if any, I owe to the inequities of life. If it is He who has created them, I thank Him. You see a solipsist understands the value of the world, in a way that few others can. It is ironic somehow, that those who find the world most fleeting, also find it the most precious. And so a solipsist realizes, that if there were no world, the mind would do its best to create one, and perhaps it has. Or perhaps there is a God, or perhaps there is only the nuances of physics and the vagaries of chance. The honest truth is that I can never know, and so I live in gratitude for every struggle, and every wonder, for without these things, I am nothing, except alone. And for this reason, I…love…life.

I have not come to this conclusion lightly, nor gladly, but rather after many years of contemplation, introspection, and acceptance. Solipsism is the epitome of logic, for it accepts only what it knows to be true. It is humble, appreciative, and indebted. It treasures everything.

I know that you will not understand what I have said, and it’s not important that you do, it’s not my job to convince you. I have chosen to write this, because it is important that I try.

Forgive me if I do not respond any further, silence is a weakness of mine.

 

[KingCoil]

Originally Posted by KingCoil
This is a deviation, but please accommodate to my request, you see you describe yourself to be a solipsist?

Thanks for your reply.

I really love to exchange thoughts with you about your being a solipsist, but I fear that like valekhai* sooner than later you will disappear in silence.

Oh well, that is what I notice time and again with folks I like to get to exchange thoughts with me, but sticking to intelligent thinking grounding ourselves on logic and facts.

You state with absolute certainty [sic]:
“…all that can be known with absolute certainty, is that I am. Everything else must be accepted on faith.”

How did you arrive at that conclusion with absolute certainty?

Did you put in a lot of intelligent thinking over it, on logic and facts?

Tell me, are you absolutely certain that I am existing and this thread is existing and this website is existing and the internet is existing, aside from your being absolutely certain that you are existing, or only with your own existence you are absolutely certain?

What about the money you have deposited in your bank, are you absolutely certain that it is still there, or you only have it on faith?

How intelligent is that kind of a conclusion that you are absolutely certain only with your own existence, everything else is taken by you on faith?

Okay, let me ask you, what is the fact upon which you rest your absolute certainty that you exist, and what is the fact on which that you are absolutely certain that everything else you know, you know on faith?

And what do you mean by faith, do you mean that it is just fiction?

Suppose you point a loaded gun against your head and pull the trigger, are you not absolutely certain that you will kill yourself, or it is just on your faith i.e. belief or fiction, and therefore you need not take it with absolute certainty?

Please rethink your idea that you are absolutely certain only about your own existence, everything else is on faith: the way I see it, you have done nothing of any intelligent thinking founded on logic and facts to arrive at such a conclusion.

Start with what is the fact on which you base your conclusion of absolute certainty that you alone exist, and what is the fact upon which you establish your conclusion that everything else is on faith?

And what is your logic by which you infer from your contact with facts to only the absolute certainty that you exist, but everything else you know, you know on faith?

My immediate reaction to solipsism is that any human binding himself to such an idea is into essentially un-intelligent thinking not founded on logic and facts.

KingCoil

---

• Feb 15, '14, 7:19 am*
  Post #15​

…]

Originally Posted by KingCoil
Suppose you tell me how you will describe yourself as an atheist; is it going to be namely that you simply lack any belief in a deity?

I don’t think this thread will be around for much longer, but I plan to stick with it until it’s gone.

It’s now in my location Feb. 24, '14, 4:40 pm; valekhai has not been around since Feb 20, '14, 7:21 pm, with his post #66.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Partinobodycula]

…I fear that like valekhai* sooner than later you will disappear in silence.

Oh well, that is what I notice time and again with folks…

Perhaps you should consider the possibility, that the fault doesn’t lie with them.

You state with absolute certainty [sic]:
“…all that can be known with absolute certainty, is that I am. Everything else must be accepted on faith.”

How did you arrive at that conclusion with absolute certainty?

Did you put in a lot of intelligent thinking over it, on logic and facts?

I arrived at this conclusion by an honest, in-depth examination of my beliefs, my assumptions, and the nature of how the mind interacts with the world around it. The mind creates an image based upon (name removed by moderator)ut that it assumes to be external to itself. Yet its very nature destines it to never be able to verify this fact. It can never gain a perspective external to itself, and so it can never be sure whether the source is truly external, or ultimately internal. A solipsist doesn’t claim that they know which it is, only that they cannot know which it is. It is a limitation inherent within the nature of consciousness, that we can never be sure whether what we see is real, or merely an illusion.

But none-the-less, some things are real. My passions are real, my hopes are real, my fears are real, my anger is real, and my remorse is real. The most important aspects of me, are not illusions. They are the things that define me, and they are born of the experiences of life. They are born of struggles, and loss, and pain, and doubt, and hope, and faith. So it doesn’t really matter if everything is an illusion, for I am as much a product of the world, as it may be of me. In a way it may be difficult to determine, which of us has formed which.

But whether the world is but an illusion, is only conjecture. Only a possibility. In its essence a solipsist simply accepts the fact that he has no way to know. Solipsism isn’t about knowing, it’s about not knowing, and being forthright enough to admit it. I don’t know if there is a God. I don’t know if I will live forever. I don’t know where the world came from. And I don’t know if there is any meaning to life at all. But I know that I exist, and I know that I can love, and hope, and believe, and so I choose to do these things, and I choose to be grateful for every aspect of life that has required them of me. As Robert Browning Hamilton wrote, oh the things I learned from her, when sorrow walked with me.

You ask whether I know if you exist, or whether this thread exists, the answer is no. But I choose to interact with you and it, because there is much for me to gain in believing that you do, and even more for me to lose in living as if you don’t. You may think that I’m being illogical, and I cannot convince you otherwise. I can only do my best to explain what I believe, and why. Anything beyond that is up to you. I can only control what I give, not what you accept.

 

[KingCoil]

…]

You ask whether I know if you exist, or whether this thread exists, the answer is no. But I choose to interact with you and it, because there is much for me to gain in believing that you do, and even more for me to lose in living as if you don’t. You may think that I’m being illogical, and I cannot convince you otherwise. I can only do my best to explain what I believe, and why. Anything beyond that is up to you. I can only control what I give, not what you accept.

Forgive me, but you do talk very glibly, is that the correct word?

Just my kind of English, I say you are a very glib person.

You will say also that I am a very glib person.

Let us examine ourselves to see who is more glib, you or me; but right away I give you the award, you are better as a glib person and talker than me.

You are full of absolute certainty, but never bothering to determine what are the facts on which you base your absolute certainty on your own existence only, and your other absolute certainty is that you know other things outside yourself only on faith or belief or fiction.

Let me now look up what is the meaning of glib, that is the word which comes to mind as I read your words, which exude with absolute certainty on your kind of solipsism.

Here, I just uploaded it for this post.



Let us talk about absolute certainty, for you use that term as though it is small change for yourself.

Is there at all anything that humans can be absolutely certain about as regards its objective existence outside his mind in the real world of things which do exist even if there is no human existing at all to take notice of their existence?

I propose that we do away with the term, absolute certainty, and let me suggest that we employ instead the term, personal certainty.

You and I, we are personally certain of our each one’s respective existence owing to our being conscious of ourselves to be existing to ourselves, and when we interact between ourselves, then we are mutually and respectively to each other personally certain that we two exist.

So, please put away that distinction about you being only absolutely certain about your existence and everything else you know to exist only on faith, or belief, or fiction.

That is a most un-intelligent instance of non-thinking on logic and facts.

Let me see if you do any intelligent thinking on logic and facts in reacting to my thoughts here, instead of talking glibly, more like recitation of clichés.

This is fun, really, and I hope we both are enjoying it.

KingCoil

 

[Partinobodycula]

Is there at all anything that humans can be absolutely certain about as regards its objective existence outside his mind in the real world of things which do exist even if there is no human existing at all to take notice of their existence?

Unfortunately, no.

I propose that we do away with the term, absolute certainty, and let me suggest that we employ instead the term, personal certainty.

I will agree, if you agree that there is no way to be absolutely certain that God exists. You may be personally certain that He does, but there is no way to be absolutely certain that He does. Do you agree?

 

[KingCoil]

Originally Posted by KingCoil
Is there at all anything that humans can be absolutely certain about as regards its objective existence outside his mind in the real world of things which do exist even if there is no human existing at all to take notice of their existence?

You are really a glib talker who stubbornly refuse to engage in intelligent and relevant thinking on logic and facts.

You have said nothing so far but clichés.

I propose that we do not talk about absolute certainty but personal certainty, and you are smart but perverse in deciding not to go into a new idea, you just want to dwell on absolute certainty.

And now you bring in God’s existence.

That is an attempt to go again into glibness but obviously against all canons of intellectual honesty and relevancy.

Here is another idea you should engage your brain in if you do have any habit at all of thinking intelligently grounded on logic and facts.

You say that you only have absolute certainty of your own existence, and of course you also have absolute certainty of everything else outside of your own existence to be known to you only by faith, or belief, or fiction.

Tell me, what is your own existence composed of?

Go to the material composition of your own existence, the air you breathe in, the chemical compounds that make up your blood, all these things are substantial components of your existence.

Consider the foods and liquids you take in, and how these things are processed by you to become parts of your existence, and then they are eventually removed by the process of elimination and replaced by new similar materials, to keep up your existence, i.e. life.

Now, tell me, are you aware that all these things which go into you to keep you in existence, i.e., alive, they exist don’t they?

And what kind of certainty do you have of their existence, when they are still parts of your body, and no longer when they are eliminated and replaced by other but similar materials: all these things inside your body and then outside your body, your existence, what kind of certainty do you have of them?

Do some really intelligent thinking on logic and facts.

We wil take up the certainty of God’s existence as the creator of the universe and as the omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, etc. God of the Christian faith and also of all the faiths which accept God to be first and foremost creator of the universe, etc., etc., etc.

As soon as we, you and I, have worked out what it is to be certain about the existence of anything at all, whether yours or mine – and of course, of God the creator of the universe – or the physical particles studied by particle physicists, which make up our existence i.e. life.

And stop acting glibly with rote recitation of clichés, do some genuinely intelligent thinking on logic and facts: start first with facts in everything about the issue of existence and certainty of existence from the part of us humans who enjoy conscious intelligence.

I almost forget.

Read carefully the following:

Partinobodycula:

Originally Posted by KingCoil
Is there at all anything that humans can be absolutely certain about as regards its objective existence outside his mind in the real world of things which do exist even if there is no human existing at all to take notice of their existence?

Unfortunately, no.

Have you intelligently noticed that you have just conceded that you do not know with absolute certainty your own existence?

That is the trouble with a lot of folks who write many words but never ever do any personal genuine intelligent thinking on logic and facts; and sad to say also, read carefully what they have recited of clichés, to check at least if they are talking with consistency and coherency relative to their main contention: like in your case, you only know with absolute certainty your own existence, and you are also absolutely certain that everything else you take on faith, or belief, or fiction.

KingCoil

 

[Partinobodycula]

I propose that we do not talk about absolute certainty but personal certainty, and you are smart but perverse in deciding not to go into a new idea, you just want to dwell on absolute certainty.

Actually what I was trying to establish was whether you objected to the term “absolute certainty” itself, or whether you simply objected to my using it. It seems to me that it would be a bit of a double standard if you were allowed to be absolutely certain of things, but I was not. Which is why I wanted to know if you were “absolutely certain” of God’s existence, and I take your lack of a response, to mean that you are. If at any time you wish to acknowledge the fact that you can’t be absolutely certain of God’s existence, then I will gladly discontinue my use of the phrase.

Tell me, what is your own existence composed of?

When I state that the only thing that I can be absolutely certain of, is that “I am”, I am not referring to my physical body. I have no way of knowing if it exists, any more than I can know if anything else exists. When I say that “I am”, I am referring to my consciousness, my self-awareness. It may well be that my consciousness is simply a product of electrochemical processes in a real physical brain. It seems fairly likely, but I can’t be absolutely certain of that. Some form of mind/spirit dualism is also possible. But as I have said before, the only thing that I can be absolutely certain of, is that I am.

Go to the material composition of your own existence, the air you breathe in, the chemical compounds that make up your blood, all these things are substantial components of your existence.

Consider the foods and liquids you take in, and how these things are processed by you to become parts of your existence, and then they are eventually removed by the process of elimination and replaced by new similar materials, to keep up your existence, i.e. life.

Now, tell me, are you aware that all these things which go into you to keep you in existence, i.e., alive, they exist don’t they?

As I stated above, I have no way of knowing if my physical body actually exists. I can’t be certain “what” I am. I only know “that” I am. I may be a sophisticated software program running on a quantum computer somewhere. Or I may be a so-called brain in vat. Or a theoretical Boltzmann brain. I don’t think that I am, but then again, I can’t be sure. How would I know the difference?

As soon as we, you and I, have worked out what it is to be certain about the existence of anything at all, whether yours or mine – and of course, of God the creator of the universe – or the physical particles studied by particle physicists, which make up our existence i.e. life.

The problem is, that you will never be able to prove to me that you exist. It’s impossible. But it extends beyond that, for if there is a God, He will never be able to prove His existence either. If He truly exists, and I cannot say that He doesn’t, then He knows that this is true. He knows that He can never prove His existence. He is destined to always remain an article of faith, not just in this world, but in the next one as well. You wanted to deal with logic and facts, and that’s it. That’s the truth. The only real question is, can you handle the truth?

This does not negate the idea of God or Christianity. There are ways to integrate these seemingly incompatible positions. There can be a God that you can never know, and He can be perfectly consistent with the God of the bible. You just have to be willing to think beyond your preconceived ideas. That is the strength of solipsism, it abandons all preconceived ideas about what is, and considers instead, what might be. If you are absolutely convinced that you are right, then I cannot change your mind, but the sad thing is, that you probably can’t change it either.

I almost forget.

Read carefully the following:

Partinobodycula:

KingCoil;11744011:

Is there at all anything that humans can be absolutely certain about as regards its objective existence outside his mind in the real world of things which do exist even if there is no human existing at all to take notice of their existence?

Unfortunately, no.

Have you intelligently noticed that you have just conceded that you do not know with absolute certainty your own existence?

No, I did not concede that at all, but I will attribute your misunderstanding to my not having explained my position clearly enough. If I read your question correctly, and forgive me if I paraphrase, you asked if I could be absolutely certain of the objective existence of anything outside of my own mind, and the truth is that I can’t. As I tried to explain above, I cannot be certain that anything outside of my mind exists, and that includes my physical body.

 

[oldcelt]

I have had some rather serious health problems of late and the mind can certainly be an interesting thing, One night I had a lengthy conversation with my mother as she sewed by my couch. It was very nice except for the fact that she has been dead for 14 years. Others visited and it actually became quite nice because I was aware that it wasn’t “real.”

Then, 3 weeks ago, I experienced full respiratory arrest and remember nothing.

There is no point here , other than the mind is a fascinating thing…or maybe place.

 

[KingCoil]

…]

Originally Posted by KingCoil
As soon as we, you and I, have worked out what it is to be certain about the existence of anything at all, whether yours or mine – and of course, of God the creator of the universe – or the physical particles studied by particle physicists, which make up our existence i.e. life.

Finally, we have something that is concretely specific enough for you not to go into a lot of words to say nothing definite, except that you are absolutely certain only about your existence, and also absolutely certain that everything else you take on faith, belief, or fiction.

I will be into that specific matter; but first, I want to tell you to abstain from using that term absolute certainty, because it means that relative to nothing at all in particular us humans something is so or not so: absolute is the opposite of relative.

There is no such thing as absolute certainty because we are talking about human certainty, so relative to us as humans; if you remove the reference to humans, then we do not talk anymore, we do not make up the case at all, we stop existing: so there is no absolute certainty – unless we bring in God Who is the creator of the universe, and in which case relative to God in His mind He is certain of everything He knows starting with Himself, and also with everything else He makes because He is the author.

Let us talk about personal certainty, because all discourse among us humans about certainty is in reference to us humans, and if we discount our reference point, then there cannot be anymore any talk about certainty, because the subject of the talk about certainty, we, is no longer around to deal with the idea and reality of certainty.

Okay, let me now go into the specific point which I want to focus on with you, to show how un-intelligent you are for not always keeping to intelligent thinking grounding yourself on logic and fact.

Here you are again absolutely certain with your categorical declaration:

The problem is, that you will never be able to prove to me that you exist. It’s impossible.

You have just made a very un-intelligent statement owing to non-thinking with your feet and brain not firmly resting on logic and facts.

Do I at all have to prove to you that I exist and prove to myself that you exist, when we are exchanging thoughts in this thread: we are in contact, or you are not certain, not personally certain about our being in contact and engaged in the exchange of thoughts by our conversation here?

That is what I mean when I tell you, you are over-marinated with inane clichés, without all the time keeping aware about what is really the case with your existence and circumstances of actuality, and relative to what you are engaged in.

Let me ask you, when you make love with a woman, are you going to challenge her to prove to you that you exist or that she exists?

She will tell you, you must be one nut case owing to your stupid profession of solipsism.

Conclusion: in the instances of physical interaction with another human being, we are both proof of each other’s existence, with personal certainty, and don’t bring in absolute certainty of which you do not have and I do not have, according to your solipsistic nonsense.

Tell me, what is the advantage to your life and acts with taking up such an inane idea by which you glibly proclaim yourself to be a solipsist, namely, only absolutely * inanely ]* certain about your own existence, and everything else you take on faith, belief, or fiction?

Perhaps, it is a consolation to you that when the street corner bullies give you a beating because they don’t like at all you walking about with such glib hubris about your being so smart for knowing about yourself being a solipsist, saying to yourself, I am only absolutely certain about my own existence, everything else even with these bullies delivering blackness to my eyes I know only on faith, belief, or fiction.

So, in the instances of physical contacts between humans and between humans and physical material things, the proof of certainty of existence is the actual physical interaction: prove to yourself that you are holding a sledge hammer by hitting your head with it, prove that the bullies exist by daring them to punch you in your eyes.

YES, it is possible and actual to prove to you that I exist on the fact that I am writing to you this message, and the logic is that if I am not existing except on faith, or belief, or fiction, then you are acting insanely to be replying to my messages here.

So, your categorical statement:
The problem is, that you will never be able to prove to me that you exist. It’s impossible.
is busted, unless you really cannot and thus do not think intelligently for not grounding yourself on logic and facts.

KingCoil

 

[Partinobodycula]

There is no such thing as absolute certainty because we are talking about human certainty… unless we bring in God Who is the creator of the universe, and in which case relative to God in His mind He is certain of everything He knows starting with Himself, and also with everything else He makes because He is the author.

If I may, let me condense your argument down to its basic premise. Which appears to be, that I cannot be “absolutely certain” of anything, because I’m mortal. I will pass away, as will all humans. But that which is absolute cannot pass away, thus it must be relative to something which is eternal, and that thing, is God. Hopefully I’ve captured the essence of your argument. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

Fortunately for you, I’m a solipsist. I’m perfectly happy with assuming all manner of possibilities, and yours is no exception. So for the sake of argument, I will accept your premise. The question is, are you willing to accept its implications? If so, let’s consider them.

First, you say that I’m mortal. That I will pass away. But can you prove this to me? I don’t think you can. The fact that thousands of other people die every day does nothing to prove the assertion that I too will die. After all, everyone else may be nothing more than figments of my own imagination. It may not seem likely, but it is possible, and there’s no way to prove otherwise. Thus the fact that they’re mortal, does not by extension prove that I’m mortal. As far as I can ever know, nothing existed before me, and nothing will exist after me, for all intents and purposes, I am eternal. Thus according to your stated premise, it is perfectly acceptable for me to claim that I am absolutely certain, that I am.

Second, are you absolutely certain that God exists? If your premise is correct, then the answer to this question must be, NO. Thus it is possible, that God does not exist. I must admit that this is a rather poor argument, but it is a logical extension of your original premise. If you cannot be absolutely certain, then you cannot be absolutely certain that God exists, and if you can’t be absolutely certain that He exists, then it is possible that He doesn’t.