A proof for the existence of God?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Of course. I admitted as much to Fz, when I expressed that my feelings were not the source of my philosophy. My philosophy is new to my own ears too. I was 'conditioned' with the same beliefs as everyone else. I assumed that I was looking outside of my mind.

But this doesn't detract from my reasoned argument. Like I said, realisation and manifestation are different subjects. I could talk about the 'spiritual' side of things; but then the discussion would become a 'mystical' discussion.

What's the difference between realization and manifestation? Do you mean realize in the sense that the brain uses it to extract reason or, do you mean "spiritual realizaion?" Do you mean manifestation in terms of the "outward appearance" of something, by which it can be observed or, do you mean an "outcropping of feelings," which is subjective.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Fliption
I even saw Tom making the argument that he had 2 options. He could believe in a material world or believe that everyone else was in his mind. He chooses 1 because 2 is absurd. This is odd to me because he's basing the absurdity on the prior belief in a material world. LOL. This is not proof.

I know heusdens just made a good response to it, but I would like to emphasize the point:

Logic alone can not settle the issue.

Logic cannot even get us out of our own heads, so to speak. It takes us neither to materialism, nor to idealism. That is why this thread is a waste of time and disk space, because its objective "a proof of god", will never be presented.

Do we have anything besides logic at our disposal?

Yes. We have knowledge of the world, and we have people with whom to compare notes. That knowledge and comparison points unequivocally to one conclusion: that there is a big, wide, universe of lifeless objects moving according to definite laws.

So, I have two choices:

1. Appeal to knowledge, and go to materialism.
2. Appeal to ignorance, and go to idealism.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
Yes, but you make it invalidly. There is no logic whatsoever in the leap from "all perceptions take place in my mind" to "all reality takes place in The Mind". You simply take a leap of faith at the end, and that is what the chief complaint is.

I showed that the creation of the sensations was a Mindful creation... an artistic sensory-imagary of universal-reality. Again, I use 'pain' as the obvious example to convey what I mean. Our awareness can only trace the origin of its own perceptions to a subconscious aspect of itself.
Secondly, I added that the attributes of reason & emotion were used to 'judge' these perceptions.
Hence, all known-experience is a Mindful phenomena. Add to that the considerations of the Mind understanding reality before sensing it, and you're left pondering a Mind which has knowledge of the universe prior to sensing it.
I think you've overlooked the details of my post. I did explain why reality had to be a Mindful reality. There is no "leap of faith" asked of by the reader. The conclusion is built. You're just omiting my details.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
That's not all they say. Arguments such as the one here explain why existence is an internal phenomena. They explain why there cannot be an external reality.

You communicate those perceptions. You act upon them.

No they don't, even if they are valid. They can never prove that there is no such thing as an external reality, just as it is impossible to prove there is NO god. Because by definition, external phenomena is outside your internal existence, and since you say there is nothing but an internal existence, your reason does not extend outside it. Just as science cannot disprove god - you can give an alternative, of course, you cannot say there is nothing beyond your perceptions. Your perceptions themselves are not fit to reach it, and that is the tool you use. Catch-22.

As to part two, that is an awfully materialistic notion is it not? What even possesses you to think I am real, not just a trick of your perception? And how do you believe I am not just a robot, or perhaps a manifestation of your consciousness? Just by talking to me, you are making, by your argument, an unreasonable assumption.

 

[quantumdude]

Details, eh? Let's look "in detail" at the transition from my mind to The Mind.

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Thus; this argument shows that Mind had universal-knowledge prior to sensing anything. It also shows that the Mind had artistic-creativity to the extent which all living things now sense reality.

So, your basic position here is that all my perceptions (which we all agree is all I really know) are in my mind. Fine.

Since all living entities share the same Laws of Mind (the laws of physics), it naturally follows that all universal-awareness is centred within one Mind.

So...

1. All observed phenomena register in my mind.
2. Those phenomena are governed by the laws of physics.
3. Since those phenomena register in my mind, the laws of physics governing them must be laws of the mind.
4. Since we all agree on those laws, they must have come from one mind.

First, #3 is an unjustified assumption. Second, this is a simple non-sequitur, because another conclusion can be reached from 1 and 2, namely:

3. Since we all agree on those laws, we all must be looking at the same material universe.

A valid deductive argument is such that its premises only admit one conclusion. Hence, you haven't proved a thing.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Tom
So, I have two choices:

1. Appeal to knowledge, and go to materialism.
2. Appeal to ignorance, and go to idealism.

Without the capacity "not to know," we have no means by which to gauge what we "do know." So maybe we're just better off claiming ignorance which, is what you're doing by "choosing" materialism.

Knowledge is not wisdom!

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Without the capacity "not to know," we have no means by which to gauge what we "do know." So maybe we're just better off claiming ignorance which, is what you're doing by "choosing" materialism.

?

First, choosing materialism is not an appeal to ignorance. To accept it, I am not obligated to accept anything other than the existence of matter and its interactions, of which there is a great deal of knowledge.

Second, there is no sense in which appealing to ignorance is better. It leads to anyone of an infinite number of subjective beliefs. If appeals to ignorance are admissible, then we have not only The Mind, but also Jehovah, Allah, the Easter bunny, Santa Claus, and invisbile dancing fairies. I would not say that that leavs us "better off".

Third, idealism, which really is based on ignorance, requires us to accept either solipsism or a super-intelligent being for which there is not one shred of evidence. I would say not say that that leaves us "better off" either.

 

[Iacchus32]

Oh, are you doubting me Thomas? By the way, today is Good Friday.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Tom
?

First, choosing materialism is not an appeal to ignorance. To accept it, I am not obligated to accept anything other than the existence of matter and its interactions, of which there is a great deal of knowledge.

But the crux of the matter is "who" is doing the accepting? And from where does that "who" originate? If the who originates from within, then the who can only acknowledge from within, period. Therefore isn't it possible that the who can acknowledge "a God" inside there as well? It's not requiring you to do anything different, if you really think about it. In fact it's entirely up to you.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
But the crux of the matter is "who" is doing the accepting?

In my case: I am.

And from where does that "who" originate?

From the interconnectdness of my thoughts.

If the who originates from within, then the who can only acknowledge from within, period.

There is still the so-called Problem of Other Minds. What am I to make of the other people in the world? Are they within me, too? If so, then only I exist[/color]. But surely I could never convince you of that, can I? You surely could not convince me that I don't exist.

The above philosophy is called solipsism, and that is where your thinking leads. It ultimately says that, because everything is happening in my mind, only I exist.

Therefore isn't it possible that the who can acknowledge "a God" inside there as well?

By George, you've got it! God is "in there"--in the human mind as an abstract mental object, and nothing more.

LG has got it totally backwards here. Man is not in The Mind of god. God is in the mind of man.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by heusdens
It is unbeatable evidence.

I don't mean to be dense. I'm not sure I've understood your post. Where is this evidence?

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Tom
I know heusdens just made a good response to it, but I would like to emphasize the point:

Logic alone can not settle the issue.

Logic cannot even get us out of our own heads, so to speak. It takes us neither to materialism, nor to idealism. That is why this thread is a waste of time and disk space, because its objective "a proof of god", will never be presented.

Do we have anything besides logic at our disposal?

Yes. We have knowledge of the world, and we have people with whom to compare notes. That knowledge and comparison points unequivocally to one conclusion: that there is a big, wide, universe of lifeless objects moving according to definite laws.

So, I have two choices:

1. Appeal to knowledge, and go to materialism.
2. Appeal to ignorance, and go to idealism.

Well, I'm not sure I understood Huesdens post and I'm not sure I'm understanding you either. If you're going to enter a philosophical discussion that questions the quality of our knowledge obtained through perception, you cannot then choose a side due to the fact that we have knowledge. This is exactly what I was pointing out in my first post. This is like asking the guy who robbed your house to give you a ride to the police department to file the report.

 

[Iacchus32]

Perception

How do we escape the perception of our own minds? There's no way, we can't! Even our awareness of the world is dependent upon it. And yet that isn't to say the world doesn't exist, not in the least, just that we can only acknowledge it through "our perception."

So it's through our perception, which is internal, that we determine what is real, both on the outside and, on "the inside." Hmm... Maybe we should consider it a gift?

 

[CJames]

Hi lifegazer. This is a great summary of your hypothesis, but again provides nothing conclusive.

Therefore, the very sense of this pain is evidence that at some-level, and somehow, the mind itself has ~painted this portrait~ of reality upon its awareness.
And that's all we can know.[/color]

I agree with everything proceeding and including this point, although I wouldn't necessarily say it is logic that is linking the ideas in every case, I agree with the assertions up to this point. Indeed, this is all we can know. You can't proceed forward from this point.

I agree with the assertions following this, stating that every individual's mind must present observations in a way that is comprehensible to the observer.

We can also say that since the Mind creates sensory-awareness upon itself, that it must have knowledge of what it is trying to represent prior to 'sensing' it.

This comes from nowhere. You can't prove this assertion. In fact, there is a great deal of evidence to the contrary. Infants do not understand their perseptions at all when they are born, they are clueless. Only by a process of trial and error can the mind finally present a comprehensible picture of the universe.

Since all living entities share the same Laws of Mind (the laws of physics), it naturally follows that all universal-awareness is centred within one Mind.

Even had the previous conclusion been correct, this doesn't follow logically. Why, for instance, couldn't each mind simply be aware of a set of rules upon creation? Or why assume that any of the living entities sharing these "laws of mind" even exist, that they aren't the creation of your mind? Since all these multiple conclusions exist, the whole thing's a non-sequiter, as Tom said.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Tom
There is still the so-called Problem of Other Minds. What am I to make of the other people in the world? Are they within me, too? If so, then only I exist. But surely I could never convince you of that, can I? You surely could not convince me that I don't exist.

The above philosophy is called solipsism, and that is where your thinking leads. It ultimately says that, because everything is happening in my mind, only I exist.

The least we could do Tom, is acknowledge that other people exist. Who are both without and within. Of course I may not be willing to take it any further than that, only because the rest is not readily explainable: as most people are externalized and don't see things in the same sense.

Reality has always been there ... but "its perception" begins with, and ends with, "our minds."

Originally posted by Tom
By George, you've got it! God is "in there"--in the human mind as an abstract mental object, and nothing more.

LG has got it totally backwards here. Man is not in The Mind of god. God is in the mind of man.

Then you're saying reality is abstract by the same definition. Yes, man is in the Mind of God, in contemplation of "the God" within his own mind ...

 

[heusdens]

Some conclusions to the 'hypothese' of Lifegazer.

There have been a lot of remarks on where the hypothese goes wrong.

Let us start with his basic premise. He states that he has a mind, through which he perceives the outside world (which in the case of lifegazer does not exist, but only the reflections of them, in what he calls 'mind', but which he has yet to proof to exist).

Where in the world did he proof this first premise, that he has a mind in the first place? Where? Has he explained us that? Not in the least! We are merely asked to believe that assumption. And no matter how many times he testifies to us, and it even is acknowledged by others, al this does not constitute any proof whatsoever.

We are just asked to 'assume' he has a mind. We don't know however what mind is. Although it is certain that without his body, his mind (whatever that may be) will cease to be. Nowhere in the world we find - what is called - a mind (but has yet to be proven to exist) that worked without a body. Nothing at all we can have evidence of and relate to.

Oh, for certain. We know LG must be a person around somewhere. With a body and a brain. But all we can testify for, is material stuff and properties. We can hear him. We can see him. Touch him. But we do not see his mind, only his actions. We know that up there, in his brain, the world is reflected upon, that somewhere in his brain and neuron system, an image is made of the world he perceives, and he is able to make sensible actions upon his awareness of that reflections. But that just means there is a very sophistocated and very complex machine in there, that is able of transforming the input signals into output signals. Whatever you may call the process that is going on in there, all we can see and all we can know about, are their outside forms, shapes and properties. We can know, through experiments, about what part of his brain is responsible for what kind of functions. But even if we have a complete description of all his interior workings, a map of the wiring of his billions of neurons, and all the properties of all the neurons, and nerves in there, there is no way in which we can say that there is a 'mind' in there. Cause all we can testify for are the material properties we find.

So how does he know, he has a 'mind' in the first place? Or, let him in first instance give us a full and complete description of what the mind is, in terms of things we already know about, the material stuff.

Therefore, we have to refuse Mr Lifegazers hypothese built up around that central and dogmatic premise, because he has no way of prooving that premise. He may vibrate as many molecules in the air as he likes, and sent around as many bit pulses over the entire internet as he likes, or perform whatever other actions he likes, but at no time he is able of convincingly proof us that he has a mind in the first place. His mind is just an imagination he has, not a real thing.

The fact that he is able to testify that he has one, only means that his internal wiring of all his functions, do not make it possible for him to say something else then that. But that knowledge, does not come from reasonal conclusions, nor from the outside world information and conclusions made upon them. In fact, this knowledge he does not really has, but he is given the impression that he has that knowledge, because of internal functions that do not permit him to testify this in any other way.

 

[Iacchus32]

It'll never fly ... so long as you remain "fixated" on material things.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Fliption
Well, I'm not sure I understood Huesdens post and I'm not sure I'm understanding you either. If you're going to enter a philosophical discussion that questions the quality of our knowledge obtained through perception, you cannot then choose a side due to the fact that we have knowledge.

I don't really understand your objection, but let me see if I can explain myself a little better.

First, we know that our perceptions register in our minds. From this, I can conclude either that I am looking "out there" or that I am imagining the whole thing.

Second, along comes another person. I talk to that person, and find that she has the same kinds of experiences that I do. From this, I can conclude either that we are both looking "out there" or that I am just imagining her, too. The first option leads me to conclude that there is an universe that we both live in, and the second leads me to solipsism, which is not even internally consistent, so I reject it. Having rejected solipsism then, I conclude that she and I are both part of a larger reality.

Third, I know that my mind is disjoint from her mind because we do not share the same thoughts. So if I am to cling to idealism, I have to fabricate[/color] a "super mind" on the basis of--literally--absolutely nothing. Barring that, I accept that the larger reality is made up of the objects that obey the laws I observe them to obey.

Conclusion: I say that materialism is an appeal to knowledge, because it is certain that there is a reality that I am part of and that is larger than myself, and I can know things about it. I say that idealism is an appeal to ignorance because it requires one to believe in a layer of reality beyond what I percieve for absolutely no reason.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
The least we could do Tom, is acknowledge that other people exist. Who are both without and within. Of course I may not be willing to take it any further than that, only because the rest is not readily explainable: as most people are externalized and don't see things in the same sense.

I don't understand you at all.

What do you mean "both without and within"? Without and within what, exactly?

Reality has always been there ... but "its perception" begins with, and ends with, "our minds."

So you keep saying. And, no one disagrees. However, I tried to make it clear that the problem of other minds makes the view "all of reality is in my mind" untenable. I don't understand why you won't move beyond this point.

Then you're saying reality is abstract by the same definition.

No, not at all. I'm saying that god is an abstract object, whereas the computer I'm typing this message on is a concrete object. I don't know how you concluded otherwise.

Yes, man is in the Mind of God, in contemplation of "the God" within his own mind ...

This makes absolutely no sense. It's like saying that I am in the mind of a differential equation when I am in contemplation of solving it.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Tom
I don't understand you at all.

What do you mean "both without and within"? Without and within what, exactly?

Once somebody or something "registers" with your perception, then yes, it becomes part of your "collective experience" as a whole (which is within).

So you keep saying. And, no one disagrees. However, I tried to make it clear that the problem of other minds makes the view "all of reality is in my mind" untenable. I don't understand why you won't move beyond this point.

Because my perception, which is clearly in charge of how I view things, tells me not to acknowledge anything that doesn't go along with what's already been perceived. Meaning I don't do things contrary to what I already understand. And hence a sense of "personal accountability."

No, not at all. I'm saying that god is an abstract object, whereas the computer I'm typing this message on is a concrete object. I don't know how you concluded otherwise.

Everything is an abstraction to the "untrained mind." And yet once we perceive something, and understand it, then it no longer becomes an abstraction, even with God ... especially! In fact this is the whole crux of the matter, that determines whether one is able to believe in God or not. I mean this is it! ...

This makes absolutely no sense. It's like saying that I am in the mind of a differential equation when I am in contemplation of solving it.

If you view the Universe in terms of being part of God's mind, i.e., whether we realize it or not, then we are all part of the "One Mind" Lifegazer is referring to. Beyond that, if we wish to contemplate our existence within our own minds which, is part of the "One Mind" as a whole, then that's entirely up to us.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Tom

First, we know that our perceptions register in our minds. From this, I can conclude either that I am looking "out there" or that I am imagining the whole thing.

Agreed.

Second, along comes another person. I talk to that person, and find that she has the same kinds of experiences that I do. From this, I can conclude either that we are both looking "out there" or that I am just imagining her, too.

I'm with you.

The first option leads me to conclude that there is an universe that we both live in, and the second leads me to solipsism, which is not even internally consistent, so I reject it.

But why is it not internally consistent? Earlier you said you rejected it because it was absurd. You said it was absurd because you had "knowledge". Explain how this is inconsistent internally.

Third, I know that my mind is disjoint from her mind because we do not share the same thoughts. So if I am to cling to idealism, I have to fabricate[/color] a "super mind" on the basis of--literally--absolutely nothing.

You lost me here. If your mind is creating all that you see, why would you think that you should be able to predict or know what the other imaginary people are like? Can you predict or understand your own dreams? No? Does this mean that a super mind is dreaming it for you?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Fliption
But why is it not internally consistent? Earlier you said you rejected it because it was absurd. You said it was absurd because you had "knowledge". Explain how this is inconsistent internally.[/b]

Solipsism is internally inconsistent, because it requires the world to exist within exactly and only one mind. If two people who both claim to be solipsist ever meet, then one of them can't be a solopsist. In reality, there is not one mind, but there are billions of minds.

Solipsisms has to be rejected for that reason. Idealism ultimately leads to that. They only can escape it by claiming there is a higher order mind, that of a Deity, for which there is and never can be any evidence. Such an artificial construct therefore also has to be rejected.

In reality though, whatever Idealists thinkers claim, all persons are materialist. If you step over a street and see an incoming bus, you will try to prevent being droven over. Nobody will at that time argue wether or not the bus really exists beyond the perceptions.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by heusdens
Solipsism is internally inconsistent, because it requires the world to exist within exactly and only one mind. If two people who both claim to be solipsist ever meet, then one of them can't be a solopsist. In reality, there is not one mind, but there are billions of minds.

Solipsisms has to be rejected for that reason. Idealism ultimately leads to that. They only can escape it by claiming there is a higher order mind, that of a Deity, for which there is and never can be any evidence. Such an artificial construct therefore also has to be rejected.

In reality though, whatever Idealists thinkers claim, all persons are materialist. If you step over a street and see an incoming bus, you will try to prevent being droven over. Nobody will at that time argue wether or not the bus really exists beyond the perceptions.

Hmm, this doesn't help Heusdens. You're relying on the material existence of another person to prove Materialism. This is not a good argument. Again, this is like asking the robber to give you a lift to the police station.

 

[Lifegazer]

I'm a bit disappointed here. I presented an argument for the existence of God. Of the 70+ responses, I can only find a few posts which have bothered to analyse the process of reasoning used in my initial-argument.
The bulk of this chat has been irrelevant. There are some people in here who think that the correct-method in which to deconstruct my argument is to present one of their own arguments for the defense of materialism. I say x = p; and they say "no, since w = b."! Hence avoiding a public-scrutiny of my own philosophy, by talking about their own.

Some of you have made valid points about my post. I'll try to address them all soon. But what's the point of presenting my own argument, if all you want to talk about is your own? C'mon guys. I want valid complaints about my own argument. Why's the reasoning-process flawed?
This is important. Because if I can clear-up the complaints, then you have to take me seriously.
Thanks. End of rant.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Fliption
Hmm, this doesn't help Heusdens. You're relying on the material existence of another person to prove Materialism. This is not a good argument. Again, this is like asking the robber to give you a lift to the police station.

Since other persons do exist, I think the point is made and is valid.
Or it would be that you can honestly testify to have never met any another person. If you do, I am sure you are a lier.

So the only position you can then logically still claim is that you think other people are not real people, but are only part of your own mind. This position is known as solipsism.

Suppose we have two people, A and B. A sees B as part of his mind, and not a real person. B sees A as part of his mind, and not a real person. These claims can't be both justified, so one of them is incorrect, because one has to accept (as put forward by materialism) BOTH people exist, and are separate beings, and not dependend on the mind itself. it is just recognizing the fact that the things we perceive and are aware of in our mind, correspond to material things, that exist seperately and independendly of our mind.

The way out that Idealists use is to claim that both persons are in fact "thoughts" of a higher being. This means, that also Idealism can not escape from recognizing an outer reality, while still refusing the claim that materialism has, about a material world, that exists independend of the mind.

The problem of this idea is however:
- That this higher being can never be witnessed directly, and has no explenation.
- How to conceive of individual people being just "thoughts" in a higher order mind, and not recognize they have separate minds.
etc.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by heusdens

Suppose we have two people, A and B. A sees B as part of his mind, and not a real person. B sees A as part of his mind, and not a real person. These claims can't be both justified, so one of them is incorrect.

Lol. What you're missing Heusdens is that no one has knowledge of both these claims. If all you know is through perception, you can only know that one of these is true. The other very well may not be true. I'm not telling you what I believe. I'm trying to get you to see that there's a reason this has been a philosphical topic for years. And that reason is that what you think you know, you cannot know. There is no way to argue for materialism. If you want to pick apart LG's theory of God, there are definitely much better ways than this.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
Solipsism is internally inconsistent, because it requires the world to exist within exactly and only one mind. If two people who both claim to be solipsist ever meet, then one of them can't be a solopsist. In reality, there is not one mind, but there are billions of minds.

There's no reasoning here. If all observers share the same laws of physics, then those said observers are occupying a singular-reality.
I think Tom and CJames made a complaint about this, too. They think I make a leap to saying that existence is in One Mind. But if I first show that existence is 'Mind-ful' (read my first-post again; you'll see that I do in-fact show that existence is mind-ful before making the conclusion about 'one Mind' - in my penultimate-statement.), and then I observe that all perceptions are of one reality (one Law); then I am perfectly-placed to state that all perceptions exist within one Mind!
Your statement, on the other-hand, is an appeal to the senses. It basically asks how two different observers can exist within one Mind. My proof that this can happen is evident within your very-own awareness - in the same manner that two different entities can exist within your own mind, simultaneously.
This could be in imagination or dream. But even when you have a chat with someone, whilst 'awake', you cannot escape the fact that "the chat" has happened inside the mind - inside your senses, with the use of reason & emotion.
All interactions occur at the Mind-level. We cannot confirm any more than this. Hence, the details of my argument are worthy of address. Are you ever going to address that argument?

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Fliption
There is no way to argue for materialism. If you want to pick apart LG's theory of God, there are definitely much better ways than this.

If I was to counter your 'neutral' complaints, people might take notice. What are these "better ways"? I want to shirk no question. Feel free to grill me.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Fliption
Lol. What you're missing Heusdens is that no one has knowledge of both these claims. If all you know is through perception, you can only know that one of these is true. The other very well may not be true. I'm not telling you what I believe. I'm trying to get you to see that there's a reason this has been a philosphical topic for years. And that reason is that what you think you know, you cannot know. There is no way to argue for materialism. If you want to pick apart LG's theory of God, there are definitely much better ways than this.

I think there are many ways of proving tyhe absurdity of LG's hypothese.

However, I do not agree on that statement, and I can explain why. Suppose in real life, two firmly believing solipsists ever meet, and they tell eacht other their beliefs/philosophical viewpoints.
Let us first look at this from the position of person A. He only sees other things as part of his mind of course. He does see person B, but does not conclude there is a real person/mind, like himself, there.
He can however discover, if he is listening carefully, that the other person makes the same claim about reality as he does. Same goes on from person's B point of view. At least this will make both persons doubt there belief.

The issue is that we can make this a theoretical debate. The issue on hand is purely theoretical, in that it would make no sense to even mention such a fictious position of person A and B having a solid trust in solipsism. The point is, why would these persons even be listening to each other, if they don't recognize each other as being a person, like themself, in the first place? All forms of communication would then be in vain. No real communication would be possible, communication would be just monologues.

Not that I think that every communication between persons in daily
life is that very well established. The issue is of course that we see daily many conversations and forms of communication going on, in which we can seriously doubt if there is any real communication. It sure seems as if people are talking much in a way, as if they are the sole person on earth, and don't even recognize the position and reality about the other. The world we live in today is full of chaos and miscommunication, which has much to do with the way we see the world.

I think the world would much benefit from a full acceptance of the reality of the world as it is, and not as how we think it is. Materialism is for that goal the only practical and theoretical basis.

 

[quantumdude]

No one here except heusdens and myself seems to understand what role the rejection of solipsism plays here. Consequently, we are spending way too much time on it. I'll make a longer post on why I reject solipsism later, but for now it is sufficient to make one point clear:

Just about every party involved here reject solipism!

That's right: me, huesdens, LG, we all reject it (except Iacchus).

The shedding of unnecessary (and unacceptable) assumptions goes something like this:

1. Either everything is happening in my mind, or it is not.
2. Meet another person.
3. Either this person is in my mind, or he is not.
4. Accept that he is not in my mind, and thus reject solipsism.
5. Either everything is material, or everything is in some super mind.

See? One must reject solipsism to even reach the decision of whether or not to accept god.

Here is a good article on solipsism, and why it is without basis. Maybe it will make my explanation uneccesary:

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/solipsis.htm