The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

[Age]

How did it work for Descartes? What did he end up "knowing" by using that method?

Descartes ended up knowing that there was both mind and extension.

And nothing else.

Do you fathom how closed, and thus how stupid, you come across, here, "immanuel can"?

“You can’t go on “seeing through” things forever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see.”
― C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man

Here, is another prime example of how people with completely opposing views and beliefs can, and do, see the 'exact same thing' backing up and supporting 'their own view and/or belief'.

Again, the trait of one with beliefs, and confirmation biases.

[Belinda]

How did it work for Descartes? What did he end up "knowing" by using that method?

Descartes ended up knowing that there was both mind and extension.

And nothing else.

“You can’t go on “seeing through” things forever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see.”
― C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man

And scepticism is a method for seeing more clearly. I am wondering if Immanuel is confusing 'scepticism' and ' cynicism'.

[Fairy]

“You can’t go on “seeing through” things forever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see.”
― C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man

IS a good representational model for what Consciousness is. Of what Everything Is.

[Belinda]

“You can’t go on “seeing through” things forever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see.”
― C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man

IS a good representational model for what Consciousness is. Of what Everything Is.

Pretentious nonsense!

[Fairy]

“You can’t go on “seeing through” things forever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see.”
― C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man

IS a good representational model for what Consciousness is. Of what Everything Is.

Pretentious nonsense!

What you'll read and interact with, your whole life, is your mind spewing non sense.

Others minds are your non sense

Your mind is non sense

Your existence is a fantasy empty of meaning


What you’ll read and interact with, your whole life, is your mind revealing truth.

Others’ minds are mirrors of your understanding.

Your mind is coherence and awareness.

Your existence is reality itself, overflowing with meaning.

[Belinda]

You confirm that as a philosopher you are a harmless waste of time and I was wise to FOE you.

[Fairy]

You confirm that as a philosopher you are waste of time and I was wise to FOE you.

And yet here you are FOEin with your FOES..Idiot.

You just do not understand absolute truth yet.

That's because you focus too much on the false contents in your pretentious head. Which is filled to the brim with intellectual snobbery on steroids.

[Belinda]

You confirm that as a philosopher you are waste of time and I was wise to FOE you.

And yet here you are FOEin with your FOES..Idiot.

You just do not understand absolute truth yet.

That's because you focus too much on the false contents in your pretentious head. Which is filled to the brim with intellectual snobbery on steroids.

You should ask yourself what motivates you to write word salad to the forum.

[Immanuel Can]

Descartes ended up knowing that there was both mind and extension.

And nothing else.

“You can’t go on “seeing through” things forever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see.”
― C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man

And scepticism is a method for seeing more clearly. I am wondering if Immanuel is confusing 'scepticism' and ' cynicism'.

I'm not. Are you?

[Will Bouwman]

You can't really "disagree" with maths. You can understand it, or you can fail to understand it; but you can't change it. There is no infinitely-regressive sequence of prerequisites or causes. That's just a mathematical fact.

Your argument boils down to:

There is an infinite sequence of numbers
Therefore there isn't an infinite sequence of events

Not only is that not a sound argument, it isn't even valid.

... Idealism is much less common than, say, Materialism, or Common Sense Realism, or regular Realism, or Empiricism, or Mysticism, or quite a number of other schools. So again, what makes Idealism "probable"?

Ah, you take plausible to mean probable; not my intention. I mean that idealism is tenable, and every actual philosopher understands that. Do you understand that the evidence for idealism is exactly the same as any other hypothesis that is consistent with that evidence?

[Fairy]

You confirm that as a philosopher you are waste of time and I was wise to FOE you.

And yet here you are FOEin with your FOES..Idiot.

You just do not understand absolute truth yet.

That's because you focus too much on the false contents in your pretentious head. Which is filled to the brim with intellectual snobbery on steroids.

You should ask yourself what motivates you to write word salad to the forum.

I take it you’re not yet familiar with the concept of fairy stories then. That’s about as much sense you’re going to get out of the human story telling brain. At least IC is able to humble himself, unlike you, who is addicted to getting stoned on your own brain farts.

You’re just a squawking parrot.

[Will Bouwman]

Present to me a situation or scenario where there can be the existence of a thought minus the existence of the thinker (and owner) of the thought.

Well, this is just the radical scepticism that students of philosophy routinely do, much as musicians practise their scales. However daft it sounds, it doesn't actually follow from there is a thought, that there is a thinker.

[Immanuel Can]

You can't really "disagree" with maths. You can understand it, or you can fail to understand it; but you can't change it. There is no infinitely-regressive sequence of prerequisites or causes. That's just a mathematical fact.

Your argument boils down to:

There is an infinite sequence of numbers
Therefore there isn't an infinite sequence of events

You're not understanding it. The numbers are just symbolic placeholders, representing reality. But they're very telling about reality.

Let's try again: just write down a number -- I'll let you pick it...let it be 1, or 1,000, or 1,000,000. That stands for the point at which something is caused to happen as a result of a causal chain. But before you write that number, you have to have already written the sequence of numbers that precedes it...not just back to 3, 2, 1, 0, but back to -1, -2, -3...and so on, to infinity. That represents, numerically, the infinite sequence of previous events that would have to have already happened so that your number-event could take place.

Now, when will you get to write your number?

Just so, no causal sequence can be infinite. QED.

Not only is that not a sound argument, it isn't even valid.

That's only because you've mistaken and been unable to represent the argument I'm making. Of course it's invalid. You left out the connecting premises.

... Idealism is much less common than, say, Materialism, or Common Sense Realism, or regular Realism, or Empiricism, or Mysticism, or quite a number of other schools. So again, what makes Idealism "probable"?

Ah, you take plausible to mean probable; not my intention.

Then show that it's "tenable," if that's what you meant. It's still not at all clear to me why you think it's a better option for us to default to than any of the alternatives. And if it's not, then it's not to be a preferred hypothesis at all.

[Will Bouwman]

Not only is that not a sound argument, it isn't even valid.

That's only because you've mistaken and been unable to represent the argument I'm making. Of course it's invalid. You left out the connecting premises.

Fair enough. What are the connecting premises?

It's still not at all clear to me why you think it's a better option for us to default to than any of the alternatives. And if it's not, then it's not to be a preferred hypothesis at all.

It is only preferred by idealists. Again:

Do you understand that the evidence for idealism is exactly the same as any other hypothesis that is consistent with that evidence?

[Immanuel Can]

Not only is that not a sound argument, it isn't even valid.

That's only because you've mistaken and been unable to represent the argument I'm making. Of course it's invalid. You left out the connecting premises.

Fair enough. What are the connecting premises?

See my last message.

I don't actually believe you don't understand the argument. That wouldn't square with what I already know about your intelligence. So you must be trolling me...it's all I can conclude.

It's still not at all clear to me why you think it's a better option for us to default to than any of the alternatives. And if it's not, then it's not to be a preferred hypothesis at all.

It is only preferred by idealists.

So...why would we care what a minority of oddball 18th Century philosophers...Berkeley, or Hume, or whomever you have in mind...said? Don't you take the sorts of critiques mounted by Moore, Russell, et al. seriously? Do you think Idealism survives those critiques?

Or are you just using "Idealism" as a placeholder for "I don't think reality actually exists," or some other such position? I can't even imagine what you're meaning.

Again:

Do you understand that the evidence for idealism is exactly the same as any other hypothesis that is consistent with that evidence?

I don't think Idealism is "consistent with the evidence." I'm waiting to hear what that "evidence" that conduces us to worry about Idealism might be supposed to be.