The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

[Immanuel Can]

You're the one who said Idealism is the default.

In which case, one of us is as mad as a box of frogs. You can prove it is me by showing where and when I said that. Otherwise, it's you.

Well, if you don't assume that Idealism is a better postulate than, say, Common-sense Realism (Hume) or Positivism (Ayer, et al.), then there's no reason to think it's relevant to the discussion at all. If it has no evidence or logical probability, then it's on the level of a unicorn hypothesis, and can't be taken seriously. After all, at least prima facie, Realism of some kind has, at least, appearances and default assumptions going for it. What's Idealism got?

You brought up Idealism. Now I'm wondering why you did.

[Will Bouwman]

You said:

You're the one who said Idealism is the default.

Is that true?

[Immanuel Can]

You said:

You're the one who said Idealism is the default.

Is that true?

You didn't use the word "default," if that's what you mean. Perhaps I misunderstood: you didn't mean to suggest we ought to consider Idealism as a serious objection to anything? Then again, let's just dismiss it. I can't figure why you brought it up at all.

[Will Bouwman]

You said:

You're the one who said Idealism is the default.

Is that true?

You didn't use the word "default"...

Then why did you?

[Immanuel Can]

You said:
Is that true?

You didn't use the word "default"...

Then why did you?

Because it was a synonym for exactly what you seemed to be implying. Did you prefer me just to ignore your invoking of Idealism? I can do that.

Are you okay? You seem to be wandering in circles.

[Will Bouwman]

You didn't use the word "default"...

Then why did you?

Because it was a synonym for exactly what you seemed to be implying.

Show me your reasoning. I've been very clear, idealism is an underdetermined hypothesis which is, to my mind, completely consistent with the evidence. If you have some evidence to the contrary, I will be the wiser for it. What is your evidence?

[Immanuel Can]

Then why did you?

Because it was a synonym for exactly what you seemed to be implying.

Show me your reasoning. I've been very clear, idealism is an underdetermined hypothesis which is, to my mind, completely consistent with the evidence.

I haven't seen your evidence. I have no guess what you mean by "completely consistent" with it. How could I?

[Will Bouwman]

...I've been very clear, idealism is an underdetermined hypothesis which is, to my mind, completely consistent with the evidence.

I haven't seen your evidence.

Yes you have. I submit that you are having a thought now. You can claim otherwise, but not without thinking it. There is at least one thought, therefore. You believe that you can build a sound argument from that, I have seen no evidence that you can, but I'm open to persuasion.

I have no guess what you mean by "completely consistent" with it. How could I?

By learning the rudiments of philosophy.

[Immanuel Can]

...I've been very clear, idealism is an underdetermined hypothesis which is, to my mind, completely consistent with the evidence.

I haven't seen your evidence.

Yes you have. I submit that you are having a thought now. You can claim otherwise, but not without thinking it.

Oh. You just mean, "People have ideas." Well, nobody's going to dispute that obvious claim. But it's also trivial.

But Idealism, the philosophical system, is much more than that. It has both epistemological and ontological varieties, neither of which is unproblematic. So to help with the basics of philosophy, here you go: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/idealism/

[SpheresOfBalance]

What would be the best book on Christianity for an atheist?

One with the valid proof that god does not exist.

Missing valid evidence for god's nonexistence is the atheist's Pain Point. For thousands of years, they have been arguing with theists about god's existence, but can't get past the word-against-word stalemate.

There is no stalemate. And neither side can prove either way. Only someone that plays their game exclusively, would 'believe' otherwise. And actually the burden of proof, as to the question of, "Is there a god?" (Which is a question of existence), falls upon the theists. And they have absolutely no leg to stand on.

I have discovered the first valid evidence that god does NOT exist because that is not possible. In fact, in my new book series "It's Finally PROVEN! God Does NOT Exist The FIRST valid EVIDENCE in History", I present four pieces of evidence, scientific, logical, ontological, and experiential.

Read more about this breakthrough and game-changing book series on my webpage https://god-doesntexist.com/

P.S. I presented three objective pieces of evidence (the fourth one is subjective but fully supports and reinforces the first three) to multiple AIs - ChatGPT and Claude, and both acknowledged that they are logically irrefutable.

[seeds]

Concerning Seeds's request for a scenario of thought without a thinker please see David Hume:- The mind is a bundle of perceptions.

Come on now, Belinda, you know better than to offer up the old "appeal to authority" fallacy...

The appeal to authority fallacy is an informal logical fallacy that occurs when a claim is accepted as true simply because an authority figure believes it, rather than based on actual evidence or the strength of the argument.

How about rather than appealing to the musings of some fallible authority, you instead use your own sense of logic and reasoning to address the challenge I gave to Will...

"...please 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..."

Do you really need the dubious assumptions made by some dusty old coot from the 18th century to sort that out for you?
_______

I am not appealing to the authority of David Hume but to Hume's power of reason. Don't you know there is in Edinburgh a statue of David Hume that is located where Hume calmly outfaces a similarly -sized statue of John Knox.
Philosophers today regard Hume as a giant of philosophy.
Seeds, I had not placed you as an anti-intellectual.

I am not an "anti-intellectual."

No, I am an "anti-buying into false conclusions" type of person who, based on my own explorations and studies, can see when someone (such as Hume) doesn't know what they're talking about.

Hume may have been an eloquent and highly respected philosopher who put forth many good ideas,...

...however, if from the depths of his reasoning he came to the conclusion summarized in the following quote from Wikipedia (emphasis mine),...

Hume denied that people have an actual conception of the self, positing that they experience only a bundle of sensations and that the self is nothing more than this bundle of perceptions connected by an association of ideas.

...then he simply wasn't awake enough to see (or visualize) the "self" (the "I Am-ness") for what it really is.
_______

[Belinda]

Come on now, Belinda, you know better than to offer up the old "appeal to authority" fallacy...

How about rather than appealing to the musings of some fallible authority, you instead use your own sense of logic and reasoning to address the challenge I gave to Will...

Do you really need the dubious assumptions made by some dusty old coot from the 18th century to sort that out for you?
_______

I am not appealing to the authority of David Hume but to Hume's power of reason. Don't you know there is in Edinburgh a statue of David Hume that is located where Hume calmly outfaces a similarly -sized statue of John Knox.
Philosophers today regard Hume as a giant of philosophy.
Seeds, I had not placed you as an anti-intellectual.

I am not an "anti-intellectual."

No, I am an "anti-buying into false conclusions" type of person who, based on my own explorations and studies, can see when someone (such as Hume) doesn't know what they're talking about.

Hume may have been an eloquent and highly respected philosopher who put forth many good ideas,...

...however, if from the depths of his reasoning he came to the conclusion summarized in the following quote from Wikipedia (emphasis mine),...

Hume denied that people have an actual conception of the self, positing that they experience only a bundle of sensations and that the self is nothing more than this bundle of perceptions connected by an association of ideas.

...then he simply wasn't awake enough to see (or visualize) the "self" (the "I Am-ness") for what it really is.
_______

When I introspect I feel that Hume's bundle notion of the self is credible. You don't.

You say the self is "I Am-ness" and add that I Am-ness accompanies a sort of wakefulness. Seeds, for philosophers , wakefulness is reason not mystical consciousness. Mysticism is not usually addressed by mainstream analytic philosophy as mysticism is impervious to reason.

[Will Bouwman]

Oh. You just mean, "People have ideas."

No, I mean what I said:

...I've been very clear, idealism is an underdetermined hypothesis which is, to my mind, completely consistent with the evidence.

But Idealism, the philosophical system, is much more than that. It has both epistemological and ontological varieties, neither of which is unproblematic. So to help with the basics of philosophy, here you go: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/idealism/

Well, if you had read that article you would understand that:

"...neither Moore nor Russell claimed to have demonstrated that the universe or what exists or can be known to exist is not spiritual or mental. All that they take themselves to have shown is that there are no good philosophical (in contradistinction to, e.g., theological or psychological) arguments available to support such a claim. Moore especially is very explicit about this point. He devotes the first five pages of his famous piece from 1903, “The Refutation of Idealism”, to assuring the reader over and over that

I do not suppose that anything I shall say has the smallest tendency to prove that reality is not spiritual. … Reality may be spiritual, for all I know; and I devoutly hope it is. … It is, therefore, only with idealistic arguments that I am concerned; … I shall have proved that Idealists have no reason whatever for their conclusion. (Philosophical Studies, pp. 2 f.)

And Russell in his The Problems of Philosophy (1912), in a similar vein, warns the reader, after emphasizing the strangeness of an idealistic position from a common sense point of view:

If there were good reasons to regard them [viz. physical objects] as mental, we could not legitimately reject this opinion merely because it strikes us as strange. (1912 [1974: 38])"

I'll say it again: idealism is an underdetermined hypothesis. That in no way is a defence of idealism. What Moore, Russell and any first year philosophy undergraduate understand is that there is no sound argument that proves idealism. What they also understand, which you clearly do not, is that there is no sound refutation of it. Get your head around that, and it will be one small step towards you actually understanding philosophy.

[Immanuel Can]

Oh. You just mean, "People have ideas."

No, I mean what I said:

...I've been very clear, idealism is an underdetermined hypothesis which is, to my mind, completely consistent with the evidence.

But Idealism, the philosophical system, is much more than that. It has both epistemological and ontological varieties, neither of which is unproblematic. So to help with the basics of philosophy, here you go: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/idealism/

Well, if you had read that article you would understand that:

"...neither Moore nor Russell claimed to have demonstrated that the universe or what exists or can be known to exist is not spiritual or mental. All that they take themselves to have shown is that there are no good philosophical (in contradistinction to, e.g., theological or psychological) arguments available to support such a claim. Moore especially is very explicit about this point. He devotes the first five pages of his famous piece from 1903, “The Refutation of Idealism”, to assuring the reader over and over that

I do not suppose that anything I shall say has the smallest tendency to prove that reality is not spiritual. … Reality may be spiritual, for all I know; and I devoutly hope it is. … It is, therefore, only with idealistic arguments that I am concerned; … I shall have proved that Idealists have no reason whatever for their conclusion. (Philosophical Studies, pp. 2 f.)

And Russell in his The Problems of Philosophy (1912), in a similar vein, warns the reader, after emphasizing the strangeness of an idealistic position from a common sense point of view:

If there were good reasons to regard them [viz. physical objects] as mental, we could not legitimately reject this opinion merely because it strikes us as strange. (1912 [1974: 38])"

I'll say it again: idealism is an underdetermined hypothesis. That in no way is a defence of idealism. What Moore, Russell and any first year philosophy undergraduate understand is that there is no sound argument that proves idealism. What they also understand, which you clearly do not, is that there is no sound refutation of it. Get your head around that, and it will be one small step towards you actually understanding philosophy.

What you mean is there's no particular reason to believe that Idealism is true. So again, why bother to bring it up? It's not a serious objection, obviously. A theory that is "underdetermined," as you prefer to put it, to this degree is simply what honest people call "speculative." And speculations that are associated with no evidence are simply fantasies.

[Will Bouwman]

What you mean is there's no particular reason to believe that Idealism is true.

No, I mean what I said:

...I've been very clear, idealism is an underdetermined hypothesis which is, to my mind, completely consistent with the evidence.

A theory that is "underdetermined," as you prefer to put it, to this degree is simply what honest people call "speculative." And speculations that are associated with no evidence are simply fantasies.

The answers to all philosophical questions, such as whether god exists, are speculative; that's what makes them philosophical. What makes hypotheses underdetermined is that exactly the same evidence can support not just different interpretations, but ones that are mutually exclusive, materialism and idealism being examples. There is no evidence that I am aware of which favours one or the other. If you know of any, write a paper, it will astonish the entire philosophical community.