Philosophy Now Forum

The Holy Books of Christianity and Islam claimed that their God is Perfect, i.e. absolutely perfect as emphasized in various verses.

Christianity

• What is the meaning of perfection in the Bible?
  https://www.gotquestions.org/perfection ... Bible.html
  
  Absolute perfection is a quality that belongs to God alone.
  Yet only in Matthew 5:48 does the Bible explicitly state that God is by nature perfect: “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
  As God is the perfect being, all that He does is perfect: “He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he” (Deuteronomy 32:4).
  His knowledge is perfect (Job 37:16).
  His way is perfect, and His Word is flawless: “As for God, his way is perfect: The LORD’s word is flawless; he shields all who take refuge in him” (Psalm 18:30).
  God’s laws are also perfect (Psalm 19:7; James 1:25).
  The apostle Paul describes God’s will as perfect: “Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will” (Romans 12:2).

Islam

• Declaring Allah's Perfection
  by Amatullah
  In the Qur’an there are a few surahs that begin with tasbeeh, a declaration of Allah’s Perfection, known as Al Musabbihaat. These surahs begin in different forms yet they all point to the same thing: there is no Rabb higher or greater than Allah azza wa jal.
  
  Tasbeeh comes from seen-ba-ha (س-ب-ح) and it means to glorify, praise, magnify, extol Allah, by tongue or by heart. It includes:
  
  To say He has no flaw in His Perfection, that He is Far above any imperfection.
  He is far above and beyond any similarity to His Creation.
  He is free from and above all kinds of association (shirk) and any un-divine attributes.
  When one does tasbeeh, they negate any flaw and affirm all perfection in Allah azza wa jal.
  https://www.virtualmosque.com/islam-stu ... erfection/

Brahman
In the major Hindu religions, Brahman is considered to be the Absolute having the quality of absoluteness.

• PHILOSOPHY
  -a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things.
  something that exists without being dependent on anything else.
  -ultimate reality; God.
  - Absolute;
  -the Absolute
  Google Dictionary
  
  
  absolute = free from imperfection; complete; perfect:
  https://www.dictionary.com/browse/absolute

Here's ChatGPT GENERAL view:
(nb: ChatGPT's view should only be taken as a general view and not something authoritative and conclusive)

In Hinduism, Brahman is indeed considered the Ultimate Reality or Absolute, but the concept of perfection may be understood differently compared to the monotheistic traditions of Christianity and Islam. Brahman is often described as beyond human comprehension and transcendent, encompassing both the manifest and unmanifest aspects of existence. It is associated with qualities such as infinite consciousness, bliss, and truth. However, the idea of perfection in Hinduism can vary among different philosophical schools and interpretations.

As for other religions, various belief systems around the world have different conceptions of the divine, and the concept of perfection is not universally defined or emphasized. However, some religious traditions do ascribe perfection or divine attributes to their concept of God or the divine. For example:

Judaism: In Judaism, God is understood as being perfect in various ways, including His righteousness, justice, and knowledge. The concept of God's perfection is a significant aspect of Jewish theology.

Sikhism: Sikhism teaches that God, known as Ik Onkar, is perfect and has divine attributes such as omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence. The divine qualities are considered inherent and eternal.

Zoroastrianism: In Zoroastrianism, the supreme deity Ahura Mazda is believed to be perfect in wisdom, goodness, and righteousness. Ahura Mazda is considered the source of all that is good and embodies absolute perfection.

Bahá'í Faith: The Bahá'í Faith teaches that God is perfect and possesses qualities such as knowledge, power, and love. God is seen as the source of all creation and the ultimate reality.

God is claimed to be perfect in all the major religions as a guarantee to secure the inhibition of the innate and inherent cognitive dissonances arising from an existential crisis.

If God is not claimed to be absolutely perfect, then, such an imperfect God is subject to the following;

• 1. Such a God could be a 1 million times more intelligent Matrix God that is creating our current reality, and we are merely sort of brain-in-a-wat or a puppet-on-a-string programmed and controlled by that imperfect Matrix God.
  
  2. An imperfect Matrix God is subject to infinite regression, i.e. who created God and so on.
  
  3. An imperfect is subjected to be ridiculed by other theists who claim their God is of absolute perfection no greater can be conceived.
  
  4. The pains of cognitive dissonances could be triggered when the theist state of mind is weaken at times for some reasons.

Believing in an absolute perfect God is so easy, i.e. merely believe without any need for proofs, the problem of 1, 2, 3 & 4 is resolved.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jun 21, 2023 3:29 am God is claimed to be perfect in all the major religions as a guarantee to secure the inhibition of the innate and inherent cognitive dissonances arising from an existential crisis.

There are all sorts of mixed messages in the major religions and other religions, a number dominated and suppressed by the dominator religions, do not assert perfection - which is a subjective term.

If God is not claimed to be absolutely perfect, then, such an imperfect God is subject to the following;

• 1. Such a God could be a 1 million times more intelligent Matrix God that is creating our current reality, and we are merely sort of brain-in-a-wat or a puppet-on-a-string programmed and controlled by that imperfect Matrix God.
  
  2. An imperfect Matrix God is subject to infinite regression, i.e. who created God and so on.

IOW humans might come up with some kinds of objections. Humans can do that in relation to anything and any concept.

3. An imperfect is subjected to be ridiculed by other theists who claim their God is of absolute perfection no greater can be conceived.

Humans can do all sorts of things. They can mock the claims of science. This doesn't demonstrate anything about ontology.

4. The pains of cognitive dissonances could be triggered when the theist state of mind is weaken at times for some reasons.[/list]

Same issue.

Believing in an absolute perfect God is so easy, i.e. merely believe without any need for proofs, the problem of 1, 2, 3 & 4 is resolved.

And yet despite that deities have been presented in all sorts of ways. As you acknowledge when you admitted that the God of the OT was not absolutely perfect.

I mean, you already admitted that and took pains to show that the NT overrode that version of the deity. Well, it sure didn't do that for Jews.

Christianity and Islam
It is very explicit in the holy texts of Christianity and Islam where is it is claimed that God is perfect. This cover appx 5 billion of theists who must accept their God is perfect as claimed by their God in their holy texts.

Hinduism
The majority of the 1 billion Hindus in believe Brahman is the Absolute with imply 'perfection', say appx. .75 billion will recognize Brahman is Absolute per the Bhagavad Gita and other holy texts.

As such, my OP;
New: It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229
will 'checkmate' 5.75 billion of the 7 billion theists that their God is an illusion and not a real God.
This will shut up the theists who insist their God is real who issued evil commands to do evil on the rest of humanity.
Christians will loose their credibility to impose their claims on non-Christians, e.g. abortion, gay rights, etc.
Muslims will loose their credibility to kill non-Muslim as commanded by their God.

As for the minority who claim God is perfect as reported by ChatGPT, their number is not significant. When the critical mass of the Abrahamic religions and Hinduism 'legs and hands' are cut off and made impotent, the rest will follow easily.

I charged theists who insist -whilst they are not acting on the commands to do evil to non-believers- they are indirectly complicit to the evil acts of their fellow theists.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jun 21, 2023 9:33 am Christianity and Islam
It is very explicit in the holy texts of Christianity and Islam where is it is claimed that God is perfect. This cover appx 5 billion of theists who must accept their God is perfect as claimed by their God in their holy texts.

There are contradictions in the Bible, both testements. A double message.

Hinduism
The majority of the 1 billion Hindus in believe Brahman is the Absolute with imply 'perfection', say appx. .75 billion will recognize Brahman is Absolute per the Bhagavad Gita and other holy texts.

They have a mass of gods and goddesses with all sorts of shenanigans and Vishnu or Shiva or Brahma can be the ulimate deity and, all sorts of fallible shenanigans perpetrated by these deities.

And he we have an ad populum argument. Ruling out the existence of something based on what many people say about that something.

A category error.

It is very explicit in the holy texts of Christianity and Islam where is it is claimed that God is perfect. This cover appx 5 billion of theists who must accept their God is perfect as claimed by their God in their holy texts.

Where is the contradiction that Christianity and Islam claim their God is perfect while at the same time in the same sense, claim their God is imperfect?

Re Hinduism, I am only guessing [don't have exact data]; I believe it is very likely many [out of 1 billion] would have claimed the Supreme Brahman as perfect and absolute.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 6:19 am It is very explicit in the holy texts of Christianity and Islam where is it is claimed that God is perfect. This cover appx 5 billion of theists who must accept their God is perfect as claimed by their God in their holy texts.

Nope, I've pointed out before the parts of the Bible that show other messages about God in both testements. Also you are taking scripture as if it is making scientific claims about God, rather then emotional and poetic claims about God. Further the perfection does not have to be mathematical in nature. Perfect is a subjective evaluation. Perfect for whom must always be asked.

Where is the contradiction that Christianity and Islam claim their God is perfect while at the same time in the same sense, claim their God is imperfect?

The latter shows an imperfect God. I am less familiar with the Koran.

Re Hinduism, I am only guessing [don't have exact data]; I believe it is very likely many [out of 1 billion] would have claimed the Supreme Brahman as perfect and absolute.

Same problems as above.

And you are still using the way people talk about their diety to draw ontological conclusions about reality. That is a category error.

I mean, people said all sorts of things about Kings, Kings. Or how people talk about their kids.

I think you are correct TO A DEGREE that people will tend to push their deities towards ideal conclusions. But that human tendency has NOTHING to do with ontology. And of course many theists don't do this.

1) Category error - what people will tend to say about their vastly more powerful than humans deity cannot be used as evidence about ontology. If a SPECIFIC theists says God is absolutely perfect and I mean this literally, like a scientific statement. THEN you can use your argument. But you can't use it in general to draw an ontological conclusion about God.
2) There are theists who do not believe their deity is this kind of mathematical perfect being. So, you have not disproven anything even about their beliefs, let alone about God.

You can keep repeating your position over and over. But you don't address these issues.

I have stated many times,
a Christian is one who has entered into a divine contract [covenant] with Christ/God and the terms of the contract is confined within the Gospels [words of Christ] ONLY which is in the New Testament.
Whatever is in the OT cannot be part of the contract as contractual terms.
However, the OT is abrogated and act as an appendix or guide to the Christian contract.

The Contract/Covenant With God
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24687

Ontology of God?

• In metaphysics, ontology is the philosophical study of being, as well as related concepts such as existence, becoming, and reality.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology

The ontology of God's existence, becoming and reality is that of an ontology of illusion.

New: It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

God is an Impossibility [to be Real]
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

There is no real God to decide whether it is perfect or imperfect.

The ways people talk and claim about their illusory ontological God is perfect or imperfect is irrelevant to this OP and topic.

What is relevant is what is claimed in the holy texts [the Constitution] that is supposed to be from their illusory God. That is the only authority for theists to make their claims, not based on their own subjective personal views whether their god is perfect or not.

As I had claimed and supported with references, the Christian God and Islamic God claimed in the texts from God, God is perfect.
As such all Christians and Muslims must believe and accept God's claim the God is perfect. Their personal opinion is not relevant on Judgment Day and ignorance is no defense.

As for Hinduism, certain Hindu religions claim their God is the ultimate, Absolute and thus perfect.

My argument;
Where God is claimed to be perfect, such a God cannot exists as real.
New: It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229
this it applicable to at least 5 billion theists.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jun 27, 2023 9:46 am I have stated many times,
a Christian is one who has entered into a divine contract [covenant] with Christ/God and the terms of the contract is confined within the Gospels [words of Christ] ONLY which is in the New Testament.
Whatever is in the OT cannot be part of the contract as contractual terms.

First off, as I have pointed out before, Jewish people regard what Christians call the OT as the Pentateuch or Torah, so whatever you are trying to say doesn't count for Christianity sure does count for Judaism. So, what you tell theists in general is false. And you seem to know this or you wouldn't try to say that OT is not relevant.
However, the OT is abrogated and act as an appendix or guide to the Christian contract.

Second, Christianity is very complicated. Whatever version of Christianity you were brought up in is just one version.

Third, even Jesus doubts, there on the cross, in the NT.

The Contract/Covenant With God
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24687

Ontology of God?

• In metaphysics, ontology is the philosophical study of being, as well as related concepts such as existence, becoming, and reality.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology

The ontology of God's existence, becoming and reality is that of an ontology of illusion.

And now you are changing the topic.

New: It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

God is an Impossibility [to be Real]
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

And those linked posts have been countered

There is no real God to decide whether it is perfect or imperfect.

Also not relevant. No one said God is determining what is perfect or not.

The ways people talk and claim about their illusory ontological God is perfect or imperfect is irrelevant to this OP and topic.

It's you who keep saying that theists must describe their God in a certain way and thus God cannot exist. Now you are saying it is irrelevant.

What is relevant is what is claimed in the holy texts [the Constitution] that is supposed to be from their illusory God. That is the only authority for theists to make their claims, not based on their own subjective personal views whether their god is perfect or not.

You are directly contradicting yourself. You have repeatedly explained why people must say their God is absolutely perfect. And look what you just did
1) you are telling theists what they must believe
2) you are labelling the scriptures OBJECTIVE in contrast to believers SUBJECTIVE beliefs - iow you are telling theists that their scriptures as you interpret them are objective in relation to their subjective beliefs. An atheist is telling theists, all of them, what their beliefs must be and how one must interpret their scriptures.

And not for one second can you either admit or see the utter hypocrisy of doing that.

As I had claimed and supported with references, the Christian God and Islamic God claimed in the texts from God, God is perfect.
As such all Christians and Muslims must believe and accept God's claim the God is perfect. Their personal opinion is not relevant on Judgment Day and ignorance is no defense.

You are treating religious texts of worship as scientific assertions. As if you've never heard of poetic language and romantic idealization.

As for Hinduism, certain Hindu religions claim their God is the ultimate, Absolute and thus perfect.

Thank you for conceding, right there, that some do not claim this. Therefore your generalizations are incorrect.

My argument;
Where God is claimed to be perfect, such a God cannot exists as real.
New: It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229
this it applicable to at least 5 billion theists.

If a theist claims their God is absolutely perfect that applies to what those theists believe.
It doesn't prove anyting about the possiblity of a God. People could, for example, be correct there is a God, but go to far, those that do, in their claims about the qualities of that deity. Humans do that about people they love, leaders, pop stars. That people go overboard is not evidence of the impossiblity of a God.

If a theist says to you that God is absolutely perfect, then you can use your argument about absolute perfection AGIAINST THAT PERSON'S CLAIM ABOUT GOD.

It shows absolutely nothing at all about the ontological possibility of a God or God's existence.

Summary:
You generalized incorrectly about religions and you have conceded this in this post without admitting you are conceding that you generalized.
You tell theists what they must believe and how they must think.
You avoid admitting the Judaism is not like what you say.
You have a strong habit of NEVER conceding anything, even when it is clear that you have something to concede. For example about making sure to distance Christianity from the OT without conceding that there is something that you do not want associated with Christianity because it would cause problems for your generalization about theism, given that Judaism is based on the OT.

There are other problems that have been pointed out by me and others. You repeat yourself over and over. And you change your focus when you realize you may have a problem, without conceding that anyone had a good point or that you needed to change your position or your support for it.

You disingenousness is clear to many people and they have taken pains, some very, very politely - like Flannel Jesus, for example - and this is all simply rejected, though in the ways you avoid responding to certain points, for example, it's clear you at least intuitively feel there has been a problem with your position but cannot bring yourself to admit this openly for some reason.

At times, and in the post I am responding to here, there are so many problems in logic and relevance and cohesion that it's hard to know where to begin in responding.

The way you deal with criticism harms you, not others. Because in the long run you cannot improve your tests or lines of reason, because it seems to you that you can no longer make any mistakes or admit to any.

If you have long term goals in academia or with your various projects for future books, you are cutting yourself off that the knees.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 10:18 pm You have a strong habit of NEVER conceding anything, even when it is clear that you have something to concede.

I guess we aren't really-real to him, we don't deserve to be or can't be treated as fully fledged human beings. Which imo may be one of the best arguments against his kind of anti-realism.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 4:00 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 10:18 pm You have a strong habit of NEVER conceding anything, even when it is clear that you have something to concede.

I guess we aren't really-real to him, we don't deserve to be or can't be treated as fully fledged human beings. Which imo may be one of the best arguments against his kind of anti-realism.

I don't think it's a biproduct of his anti-realism which is fairly recent. This behavior has been present from before. The anti-realism was taken on as a way to deal with PH around what is objective, what is a fact, so that his way of producing morality could be seen as objective. I'm not saying he isn't now an antirealist - with some internal contradictions - just that, at the very least, the habit was there before the antirealist position. Also an anti-realist has no built in reason to interact with others in a certain way or consider them unreal. There may be certain antirealist positions that could do this, but antirealism doesn't necessarily or usually entail that other people are unreal.

He's a metaphysical anti-realist in relation to objects as noumena.
I think it gets interesting around how such a view relates to other people. Other people are perceivers, so they continue to exist when VA is not around to look at them. But I wonder how he knows they are perceivers. IOW I wonder how his view doesn't entail solipsism. There are many antirealisms that do not in any way entail solipsism, but I have yet to get a clear sense of his version.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 6:54 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 4:00 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jun 30, 2023 10:18 pm You have a strong habit of NEVER conceding anything, even when it is clear that you have something to concede.

I guess we aren't really-real to him, we don't deserve to be or can't be treated as fully fledged human beings. Which imo may be one of the best arguments against his kind of anti-realism.

I don't think it's a biproduct of his anti-realism which is fairly recent. This behavior has been present from before. The anti-realism was taken on as a way to deal with PH around what is objective, what is a fact, so that his way of producing morality could be seen as objective. I'm not saying he isn't now an antirealist - with some internal contradictions - just that, at the very least, the habit was there before the antirealist position. Also an anti-realist has no built in reason to interact with others in a certain way or consider them unreal. There may be certain antirealist positions that could do this, but antirealism doesn't necessarily or usually entail that other people are unreal.

He's a metaphysical anti-realist in relation to objects as noumena.
I think it gets interesting around how such a view relates to other people. Other people are perceivers, so they continue to exist when VA is not around to look at them. But I wonder how he knows they are perceivers. IOW I wonder how his view doesn't entail solipsism. There are many antirealisms that do not in any way entail solipsism, but I have yet to get a clear sense of his version.

Well I wonder if we would go back and remove Kantianism, anti-realism, Buddhism and Advaita from him, would we still find a schizoid and a naive realist?

But did he say he knows there are perceivers? I thought he thinks that others only exist until he does.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 7:01 am But did he say he knows there are perceivers? I thought he thinks that others only exist until he does.

I am pretty sure he's never said that. Impossible to say for sure given the vast number of posts and worse vast number of threads he creates, but I both doubt it and don't think so.

But when I have pressed around this issue, I haven't gotten a clear answer as to why his particular antirealism does not entail solipsism. He has made it clear that in relation to objects we have sense data but we cannot go further than that and posit noumena (ding an sich, things in themselves, things that exist when not perceived, external reality). He has made it clear that he does not claim solipsism and does not believe in it. But not clear to me why his particular antirealism doesn't entail solipsism. All he has as an individual who wakes up in bed in the morning is sense data of other people when he encounters them. He has said elsewhere that if you assume something is real, it can't be real. You must directly experience it. Well, he doesn't encounter the minds, the experiencing of other people. All he encounters and experiences are sense data: their voice, facial expressions, words. He does not encounter the self that is experiencing in the other.

He is utterly clear that we cannot posit noumena as the source of our experiences of things. That we could only assume a source in things out there.

So, I have tried to get an answer as to why he thinks there are other minds. It seems to me this is an assumption and therefore can't be true.

His ontology is extreme. More cautious antirealists might say we don't know. He says can't be real.

But it seems he allows himself to assume there are other minds behind the facial expressions, voices, words, postures of 'other people'.

And so far, I have not gotten a good answer from him as to why.

I think his beliefs preclude an argument like 'they look like me and behave like me and produce arguments, expressiveness like me, scientific research finds similar DAN...and so on .....so it is a logical conclusion that they also, like me, are experiencing and have minds/selves that produce those sense data.' That argument parallels in so many ways the realist arguments around the existense of external reality. It is a deducing the existence of other minds, rather than a direct perception. It's a fine argument, but his other beliefs and arguments would make using it hypocritical.

That doesn't he can't produce a good argument, but so far I haven't seen it. And he doesn't seem to even understand it.

When I recently brought this issue up again, instead of directly responding to me, he started a new thread say that realists don't believe in other minds. Which is absurd since realists do NOT have to have direct experience of something for it to be considered real. They believe in noumena so other minds can easily be assumed or considered rational conclusions of deduction. Their harnds are not tied like his are by his particular form of antirealism. Or so it seems to me. I could be wrong. But it is rather amazing how long one has to chase down a clear response.

I eventually get cranky in a likely counterproductive way. But people like Flannel Jesus, whose patience and politeness I admire, seem also not to get clear responses despite long interactions.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 7:14 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 7:01 am But did he say he knows there are perceivers? I thought he thinks that others only exist until he does.

I am pretty sure he's never said that. Impossible to say for sure given the vast number of posts and worse vast number of threads he creates, but I both doubt it and don't think so.

But when I have pressed around this issue, I haven't gotten a clear answer as to why his particular antirealism does not entail solipsism. He has made it clear that in relation to objects we have sense data but we cannot go further than that and posit noumena (ding an sich, things in themselves, things that exist when not perceived, external reality). He has made it clear that he does not claim solipsism and does not believe in it. But not clear to me why his particular antirealism doesn't entail solipsism. All he has as an individual who wakes up in bed in the morning is sense data of other people when he encounters them. He has said elsewhere that if you assume something is real, it can't be real. You must directly experience it. Well, he doesn't encounter the minds, the experiencing of other people. All he encounters and experiences are sense data: their voice, facial expressions, words. He does not encounter the self that is experiencing in the other.

He is utterly clear that we cannot posit noumena as the source of our experiences of things. That we could only assume a source in things out there.

So, I have tried to get an answer as to why he thinks there are other minds. It seems to me this is an assumption and therefore can't be true.

His ontology is extreme. More cautious antirealists might say we don't know. He says can't be real.

But it seems he allows himself to assume there are other minds behind the facial expressions, voices, words, postures of 'other people'.

And so far, I have not gotten a good answer from him as to why.

I think his beliefs preclude an argument like 'they look like me and behave like me and produce arguments, expressiveness like me, scientific research finds similar DAN...and so on .....so it is a logical conclusion that they also, like me, are experiencing and have minds/selves that produce those sense data.' That argument parallels in so many ways the realist arguments around the existense of external reality. It is a deducing the existence of other minds, rather than a direct perception. It's a fine argument, but his other beliefs and arguments would make using it hypocritical.

That doesn't he can't produce a good argument, but so far I haven't seen it. And he doesn't seem to even understand it.

When I recently brought this issue up again, instead of directly responding to me, he started a new thread say that realists don't believe in other minds. Which is absurd since realists do NOT have to have direct experience of something for it to be considered real. They believe in noumena so other minds can easily be assumed or considered rational conclusions of deduction. Their harnds are not tied like his are by his particular form of antirealism. Or so it seems to me. I could be wrong. But it is rather amazing how long one has to chase down a clear response.

I eventually get cranky in a likely counterproductive way. But people like Flannel Jesus, whose patience and politeness I admire, seem also not to get clear responses despite long interactions.

I think he thinks he's not a solipsist, because Kant said so. I still think that you only exist to him tentatively as long he's using an FSK that allows this (he's so generous that he even grants you a mind of your own, as long as you exist to him). But ultimately you don't really exist to him.