In any case, as reality is in our own heads and an interpretation of a 'possible' material world around us, it essentially could still be in your head even if you allowed it credence.
I get solipsism and respect the foundations of it, but when we talk about an entity that is responsible for creating the "possible" material world and our ability to "interpret" it then there is no place for interpretations, if you need solipsism to defend the existence of God, I interpret it as a rhetorical surrender. Can you see why?
if someone truly believed this, you may consider it insane but again, it would be with your own phaneron. As we are all in our own phaneron, that could very well be a reality in someone else's mind.
Again, we are talking about God, the afterlife and meaning and duties of this life, there is no place in my opinion for any such nonchalance. If we talked about colors for example, than it would be fair to conclude that red is mostly red but not always, not for everyone. But regarding God, I'd put solipsism and the beauty of a diverse spectrum of subjective opinions - aside, away.
My point is that we are ALL theists. Because of our phaneron.
Please if you may - define this concept. I understand it as the whole effect and existance of a concept, whatever concept that is, in a single, some person's mind. Is that it?
I have many theories about what 'God' could be.
I'm pretty sure that polytheism is the belief in many gods, as opposed to monotheism - the belief in a singular. I've never heard of a term for holding many theories about God. Although I have heard that the ability to consciously hold contradictory beliefs is a merit of geniuses. 😀
I get solipsism and respect the foundations of it, but when we talk about an entity that is responsible for creating the "possible" material world and our ability to "interpret" it then there is no place for interpretations, if you need solipsism to defend the existence of God, I interpret it as a rhetorical surrender. Can you see why?
======> Everything is an interpretation until we have the adequate epistemology to say otherwise. There is no place for certainty - I don't see this as rhetorical surrender - rather as keeping an open mind and understanding the limitations, not only of ourselves - but the information we are drip fed by powerful institutions.
Again, we are talking about God, the afterlife and meaning and duties of this life, there is no place in my opinion for any such nonchalance. If we talked about colors for example, than it would be fair to conclude that red is mostly red but not always, not for everyone. But regarding God, I'd put solipsism and the beauty of a diverse spectrum of subjective opinions - aside, away.
=======> You are welcome to do that but essentially, I do not have to accept it. As above, even from the point of interpretation, the epistemological data is not available for certainty. This works for or against any argument you or I may have.
=======>Please if you may - define this concept. I understand it as the whole effect and existance of a concept, whatever concept that is, in a single, some person's mind. Is that it?
You have this correct as far as my point of view - I don't believe otherwise but am happy to be convinced - however how can you convince me unless you have the ability to see things in a higher resolution than your eyes?
I'm pretty sure that polytheism is the belief in many gods, as opposed to monotheism - the belief in a singular. I've never heard of a term for holding many theories about God. Although I have heard that the ability to consciously hold contradictory beliefs is a merit of geniuses.
========> I am no genius - but I have many questions unanswered and concrete proof that powerful institutions and organisations rule the world, and concrete proof that they lie regularly.
P.S. How do you do those neat and tidy quote indents?
Just like that, make sure there's an extra like between the quote and anything else, so it doesn't get messed up..
Line below quotation with extra line in between.
Surely. And I guess that in your opinion there's no such thing as adequate epistemology to say that a "classical" God doesn't exist. But here is a much better definition of an atheist: a person who regards the existing epistemology as more than enough to raise a healthy denial of an idea that was useful in times where epistemology wasn't even a thing. Or something along these lines.
Ok, but do you see why anyone could consider your reduction of God to a solipsistic blip to be exactly that?
That's an excellent point, in essence the entire discussion around the existence of God could be regarded to be ultimately futile, but notice that it wasn't God who convinced all of these people to believe in him - and it wasn't him convincing all those atheists and agnostics to "drop" their faith, either. So philosophy speaking you're right, I can't convince you with perfect epistemology, but practically - I totally can because we constantly do convince each other off things with much less than adequate epistemology.
This isn't my goal in the conversation of course, I'm just saying..
For example, I can tell you about how the story of a creator is a consequence of our biology and the symbolic framework that it enforces on our psyche, I'd try to explain how God myths were created separately yet so similarly throughout the world and thus render the phaneron of God to be biological necessity.
I take off my hat for you, really. That was a great discussion. Thank you.
I see what you mean, but isn't it the only way? Even the news cannot deliver the facts without misrepresenting some aspect of the subject in some way according to someone. Even our brain, creating every phaneron, is "giving" "us" "his" best guess of what would be most "useful". And governments need to keep much of the information in secret anyway to allow some stability and safety to the people.
I enjoyed our discussion and will reflect on all you said. Stay classy