There is no evidence for a biblical jesus

[Rational Gaze]

Then rebut him.

I did. His argument in response is akin to shouting "Fish!" when asked what the time is. Although it doesn't matter now, since I articulated a more detailed reason for rejecting Jaecp's absurd non-sequiturs.

[Rational Gaze]

I've already mentioned this, but there is another good objection to Solipsism (although it is kind of related to points already made) and that is: it is just inexplicable why the Solipsist and only the Solipsist exists. If the Solipsist can exist as a phenomenon, then why can't anything else? In short: there is just no good reason to suppose why only one phenomenon (the Solipsist) exists. The only way out would be to claim that the Solipsist is God, yet that is evidently not the case.

[Tassman]

No hurry, but at some point you'll have to decide whether it's OK to take refuge in theoretical physics or not.

Whose taking “refuge in theoretical physics”?

You've dismissed somebody else's comments here because they do that, according to you. But then you turn around and take refuge from Aquinas in theoretical physics, namely the Quantum Universe. This is probably a mere slip up, and you'd never be so unprincipled on purpose. But you might want to re-think this, choose a position, and stick with it.

Cheers bud.
Glenn

You haven’t followed he argument, Glenn, namely that verified empirical evidence overrides philosophical argumentation if the two contradict. And the philosophical arguments of Aquinas are contradicted by the verified empirical arguments of quantum mechanics (which were unknown in Aquinas’s time). The consequence is that the Aquinas arguments are now invalid because they are based solely on the macro universe and do not take the micro univers of quantum into account..

What RG is underhandedly trying to do is argue that a philosophical argument can make valid points – not against verified empirical evidence, which they cannot – but against mere scientific hypotheses, which they most certainly can because a mere hypothesis has yet to be verified. But this is not what’s under discussion.

Jamie.

[lilpixieofterror]

Ok you a solipsist, that explains it, I can very much disregard anything further you have to say. If you can't know anything, how can you know Christianity is true. How can you know the NT, the resurrection, by arguing in this way you have defeated your own argument.

I see that Bert still doesn't get my point (not too surprising since he is a little slow).

No you haven't you've just gone off on a tangent. And refused to clarify, because you’re scared I will be able to answer your question.

Of course it's a 'tangent' it proves you to be a simpleton that is taking about things he doesn't has the education to understand or grasp. It's ok though, a junior high education doesn't go too far in today's world.

I would if you actually clarified it for me. but luckily by shear chance, this time you have showed me you are a solipsist.

Ummm no I'm not and to seriously get that form what I said shows me you're an idiot of the first degree. I am telling you without the philosophical understanding of the world around us, we can not know anything for sure which means it is possible that solipsism is true. Are you seriously so much of a dunce that you don't understand that I am taking YOUR logic and using it against you to show how dumb your logic really is/

So you think you’re the only conscious, you’re the brain in a vat, ok. Wow! You must be god.

I am saying if you take away the philosophical understanding of the world, you can't prove or disprove it. Is taking your logic and using it against you overloading your tiny brain? If so, I'll try to dumb it down for you and make it simpler for you to understand.

Science has found no evidence of their existence, therefore they are unsupported, and unsubstantiated, therefore is it unreasonable to believe in them.

Science can't prove or disprove it idiot because science must use the philosophical assumption that it is false to begin with! Let me give you something more your level so you'll understand it:

Philosophy of science looks at the underpinning logic of the scientific method, at what separates science from non-science, and the ethic that is implicit in science. There are basic assumptions derived from philosophy that form the base of the scientific method - namely, that reality is objective and consistent, that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately, and that rational explanations exist for elements of the real world. These assumptions from methodological naturalism form the basis on which science is grounded. Logical Positivist, empiricist, falsificationist, and other theories have claimed to give a definitive account of the logic of science, but each has in turn been criticized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...ogy_of_science

In other words, you little junior high drop out, anything that assumes that reality is not objective an consistent, that humans do not have the capacity to perceive reality accurately, or assumes that rational explanations do not exist for elements of the real world can not be studied by science because those are philosophical in nature and not scientific in nature. Is there something about that you can't grasp? Do I need to use sock puppets to try to explain this to you or is everything I'm saying beyond your ability to comprehend?

And please don't come back with "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" because absence of evidence is the only evidence of absence, as you can't prove a negative.

Another argument made by simpletons that don't understand logic or reasoning. If you go about and prove that 2+2=4, you have proved that 2+2 does not equal 1,2,3,5,6,7 or anything else but 4. Sorry, but that is total nonsense, the very nature of proving something as true also can prove other things are false. Besides, that isn't my argument to begin with, that is your strawman recreation of it. My argument is that science can not prove or disprove something that doesn't believe sciences key assumptions, an argument that you have failed to grasp because you believe science can answer anything and everything, even stuff outside it's field of knowledge. The bottom line is that I'm not a solipsist you dumb twit, but instead I am arguing that you must use philosophy, not science, to disprove the idea of solipsism since it is philosophical in nature.

And how many times have you been rude to me. We can now add hypocrite to your list of faults. Please don't make me laugh, about your arguments being sound you've refuted yourself already.

First, I'm not the one whining and crying about people being mean to me and then going on to be mean to people I disagree with, you do though, so sorry, the only hypocrite here is you. Second, no you haven't defeated my arguments because you don't grasp them to begin with. You're more like the child that is trying to tell the adult that their mud pie taste as good as their apple pie and refuses to listen to the adult tell them that mud can't be eaten, but the apple pie can be. I have supported my arguments and you're too dumb to understand them, let alone refute them. Now, go back to your junior high science class, I wouldn't want you to hurt your little head trying to understand how real science is done.

Woopti doo you’re a working woman, well so is my wife. Having a career and education, so what. I could claim I'm god it does not make it true.

It's too bad it is true while you're just a junior high drop out, that thinks he knows more then Christians just because they are not atheist. That is what happens, when arrogance is combined with incompetence, it produces dunces like you that thinks he knows more then he really does. So how is your 7th grade science class going? Have you launched bottle rockets yet?

If you’re a biology major then you should know that science is demonstrable, because don't micro-organisms invade the human body and attack living cells, can't we see this happening under microscope, also doesn't our understanding of evolution allow us to create vaccines to fight off viruses, or did you get your major from a Christian diploma factory.

First off, never been to a Christian school in my life. Second, I know a number of Christian schools that have excellent biology departments that believe the theory of evolution is true (see unlike you, I know not all Christian universities are like Bob Jones U), Third I am not debating science retard, but your limited grasp on philosophy and the key philosophical understandings that science uses to stand on. The bottom line is that solipsism is a philosophical belief that says that the world we live in is a delusion. Science, at it's core, is a philosophical belief that the world we live in is very real and things really happen to us, in this real world. Anyway, these two beliefs must be debated in the philosophical world, not the scientific since science can not debate something that doesn't use it's world view to start with. What about this do you not understand? My education taught me that science is a tool among many and to pretend it's an all knowing power that can answer questions outside it's field is for the ignorant and uneducated. Which tells me, you're ignorant and uneducated since you don't understand these simple truths.

As a side note Christianity is actually more at home in the scientific world view because Christian philosophical understandings also say the world around us really exist and is very real. Solipsism is more at home in Hinduism or Buddhism since the key philosophical understandings of these two religions is that the world is a delusion and the fact you don't know this and seriously think I'm a Solipsist, tells me how uneducated you really are.

It's funny how you couldn't name the specifics last time, using such a broad term as "sciences" that’s why I don't believe you have any such thing.

Why should I? We were discussing the broad fields of philosophy and science, what does the specifics have to do with the debate? Oh, I know what it has to do with anything, you're way over your head and looking for any distractions you can to run with your tail between your legs. Any refuge in a storm would do, I see... now go back to your junior high science class so you can sound smart in front of all of those 12 year olds and let the real expects do science and philosophy.

[bertatberts]

I see that Bert still doesn't get my point (not too surprising since he is a little slow).

I think you missed the point. If you argue in this way, all you are succeeding in doing is claiming we can know nothing and making every believe irrational, subsequently making it impossible for you to know Jesus existed, impossible for you to know that any of your experiences are real. It destroys your belief.

Of course it's a 'tangent' it proves you to be a simpleton that is taking about things he doesn't has the education to understand or grasp. It's ok though, a junior high education doesn't go too far in today's world.

No. What it demonstrates is that you cannot make a statement without an insult, and are unwilling to clarify so I can better answer your question.

Ummm no I'm not and to seriously get that form what I said shows me you're an idiot of the first degree. I am telling you without the philosophical understanding of the world around us, we can not know anything for sure which means it is possible that solipsism is true. Are you seriously so much of a dunce that you don't understand that I am taking YOUR logic and using it against you to show how dumb your logic really is

Are you actually reading my replies or are you just anticipating what you think I'm saying.
While philosophy and science are permanently intertwined, philosophy can discuss certain ideas, but it cannot demonstrate them to be true without evidence. Therefore no matter how much philosophers talk, it will always remain just a idea until evidence is brought forth.
If you believe philosophy has demonstrated anything to be true, then please give me an example.

I am saying if you take away the philosophical understanding of the world, you can't prove or disprove it. Is taking your logic and using it against you overloading your tiny brain? If so, I'll try to dumb it down for you and make it simpler for you to understand.

Once again do you actually read my statements, no one said philosophy is unnecessary, simply that it does not have the power and stature of science, and never will.

Science can't prove or disprove it idiot because science must use the philosophical assumption that it is false to begin with! Let me give you something more your level so you'll understand it:

On the contrary, it all depends on what attributes you give to your god, a god that interferes with the universe e.g. Answers prayers, performs miracles is very much demonstrable.

that reality is objective and consistent,

Reality is objective and consistent, if you don't think it is then why don't you test it on a busy street, and see if cars do hurt when they hit you.
If you killed somebody wouldn’t there be consequences for your actions. If you killed yourself would everything else cease to exist?

that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately,

We already know that we don't perceive reality accurately, as previously stated, we see only a fraction of the visual spectrum, it is similar when it comes to hearing, but our need has allowed us to develop tools that can.
Two fundamental errors I noticed in the philosophy of science, the philosophy of science is not generally accepted amongst scientists, which no doubt lead to Physicist Richard Phillips Feynman to say "Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds."

My argument is that science can not prove or disprove something that doesn't believe sciences key assumptions.

Then it cannot demonstrate its validity this is an argument that you have failed to grasp because you believe philosophy can answer any question without validating it.

even stuff outside it's field of knowledge. The bottom line is that I'm not a solipsist you dumb twit, but instead I am arguing that you must use philosophy, not science, to disprove the idea of solipsism since it is philosophical in nature.

And as previously stated, it can be discussed but not demonstrated to be true without some sort of evidence to validate it, so it will forever remain an idea and unreasonable to accept.

First, I'm not the one whining and crying about people being mean to me and then going on to be mean to people I disagree with,

Wow! Your delusion has caused you to be blind to your own behaviour; you have repeatedly insulted me before I ever insulted you. I suggest you look in the mirror my dear.

Second, no you haven't defeated my arguments because you don't grasp them to begin with. You're more like the child that is trying to tell the adult that their mud pie taste as good as their apple pie and refuses to listen to the adult tell them that mud can't be eaten, but the apple pie can be. I have supported my arguments and you're too dumb to understand them, let alone refute them. Now, go back to your junior high science class, I wouldn't want you to hurt your little head trying to understand how real science is done.

You haven't yet presented any significant accepted argument, only fringe ideas that have no basis in fact.

It's too bad it is true while you're just a junior high drop out,

Firstly, you don't know my qualifications, and I wouldn't plaster them around, because I could say anything.
Secondly, I don't believe you, your slip of the tongue (finger) lead me to that.

Third I am not debating science retard,

Yes you were, you were arguing that science cannot truly know anything. If you got cancer would you let the doctors treat you or would you just pray. I would bet the former.

but your limited grasp on philosophy and the key philosophical understandings that science uses to stand on.

Exactly, philosophy is the theoretical,(using the layman's definition) science is the practical.

Science, at it's core, is a philosophical belief that the world we live in is very real and things really happen to us, in this real world.

Science is not a philosophical belief because it can demonstrate its claims. It may have begun that way, but it has been refined over the centuries to become empirical in nature, graduating to knowledge not belief.

Anyway, these two beliefs must be debated in the philosophical world, not the scientific since science cannot debate something that doesn't use its world view to start with. What about this do you not understand? My education taught me that science is a tool among many and to pretend it's an all knowing power that can answer questions outside it's field is for the ignorant and uneducated.

Well your understanding of science leaves a lot to be desired. Science is the study of the natural world, that means it encompasses all that exists, there is nothing outside its field, unless your referring to the supernatural, which has never even in the smallest sense, been shown that anything supernatural can exist.
Plus, If you don't use the globally accept scientific method, then you have created your own way of discerning the truth, which makes it impossible for you to validate your claims, demoting you to a nut.

As a side note Christianity is actually more at home in the scientific world view because Christian philosophical understandings also say the world around us really exist and is very real. Solipsism is more at home in Hinduism or Buddhism since the key philosophical understandings of these two religions is that the world is a delusion and the fact you don't know this

Hinduism is only solipsistic in the most primitive of ways, and Buddhism slightly more, however Christianity also believes in a divine consciousness, but that is not what you said. You stated "Without the philosophical understanding that the universe is a physical place that exists outside of a person’s mind, how can you know anything?" thus you consider yourself to be the divine conscious. The "brain in a vat"

and seriously think I'm a Solipsist.

I couldn't care less what you are or aren't, you told me, you were a solipsist and here you are still positing it, as your beliefs. If you’re not, then why push it.

Why should I? We were discussing the broad fields of philosophy and science, what does the specifics have to do with the debate? Oh, I know what it has to do with anything.

Because you used a terminology that I would expect to hear from my seven year old son, not something I would expect from someone who claims to have a major in Biology. This is why I don't believe a word of it. Also I can be sure of one thing, there is absolutely no way you’re working for one of my companies.

[Rational Gaze]

What RG is underhandedly trying to do is argue that a philosophical argument can make valid points – not against verified empirical evidence, which they cannot – but against mere scientific hypotheses, which they most certainly can because a mere hypothesis has yet to be verified. But this is not what’s under discussion.

No, what you are doing, is repeatedly moving the goalposts, the signature move of those who are painfully aware how bankrupt their claims are, but don't have the intellectual and/or emotional maturity to admit it.

[lilpixieofterror]

I think you missed the point. If you argue in this way, all you are succeeding in doing is claiming we can know nothing and making every believe irrational, subsequently making it impossible for you to know Jesus existed, impossible for you to know that any of your experiences are real. It destroys your belief.

And the point keeps flying right over bert's tiny little head... It's ok, reasoning is very hard for you, isn't it? Might want to read what I said instead of what you wanted to hear becuase I am not a believer in solipsism at all. I was just pointing out how it is impossible to debate it upon the absurd standards you try to. It can only be debated in philosophy.

No. What it demonstrates is that you cannot make a statement without an insult, and are unwilling to clarify so I can better answer your question.

Anybody with a brain could figure out my point Bert, which is you can only debate solipsism and if it's true within philosophy, since science can not answer something that doesn't agree with it's key assumptions. I also think the same person that spends his days insults Christians online for disagreeing with him is hardly in a position to whine about insults, but consistency isn't your thing, is it?

Are you actually reading my replies or are you just anticipating what you think I'm saying.

I was going to ask you the same question, but I have answered your ranting and showed you didn't understand my argument from the get go. I do not believe in solipsism dill weed, I was pointing out that only philosophy can properly debate it since it's out of the realm of science and it seems you still haven't figured this out. Do you have this hard of a time grasping easy points?

While philosophy and science are permanently intertwined, philosophy can discuss certain ideas, but it cannot demonstrate them to be true without evidence. Therefore no matter how much philosophers talk, it will always remain just a idea until evidence is brought forth.

And it's too bad for you that evidence exist in several forms, huh? Again, have you actual ever had a philosophy class or even popped open a philosophy books, ever? Philosophy is about more then talking because I hate to bring you bad news, but science developed from philosophy and science still needs key philosophical truths in order to stand up.

If you believe philosophy has demonstrated anything to be true, then please give me an example.

The scientific method is philosophical at it's core, so is theory of government, so is the problem of evil, so is logical truths, etc. Again, have you ever, in your life, opened up any sort of philosophy book and actually tried to read it or did it make your head hurt because it wasn't about worshiping science?

Once again do you actually read my statements, no one said philosophy is unnecessary, simply that it does not have the power and stature of science, and never will.

Yes I did and you showed you don't understand philosophy or science at all. Again idiot, the scientific method NEEDS key philosophical assumptions in order to work and these key assumptions are not proved though science at all, but philosophy. Guess what that means? Science is subject to philosophy, not the verse and sorry not any amount of crying, whining, or assertions will make it others. Philosophy does not need science to stand at all and has existed thousands of years before the invention of modern science and would exist regardless of science. Science, on the other hand, needs philosophy in order to stand since it developed from philosophy and still stands on key philosophical understands. Why do you fail to grasp this? These are facts you can not deny and are all backed up, by those who actually have any sort of understand or education in science and/or philosophy. It's only scientific illiterates that try to make science into some sort of all knowing god.

On the contrary, it all depends on what attributes you give to your god, a god that interferes with the universe e.g. Answers prayers, performs miracles is very much demonstrable.

And what does this have to do with God? Anyway, you again show your ignorance of science becuase in order for something to be tested by science, it must be able to be repeated over and over again, yet where in the Bible does it say God is obligated to do what I and others want him to do? Nowhere I'm aware of. Fundy atheist always seem to forget that Christian gives God free will to act how he pleases and if he doesn't want to make himself scientifically testable, then he doesn't have to.

Reality is objective and consistent, if you don't think it is then why don't you test it on a busy street, and see if cars do hurt when they hit you.

And again, if a belief says this is all delusions, how do you know they are wrong? They would say that is merely a delusion and nothing more. Why do you fail to grasp this? You can not refute a belief system, by using another system that rejects it's key claims. You must instead look at it's key claims and see if they are logically consistent, thus you must dive into philosophy and attack it's philosophical foundations. Why do you fail to grasp this very simple thing?

If you killed somebody wouldn’t there be consequences for your actions. If you killed yourself would everything else cease to exist?

If you cease to exist and everything is just a delusion, does it really matter? Again, you show the world how stupid you really are and how you fail to grasp the simplest of things. Solipsism must be debated on philosophical grounds because saying it's not materialism isn't an argument against it at all (which is just what you are trying to do).

We already know that we don't perceive reality accurately, as previously stated, we see only a fraction of the visual spectrum, it is similar when it comes to hearing, but our need has allowed us to develop tools that can.
Two fundamental errors I noticed in the philosophy of science, the philosophy of science is not generally accepted amongst scientists, which no doubt lead to Physicist Richard Phillips Feynman to say "Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds."

Then Richard Phillips Feynman is an idiot that is talking about things outside his field. Like it or not, without philosophy, science can't exist and it's a fact you can't refute and quoting other ignorant people, that don't understand that, isn't an argument because I'm sure if you were to sweep his philosophical assumptions out from under him and watch him try to scientifically defend them, he couldn't. You've failed to do that so far, which tells me how weak your position really is and how desperate you are to avoid the weakness of your failed arguments.

BTW I find it pretty funny that Richard Phillips Feynman would knock philosophy when he was a PhD holder (just so you are aware PhD stands for Doctor of Philosophy). Goes to show, even the education are not above self refutation themselves.

Then it cannot demonstrate its validity this is an argument that you have failed to grasp because you believe philosophy can answer any question without validating it.

More strawman I see, but when you don't understand the argument and try to badly represent it, you make these sort of huge blunders. No child, I believe philosophy is the key to understand this debate and it's something you've failed to grasp over and over again. The fact remains that you can't prove or disprove solipsism though scientific means because science can't answer something that doesn't hold to it's key philosophical understandings. Something you fail to grasp, over and over and over again.

And as previously stated, it can be discussed but not demonstrated to be true without some sort of evidence to validate it, so it will forever remain an idea and unreasonable to accept.

Which again, shows me you don't understand philosophy. Again, have you ever taken a philosophy class or ever bother to read a philosophy book? The answers seems to be 'no'.

Wow! Your delusion has caused you to be blind to your own behaviour; you have repeatedly insulted me before I ever insulted you. I suggest you look in the mirror my dear.

I don't care about insults or not, but I think it's funny that a person that spends his days whining about how mean Christians are to him has no problem insulting those that disagree with him. Here's a tip child, if you're going to whine about insults, don't engage in them yourself because it makes you look like a two timing hypocrite when you do so.

You haven't yet presented any significant accepted argument, only fringe ideas that have no basis in fact.

Yeah 'fringe ideas' that are facts you haven't refuted, but showed you didn't understand.

Firstly, you don't know my qualifications, and I wouldn't plaster them around, because I could say anything.

And I doubt they would be true since you don't understand the nature of philosophy or science. One has to actually sound like they know what they are talking about before others believe them. You haven't shown anywhere where I am wrong, but you sure have shown you don't understand what I tell you, which leads me to believe your education level isn't as high as you are trying to make it sound. So, how is your 7th grade science class going?

Secondly, I don't believe you, your slip of the tongue (finger) lead me to that.

Oh yeah, I use a general phrase must mean I am just lying. Sorry, I used a general term because the specifics are quite irrelevant. If you don't believe me, I really do not care what junior high schoolers think or care. It's cute though that you think you got an argument here. You're argument is as stupid as a doctor saying he's a 'doctor' and you thinking you got him becuase he didn't specifically say what specific doctor he was. Junior high schoolers are so cute when they think they got an argument.

Yes you were, you were arguing that science cannot truly know anything. If you got cancer would you let the doctors treat you or would you just pray. I would bet the former.

Ummm no I wasn't stupid, which again shows me, you don't understand what you read. What I was actually aruging for and about was that science needs philosophical key assumptions to stand and it's a fact you have yet to refute, but instead you simply called me a bunch of names becuase you couldn't answer it. Poor child, he's so lost and

Exactly, philosophy is the theoretical,(using the layman's definition) science is the practical.

Again you show you don't understand what you read or what science and philosophy is all about. They both deal with practical and theoretical dim wit or have you ever heard of 'theoretical physics' or 'philosophy of science'?

Science is not a philosophical belief because it can demonstrate its claims. It may have begun that way, but it has been refined over the centuries to become empirical in nature, graduating to knowledge not belief.

Again have you ever read a philosophy book?

Well your understanding of science leaves a lot to be desired. Science is the study of the natural world, that means it encompasses all that exists, there is nothing outside its field, unless your referring to the supernatural, which has never even in the smallest sense, been shown that anything supernatural can exist.

So you can scientifically prove that George Washington was the first president of the US? Sweet! So now, present your scientific evidence or again, are you so stupid that you don't understand that science can't know anything and everything? My understand of science is fine and I know that science can't prove that and I await for you scientific evidence. Get cracking or did you just get done showing the world that you're just a junior high science student that thinks his science fair project is some sort of treasure?

Plus, If you don't use the globally accept scientific method, then you have created your own way of discerning the truth, which makes it impossible for you to validate your claims, demoting you to a nut.

I don't? You're evidence for this is what? Oh, I know what it is, I don't worship science and believe it can answer questions that are outside it's field. The scientific method can not test claims that can't be repeated idiot, so it can't test historical claims. It can not test itself, and it can't test claims of a philosophical nature. Again, it's not my fault that you are still in the 7th grade and haven't actually had a real science class. Sorry dear, but the only nut here is yourself, but go to the natural science forms and tell them what you said here so they could laugh at you too.

Hinduism is only solipsistic in the most primitive of ways, and Buddhism slightly more, however Christianity also believes in a divine consciousness, but that is not what you said. You stated "Without the philosophical understanding that the universe is a physical place that exists outside of a person’s mind, how can you know anything?" thus you consider yourself to be the divine conscious. The "brain in a vat"

WOOSH! The point says as it flies right over your tiny little brain. Ummm idiot, I was taking YOUR logic and show how absurd it really is and the fact you haven't refuted it and instead called me lots of names and refused to engage it shows me that you can't show it. So have you scientifically proved what I asked you yet? Yes or no?

I couldn't care less what you are or aren't, you told me, you were a solipsist and here you are still positing it, as your beliefs. If you’re not, then why push it.

Ummm no idiot, I was using YOUR LOGIC AGAINST YOU!!!!! Do I have to repeat this a few more times? In other words retard, I was assuming solipsism, from the get go just to show how dumb you really are and the fact you failed to grasp this and instead really believe I hold to this position, tells me how dumb you really are. What's the problem, can you not scientifically disprove it and know it so you're trying every little dodge you can to avoid admitting you are wrong? Keep digging that hole deeper and keep showing everybody that you made a blunder and are too full of pride to admit it. However, you couldn't even admit to a simple spelling error, so why do I expect you to admit to an error now? I don't, I'm just amusing myself at your expense and watching you twist like Dorthy's house before it landed in Oz.

Because you used a terminology that I would expect to hear from my seven year old son, not something I would expect from someone who claims to have a major in Biology. This is why I don't believe a word of it. Also I can be sure of one thing, there is absolutely no way you’re working for one of my companies.

Again, this is sort of like listening to a person whine that a doctor didn't say what specific field of medicine he was involved in (which there's numerous ones) and therefore saying he can't be a doctor, even when he displays his familiarity with medicine (such as how I displayed my understanding of the scientific method). This shows me, you're desperate to dodge the argument because I doubt you understand a thing about science or philosophy judging by how poorly your grasp them. It's ok though, you need something to salvage your ego from defeat and it's far easier doing that then admitting you are wrong. Come back when you graduate high school and sorry, I wouldn't want to work for one of your companies anyway, since you've shown you're a dunce when it comes to basic science or philosophy. You might end up asking to look at an atom under a microscope or something like that.

[Rational Gaze]

Here is something for bertatberts: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...or-bertatberts

Although at this point, I doubt I'll get a response.

[Jaecp]

I suppose I could explain further (although the answer is already self-evident.) Jaecp's claim that learning (for a Solipsist) is merely illusory is internally incoherent. On its face, Jaecp's claims amounts to suggesting that at some point the Solipsist actually knew everything, but, somehow forgot it all, or had their memory erased. But if that is the case, then that implies that the ideas of things (noumenon/forms) exists independently of the Solipsist's mind, if they can be removed from their mind and put back. The second way Jaecp's claim can be interpreted (in fact, Jaecp even directly stated this version outright) is that the Solipsist is simply making up things on the spot. But if idea of a thing does not exist, then how is it possible for the Solipsist to create it? In order to conceive an object in your mind, the very idea of that thing has to exist already, otherwise it is impossible for you to conceive it. If the Solipsist is ignorant of certain noumenon/forms, then where do these ideas exist? This objection alone is enough to refute Solipsism. If there exists noumenon/forms outside of the Solipsist's mind, then Solipsism is false.

Not neccesarily,

If the only thing that exists is the solipsists mind, then what might appear to be noumenon only exist within his mind.

I am not limiting the solipsists possible creative ability in imagining new things. People have created new things in the past. Be quite hard to ask a person in the 10th century what an iPad is. I see no reason why the solipsist could not similarly conceive of new ideas

Also, is it a philosophical consensus that noumenon and concepts actually exist outside of minds? Our conceptions of objects comes from our senses, right?

Also, given the principle of sufficient reason, it is just inexplicable why the Solipsist and only the Solipsist exists phenomenally if the Solipsist is not God. In order to explain their own existence, the Solipsist would have to be an absolutely necessary being, when in actuality, they are finite and contingent.

I don't believe this part has to do with the unfalsifiability of solipsism. That we cannot figure out how it would have gotten started is proof of only that we don't know. Obviously neither of us are solipsists, but to the solipsist perhaps they believe that they are, in fact, that kind of being. If the whole of the world is in their mind, they could even have lived multiple complete lives imagining themselves as difference people.

So the solipsist might wonder how he came to be, but it doesn't actually falsify the notion.

I've already mentioned this, but there is another good objection to Solipsism (although it is kind of related to points already made) and that is: it is just inexplicable why the Solipsist and only the Solipsist exists. If the Solipsist can exist as a phenomenon, then why can't anything else? In short: there is just no good reason to suppose why only one phenomenon (the Solipsist) exists. The only way out would be to claim that the Solipsist is God, yet that is evidently not the case.

That we don't know why something is the way it is, is not evidence against it being the way it is.

Remember RG, you gotta find a way to prove solipsism false. Claiming it is inexplicable isn't an argument. Asking why other things can't exist isn't relevant. You gotta disprove the non-notion that the solipsist is the only one who exists to this pretend solipsist that I am DA'ing up in here

[Rational Gaze]

If the only thing that exists is the solipsists mind, then what might appear to be noumenon only exist within his mind.

Wrong. Already shown why this is untenable. Try again.

I am not limiting the solipsists possible creative ability in imagining new things. People have created new things in the past. Be quite hard to ask a person in the 10th century what an iPad is. I see no reason why the solipsist could not similarly conceive of new ideas

In other words, the answer flew straight over your head (why is that not a surprise?) We can create new things, and develop new ideas, precisely because the external world is NOT an illusion within our own mind.

Also, is it a philosophical consensus that noumenon and concepts actually exist outside of minds?

It depends on who you ask. Strict materialists would probably say no, although there are not too many strict materialists anymore. The laws of logic, and abstract objects, like numbers our at least two things which most philosophers believe exist independently of our knowledge of them.

Our conceptions of objects comes from our senses, right?

Ours do, yes. Which is precisely why Solipsism is false, as I have already explain. Since the external world is just an illusion contained within the Solipsist's mind, they would have know everything, but since they do not... I think I've explained this at least twice now.

So the solipsist might wonder how he came to be, but it doesn't actually falsify the notion.

Doesn't answer the objection.

That we don't know why something is the way it is, is not evidence against it being the way it is.

Yes, it is. For example, if something can indeed pop out of nothing 'uncaused' then it becomes inexplicable why just anything does not just pop into being uncaused. This is rightly regarded (by rational people at least) as a good argument against things just popping into being from non-being uncaused.

Remember RG, you gotta find a way to prove solipsism false. Claiming it is inexplicable isn't an argument. Asking why other things can't exist isn't relevant. You gotta disprove the non-notion that the solipsist is the only one who exists to this pretend solipsist that I am DA'ing up in here

I've already done this. This is just like the time you tried arguing a married-bachelor is a logical possibility.

[Jaecp]

Wrong. Already shown why this is untenable. Try again.

Ah, no you didn't. You've appealed to the existence of them, but from a solipsist perspective they wouldn't exist independently of himself, they would be simply another thing he created/imagined

In other words, the answer flew straight over your head (why is that not a surprise?) We can create new things, and develop new ideas, precisely because the external world is NOT an illusion within our own mind.

You speak down to me, yet you still are unable to falsify solipsism, strange.

Why is developing new ideas is contigent of there being an external world. Why can the solipsist, who is already imagining the world, imagine it slightly more advanced based upon the existing ideas of his that govern the world.

Ours do, yes. Which is precisely why Solipsism is false, as I have already explain. Since the external world is just an illusion contained within the Solipsist's mind, they would have know everything, but since they do not... I think I've explained this at least twice now.

You said so twice, certainly,

But our idea of noumenon don't neccesarily apply to someone who thinks everything he experiences is the product of our imagination.

If he can imagine everything, then anything you talk about falls under the general category of "things the solipsist is imagining"

I also believe I answered your "knows everything" objection already. The solipsist either knows everything and learning is him remembering what he has forgotten or he is creating new information.

Doesn't answer the objection.

Your objection isn't fatal to the concept. So we don't know the starting condition that led to the solipsist, so? That doesn't falsify it. That doesn't prove to t he solipsist that other minds exist

Yes, it is. For example, if something can indeed pop out of nothing 'uncaused' then it becomes inexplicable why just anything does not just pop into being uncaused. This is rightly regarded (by rational people at least) as a good argument against things just popping into being from non-being uncaused.

Are you trying to disprove god being an uncaused cause now or are we still talking about a solipsist?

It seems to me that you've more or less stopped trying to show solipsism to be incorrect and are instead instead just trying to say its implausible. Obviously its implausible. Its downright weird but that doesn't make it wrong on the face of uf it and it doesn't make youtr actual attempts to disprove it any more accurate than they are already.

I've already done this. This is just like the time you tried arguing a married-bachelor is a logical possibility.

No, you haven't, for the reasons I've given above you have failed to deciseively show solipsism to be incorrect. You have not proven it false.

Re: The Married bachelor, I believe my example of that was a man separated from his wife, a status between being married and being a bachelor, with aspects of both. Feel free to say what you will about it I suppose

[Rational Gaze]

Ah, no you didn't. You've appealed to the existence of them, but from a solipsist perspective they wouldn't exist independently of himself, they would be simply another thing he created/imagined

Wrong. Already shown how this is untenable.

You speak down to me, yet you still are unable to falsify solipsism, strange.

Incorrect. I have adequately refuted the view. You are either: a) too stupid to realise, or b) aware of this, but are merely pretending otherwise.

Why is developing new ideas contingent of there being an external world? Why can't the solipsist, who is already imagining the world, imagine it slightly more advanced based upon the existing ideas of his that govern the world.

If all that exists is contained within the Solipsist's mind, then it logically follows they must have knowledge of all possible things. Since they do not, then Solipsism is false.

I also believe I answered your "knows everything" objection already.

No, you haven't.

The solipsist either knows everything and learning is him remembering what he has forgotten or he is creating new information.

Both of which I have refuted. You're not very good at this, are you?

Your objection isn't fatal to the concept.

Asserted, but not shown.

So we don't know the starting condition that led to the solipsist, so? That doesn't falsify it. That doesn't prove to the solipsist that other minds exist

Sorry chump, but this is not what I have said at all. I said it is inexplicable why they are the only phenomenon. Especially considering noumenon exists apart from their knowledge. Until you can provide rational reasons for believing one is all that exists, then this objection stands. Although given your track record, I expect I'll be waiting a very long time for those: i.e. forever.

Are you trying to disprove god being an uncaused cause now or are we still talking about a solipsist?

What on earth are you talking about? The example I provided was an argument against something popping into being from non-being uncased, thus an argument against self-caused effects, not uncaused causes. How you managed to confuse the two is quite puzzling. Although, I suspect the 'confusion' was intentional.

It seems to me that you've more or less stopped trying to show solipsism to be incorrect and are instead instead just trying to say its implausible. Obviously its implausible. Its downright weird but that doesn't make it wrong on the face of uf it and it doesn't make your actual attempts to disprove it any more accurate than they are already.

No. I have provided a number of reasons why Solipsism is false, none of which you have succeeded in refuting.

No, you haven't, for the reasons I've given above you have failed to deciseively show solipsism to be incorrect. You have not proven it false.

Incorrect. I have adequately detailed several objections that undercut Solipsism. All you have done is blurt out random non-sequiturs as if they somehow answer anything I have said.

Re: The Married bachelor, I believe my example of that was a man separated from his wife, a status between being married and being a bachelor, with aspects of both. Feel free to say what you will about it I suppose

It shows that you are someone who doesn't understand logic whatsoever.

[Glenn P]

Whose taking “refuge in theoretical physics”?

According to you, Rational Gaze is. You said that explicitly.

And now you have as well, by appealing to the Quantum Universe. The Quantum Universe is part of theoretical physics. Or are you saying that only some parts of theoretical physics can be taken refuge in, but others are off limits?

[Glenn P]

I've already mentioned this, but there is another good objection to Solipsism (although it is kind of related to points already made) and that is: it is just inexplicable why the Solipsist and only the Solipsist exists. If the Solipsist can exist as a phenomenon, then why can't anything else? In short: there is just no good reason to suppose why only one phenomenon (the Solipsist) exists. The only way out would be to claim that the Solipsist is God, yet that is evidently not the case.

That's the first plausible objection you've offered. Jaecp did, in fact, address your previous argument about "knowing everything" or the existence of noumena. Solipsism, although I think it's false, is certainly not troubled by those.

[Rational Gaze]

Jaecp did, in fact, address your previous argument about "knowing everything" or the existence of noumena.

I've yet to see any evidence of this. His first 'argument' was "it could just be a part of their imagination!" which is nonsensical. The only valid objections he raised were: "they could have forgotten it" or "they could create new stuff" both of which I sufficiently answered. Also, Solipsism denies the existence of things outside of the Solipsist's mind, which includes any noumenon, since, according to Solipsism, all and everything exists outside of their mind. If you think this is invalid, I'd welcome your input, since it seems evident that Jaecp has no idea what he is talking about.