As C.S. Lewis does a fine job of pointing out, Christianity is an especially historical religion. That is to say, Christians do not (or, should not) believe because of their "personal needs." We are Christians because we believe that certain miraculous events transpired over 2,000 years ago. Christianity in its proper form is not a lifestyle choice, or a recipe for happiness. Its essence is in the Creeds, which are affirmations of believe in discreet historical events.
To paraphrase Mr. Lewis, a Christian does not believe because he thinks it will make his life better (it sometimes does just the opposite), but because it is the Truth.
I realize that is tangential to your discussion...

It's not tangential to the discussion, but I think Lewis probably should have been a bit more careful about making broad prononucements about the reasons that all Christians hold their beliefs. I imagine that Christians, just like people of all persuasions, hold their beliefs for a number of reasons. I am not so arrogant as to proclaim any reason for being a Christian (or a follower of any other religion) to be invalid, but I will go along with the atheists that I have been criticizing insofar as there do not seem to me to be any convincing rational arguments for the existence of God. Hence, if one does believe such because one feels it to be "the Truth," we are at the very least talking about a truth held for idiosyncratic and personal, rather than rational, reasons, hence "personal reasons."

Well, okay then. But if that is true, the same "personal reasons" cause me to believe the Normans won the battle at Hastings in 1066.

Well, I have my doubts about that, but if this is actually true, then you should be just open to historical challenges to the veracity of the Gospels as you would be (presumably) to challenges to the veracity of the Bayeux tapestry. Which is to say that if you want to claim that the Gospels should be accepted as historical documents like any other, then you will also have to accept that they have the same sort of fallibilities and limitations that attend any historical document. Of course, I doubt this is really what you mean, because religious belief is itself a rather uncritical attitude, and in any case reference to miracles and the supernatural in historical accounts itself usually constitutes grounds for skepticism and doubt on the part of historians, as it evidently does not for Christians, but if one does not really want to evaluate the Gospels critically in this way, and be prepared to dismiss belief in them on the basis of a reasonable degree of historical discreditation, then the justification in belief in them on the grounds of their historical legitimacy is rubbish.

Okay, it is probably my fault, but several issues have gotten conflated. Let me innumerate:

1. Christians are Christians because they believe in certain historical events. This belief is based on faith and faith alone, though the events themselves are written about in the Gospels. This is to say, the New Testament Gospels (the “Good News”) do not sell themselves as a lifestyle choice, or as a path to enlightenment, or as a way to deal with the stress and strain of daily problems. It is news—good news, in fact. And people who are Christians believe the news, regardless if it makes them feel warm and tingly all the time, or if it doesn’t. It is not a matter of personal (earthly) fulfillment; it can be a nice bonus, but it isn't what makes a Christian a Christian.

2. Most historians believe that the battle of Hastings happened in 1066 and that the Normans won. They base this belief on the historical record, which might take some faith, but on an entirely different magnitude. Whether it makes the historian feel good, or whether it fits with his "personal needs" is immaterial.

3. It seems to me that neither of these kinds of historical belief are matters of mere personal idiosyncrasy. In both instances, the believers believe what they think is objectively true—outside of themselves.

4. Your solipisism argument conluded with the assertion that "the real basis for belief is not rational, impersonal, but rather subjective and personal." Many religious traditions might fit with that view, but Christianity does not. And though it is not a religious tradition per se, neither would history. That was my only point.

I personally think that a Christian's belief in whether there is a God, or not a God, should simply be a matter of faith. Relying, as Curt mentions, on historical documents, or other forms of justification, is "rubbish." Christians are taught that faith will move mountains, not historical artifacts. Reliance on so called "proofs" only demonstrates faith smaller than a mustard seed.

Exactly. That was my point precisely. It seems to me that religious belief, if is of any strength or worth, does ultimately depend on faith, as you have both noted. I only take issue with the apparent assertion that Christianity, or atheism, or any other beliefs of that nature are also objective, impersonal truths. I am not claiming that Christianity, or atheism, or any other religious beliefs are invalid, neither am I claiming that Christian belief is simply therapeutic, but the movement of faith is a personal and subjective one nonetheless, because much as one may consider it to be definitely true, it is still a personal truth, arrived at and held by the personal, subjective movement of faith rather than by reason.

I don't doubt that many Christians and people of other religious persuasions are not so fickle that they do not often hold to certain beliefs even when they are uncomfortable or unpleasant, but nontheless it seems to me that, given that ultimately nothing but one's thoughts can be rationally certain, the pretense of reason in belief-systems may lead one to subject oneself to uncomfortable or even unhappy beliefs unnecessarily, and so perhaps if one realized that one's beliefs regarding the external world are personal in nature and personally chosen rather than being simply rationally certain facts of the world, one could hold the beliefs most conducive to one's own happiness. Even the truths we hold to be most certain are indeed chosen by each of us in this manner, so it is probably best to choose the most felicitous ones possible.

Ok, religion is something of a distraction, clearly.
But if "one’s beliefs regarding the external world are personal in nature and personally chosen rather than being simply rationally certain facts of the world" (sorry, I don't know how to make italics), what does this mean for history? It is beyond my own thoughts, and therefore not "rationally certain." I mean it's all fun and games to say things like that, but no one really believes it, right? Maybe as a law student I am just too unimaginative to work this way, but what does this mean for the criminal justice system (which tries to sort through histories)? Where does "beyond a reasonable doubt" fit in with "rationally certain"? If nothing else, this seems like a great tool for Holocaust deniers. For that matter, why don't we just choose to believe there was no Holocaust, no war at all. Wouldn't that be "the most felicitous" option?
Maybe I am just being facile.

Well, I'm sorry to keep harping on this, but that's exactly the point I was making from the very beginning. If the criterion of absolute certainty, the criterion of rationality, as unsatisfiable as it is for anything other than one's own thoughts, makes it so difficult to get by in the world, than it is probably not the most useful criterion for practical evaluation of ideas and beliefs. Nevertheless, one should not forget that this element of uncertainty, the ultimate unfoundedness of practically every idea or impression, exists, and one ought to be more humble and careful in one's judgments as a consequence. And in fact, as regards your specific example, while bald-faced Holocaust denial or something of the sort, as you suggest, would be an entirely fatuous response to my theory, in a certain sense it would be better to forget the Holocaust. Not to forget it intellectually or to cease to draw lessons from it, but to cease or refrain from the uncouth and self-flagellating mechanism of historical guilt and retribution which is just as present in Adorno's nihilistic pronouncement "How can there be poetry after Auschwitz?" as in Osama bin Laden's railing about "the tragedy of al-Andalus," and which wreaks just as much havoc and misery as total indifference to the past. So it is not that one should disbelieve history, though one should not be too sure that it happened just as it is recounted to us, but to be overly chained to the memory of past events, like the fundamentalist Christians who blame living Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus, is egregious, and by refusing to let long-dead crimes lie, one in effect revives them and inflicts them upon the living world once again.

Curt: I have always felt that the movement from acceptance of the first proposition, that “self is the only object of real knowledge,” or in other words that the existence of the outside world cannot be verified, to belief in the second, that self is “the only thing really existent,” is just as logically unjustified as the atheistic movement from acceptance of the idea that the existence of God cannot be ascertained to the belief that God does not exist.

From my point of view I would say this – “Matter” (i.e. the “outside world to an Atheist/Materialist) has properties that cannot be perceived whereas Information does not have properties that cannot be perceived.

In other words, I think you are creating a false dichotomy, or perhaps misperceiving the actual problem.

To a Materialist it is theoretically impossible to ever fully verify the reality of the “outside world” because according to the theory of Materialism the outside world has properties that cannot be perceived (empirically observed) even theoretically.

However if you did not make the (unparsimonious) assumption of Materialism in the first place then this problem never “materializes”.

Curt: Consequently, I have tended to take the first definition as my personal definition of solipsism, which fairly well describes my own personal feelings, and reject the second. However, I am aware that this is somewhat idiosyncratic and confusing for those who associate solipsism with the second definition; my apologies for any confusion created.

The problem with using the first definition is -- how do you know that you aren’t the only thing (consciousness) to exist if you don’t use that as your starting point and logic your way out from there?

fairly well describes my own personal feelings, and reject the second

In logic you can’t make such assumptions.

You Think therefore you are. Great, now how do you prove that anyone else exists?

It can be done, but not if you start by abandoning Logic as one of your first steps.

Curt: The reason is that the very essence of reason, in my opinion, is the principle of refusing to accept that which cannot be established absolutely as true.

Then you need to reject Materialism, my Brother.

What is the empirical evidence that “Matter” exists independent of observation?

(answer: none)

Curt: Now, I accept Descartes’ argument that only the existence of our own thoughts can be absolutely established to be true (well, actually only the existence of my thoughts). The existence of the external world, on the other hand, cannot be.

I disagree. Materialism cannot be proven, but that doesn’t mean you can’t Logically (and unequivocally) prove that I exist as an entity, which is inherently no different than yourself.

Curt: As I have said before, I do not necessarily subscribe to the view that one should only accept that which has been absolutely established as true, but if one wishes to do so, then one, to the best of my knowledge, cannot accept the existence of the external world either on the merits of our perceptions or based on the existence of our thoughts.

Look around you …

This reality does not exist in the manner in which you believe it does.

It is an illusion, a hologram, a Matrix. It is not real in the same way that You and I and the other consciousnesses you perceive are “real”.

We (gravitons) are the “True Matter”; all the rest is generated by our communications (exchanges of energy).

Curt: One could perhaps accept the existence of the world provisionally if some other self-evident certain belief justified it; Descartes, for example, offers the existence of God, who would not deceive us as to the existence of the outside world, as this justifying belief, but his argument for the existence of God is much less convincing than his argument for the existence of mind. In any case, the immediate point, in any case, is that the existence of the external world cannot be justified on the basis of our perceptions, and the ultimate point is that if atheists wish to apply this rigorous standard of verification to justify their denial of the existence of God, for the sake of consistency they should also apply that standard to the external world and deny its existence.

I couldn’t agree more. Atheism eventually leads an Individual to Solipsism.

They will deny this assertion, they will profess that it is not true, but in the end, the Atheist who remains an Atheist becomes a Solipsist. It is the inevitable fate of the “True Atheist”.

Curt: Since I do not know anyone who has managed to exist for 10 minutes without accepting at some level the existence of the outside world, the verification principle, reason, does not seem to be a sufficient criterion for accepting or rejecting the most fundamental concepts of our existence. Now it could be opposed to this that while it is obviously necessary to accept the existence of the world in order to continue living, belief in the existence of God is not critical to our lives and so we can uphold our intellectual integrity in denying its existence in a way that we cannot with the outside world.

I disagree.

That “God” exist (“God” = a consciousness which generates this reality) is certain. You just made the argument for “God” with this post.

The only real question remaining is whether any one other than the Individual reading this post exist to fill the position.

Because in reality, to claim that “God” does not exist is analogous to claiming that “Consciousness” doesn’t exist.

Elliot: To paraphrase Mr. Lewis, a Christian does not believe because he thinks it will make his life better (it sometimes does just the opposite), but because it is the Truth.

What makes you assume that the Truth doesn’t always (ultimately) make your life (existence) better?

Define “Truth” and I think you might see what I mean.

John Venlet: I personally think that a Christian’s belief in whether there is a God, or not a God, should simply be a matter of faith.

You mean in the same way that an Anarchist belief in Anarchy should simply be a matter of Faith?

John Venlet: Relying, as Curt mentions, on historical documents, or other forms of justification, is “rubbish.” Christians are taught that faith will move mountains, not historical artifacts. Reliance on so called “proofs” only demonstrates faith smaller than a mustard seed.

So the ability to logically justify ones beliefs is actually a disadvantage?

I thought that Christianity was based on Tradition and Historical events (Dogma, Orthodoxy) just as much as it was based on Faith?

Can someone still be a “Christian” if they’ve never heard of the Bible?

I’d define “Faith” as Believing something because you want it to be true. Which is different then the normal reason that an individual believes something – because it is logically unavoidable (i.e. it is better to stop at red traffic lights).

In the end, the tempest which has surrounded this question, since time immemorial, will not matter. What matters, in my mind, is that I will not impinge/coerce on your life, if you will show the same respect to me, here and now.

In the end, the tempest which has surrounded this question, since time immemorial, will not matter. What matters, in my mind, is that I will not impinge/coerce on your life, if you will show the same respect to me, here and now

I think that ultimately we are on the same sheet of music my brother.

But suppose that you did not know that running red lights was “immoral”, are you saying that it would be wrong of me to explain it to you?

Sometimes information can appear to be coercion (think of raising your children). And the problem is that once you let someone put something in your head it can be hard to get it out of there.

How can I tell when you will perceive my information as beneficial or harmful?

What happens when I know that the information is beneficial, but you perceive it as harmful. Am I actually harming you in reality, or are you only imagining the harm (ultimately)?

It would not be "wrong" to explain to me why, in your perception, some act is potentially harmful, though acting on this received information would be at my discretion.

"How can I tell when you will perceive my information as beneficial or harmful?"

I would think by my reaction, or non-reaction, to the information.

"What happens when I know that the information is beneficial, but you perceive it as harmful. Am I actually harming you in reality, or are you only imagining the harm (ultimately)?"

I think information cannot harm me, though it may mislead, confuse, or "hurt" my feelings. Only physically applied force, against the body, can harm.

John Venlet: It would not be “wrong” to explain to me why, in your perception, some act is potentially harmful, though acting on this received information would be at my discretion.

On general principle I would concur.

However, I would stipulate that individuals who know that “Red” traffic lights mean “Stop”, yet do not stop for red lights are rightly labeled as “Insane”.

Suppose you have a child and you teach your child that Murder is immoral (ultimately non-beneficial), are you saying that you would be content if your child used his discretion to decide not to take your advice?

Look, this is a difficult discussion for us because, in a way, I am not limiting it’s scope to this layer of reality (this universe) whereas, I suspect that you are only speaking in terms of the here and now (this universe only).

Ultimately you and I cannot peacefully co-exist unless we both agree that 2 + 2 = 4. In other words, the only way that you and I can peacefully co-exist is if BOTH of us are ultimately Sane.

Serpent: How can I tell when you will perceive my information as beneficial or harmful?

John Venlet: I would think by my reaction, or non-reaction, to the information.

I think I was unclear.

What I meant was, before I have expressed the information, how can I determine how you will react to it?

In other words, imagine a person you’ve never met. Now, how is that person going to react if you tell an off color joke? … or if you kissed another man on the lips in front of them?

Without knowing the individual, it can be difficult to anticipate their reaction.

John Venlet: I think information cannot harm me, though it may mislead, confuse, or “hurt” my feelings. Only physically applied force, against the body, can harm.

Isn’t all “pain”, ultimately mental pain?

Pain only exists in your mind … right?

You shoot a dead body, and they don’t feel a thing.

Just for the record Mr. Venlet, I have a lot of respect for you. I always have. I think you are an honest and honorable individual.

"if you did not make the (unparsimonious) assumption of Materialism in the first place then this problem never “materializes”."

This is an entirely imported "assumption." I am not and have never been operating under the "assumption of Materialism," but I assume that any atheists making empirical arguments against the existence of God are, and if anything my critique undermines their materialism by forcing them to admit that their grounds for assuming the existence of a material world are ultimately not much more rationally sturdy than belief in the existence of God.

"how do you know that you aren’t the only thing (consciousness) to exist...?"

You don't, but then again you cannot be sure of the converse, either, which is exactly why I consider the solipsistic belief that one is the only existing being to be rather arbitrary. In an ambiguous case like this, it is generally better to refrain from assertion one or another, i.e. to refrain from asserting arbitrarily that one is or is not the only existing being.

"how do you prove that anyone else exists? It can be done..."

I will believe it when I see it.

"Materialism cannot be proven, but that doesn’t mean you can’t Logically (and unequivocally) prove that I exist as an entity, which is inherently no different than yourself...We (gravitons) are the “True Matter”; all the rest is generated by our communications (exchanges of energy).""

Same point as above; this sounds like a classic idealist fallacy, which is the belief that since reality consists only of minds or "consciousnesses," all the ideas and impressions we receive of the world are direct mental communications between each other. But ultimately the belief that minds are essentially all similar and hence all equally existent in the same way is an assumption based on indirect indications of consciousness, i.e. language and behavior. The existence of other conscious minds can only be inferred from this via belief in the transparency of communication, i.e. the belief that communication (primarily language) can perfectly represent and convey the contents of consciousness, and hence also guarantee its existence. I assume that you believe this, since you wrote that "Information does not have properties that cannot be perceived," but while this pseudo-Chomsky-esque premise is somewhat attractive, it is highly suspect in my opinion, and you will have to furnish convincing evidence for its veracity.

"That “God” exist (“God” = a consciousness which generates this reality) is certain. You just made the argument for “God” with this post."

God taken in this sense is virtually tautologous, and hence meaningless, because clearly if there is anything at all existent, even if it be only the contents of my conscious mind, it was created by something, which can, I suppose, be called "God." In this sense, there can be no theological debate about whether God exists, assuming one believes that anything is real. But the crux of the debate is not whether there is something which created reality but rather what the nature of that creator is. Although I am not religious, I suspect that few theists would accept the open-ended nature of your conception of God, i.e. whatever it is that created our consciousness(es), (which is not to say that you should necessarily vye to win the approbation of theists, but if you consider yourself one you might wish to re-evaluate your grounds for thinking this). You can of course adopt whatever conception of God you want, but the one you have proposed does not seem applicable to the theist/atheist dichotomy which we are addressing at the moment.

Curt I didn’t mean to imply that you were an Atheist, or Materialist yourself. I apologize if I gave the wrong impression.

Curt: This is an entirely imported “assumption.” I am not and have never been operating under the “assumption of Materialism,” but I assume that any atheists making empirical arguments against the existence of God are, and if anything my critique undermines their materialism by forcing them to admit that their grounds for assuming the existence of a material world are ultimately not much more rationally sturdy than belief in the existence of God.

I couldn’t agree more.

Curt: [Soilpsism = True? …]You don’t, but then again you cannot be sure of the converse, either, which is exactly why I consider the solipsistic belief that one is the only existing being to be rather arbitrary.

What evidence do you have to assume that Solipsism is False?

If you have no evidence for the belief, then assuming it is no more logical than assuming “Matter” based on no evidence.

Curt: In an ambiguous case like this, it is generally better to refrain from assertion one or another, i.e. to refrain from asserting arbitrarily that one is or is not the only existing being .

So why not have the same attitude about “Matter”? … or “God”, or “Aliens”, or “the Higg’s Boson”, or the existence of faeries?, or the existence of “Santa Claus”, or the existence of the “invisible pink dragon” in my garage?

Me personally … unless I have some evidence (positive evidence) then there is no reason for me to believe. To believe based on no evidence is an act of Faith (i.e. a “religious” act).

Curt: [Proving Solipsism false …]I will believe it when I see it

I wonder what effect it might have on your sanity?

Curt: [Gravitons …]Same point as above; this sounds like a classic idealist fallacy, which is the belief that since reality consists only of minds or “consciousnesses,” all the ideas and impressions we receive of the world are direct mental communications between each other.

That is exactly correct, although I am an “Informationalist”, and not a “Idealist”. Idealism is nothing more that an ridiculous notion concocted by Atheists who needed an absurd alternative to “Materialism” to use as a straw-man against anyone who challenged their “One True Faith”.

Curt: But ultimately the belief that minds are essentially all similar and hence all equally existent in the same way is an assumption based on indirect indications of consciousness, i.e. language and behavior.

You are assuming too much. Who said anything about “equality”? My beliefs are based on Godel, Bayes, and the principle of Evolution.

Besides, explain how relativity can exist in the absence of Consciousness? What does that tell you?

[continued ...]

Curt: The existence of other conscious minds can only be inferred from this via belief in the transparency of communication, i.e. the belief that communication (primarily language) can perfectly represent and convey the contents of consciousness, and hence also guarantee its existence. I assume that you believe this, since you wrote that “Information does not have properties that cannot be perceived,” but while this pseudo-Chomsky-esque premise is somewhat attractive, it is highly suspect in my opinion, and you will have to furnish convincing evidence for its veracity.

I thought you rejected Materialism?

Either “matter” exist, in which case it has properties which cannot be perceived; or “matter” does not exist, in which case the “matter” is actually “Information” meaning ALL of it’s properties are perceptible by consciousness, and the reason that all of its properties are perceptible is because it was a consciousness that generated the pattern in the first place.

There is no “Matter” in any event. E = MC^2.

I would have thought that even You would concede that the precious “matter” is really nothing more than a pattern in the Energy!

Now do patterns still exist as “patterns” when there exist nothing capable of perceiving the “pattern”? You’ll have to explain what you mean.

Did Time exist before the “Big Bang”?

How long did unperceived Time exist for?

Did it last a long Time (maybe at eternity or more)?

Or did the unperceived Time last only a brief moment? (maybe like Unperceived Time = zero?)

Can you explain to me how unperceived Time is still Time? In what way is it still Time?

Are Time and Consciousness related? Maybe they are two sides of the same coin? In what way could your consciousness (Graviton) still exist if Time did not also exist?

Curt: [“God” …]God taken in this sense is virtually tautologous, and hence meaningless, because clearly if there is anything at all existent, even if it be only the contents of my conscious mind, it was created by something, which can, I suppose, be called “God.”

Maybe your consciousness has always existed?

Do you remember learning to walk?

Do you remember learning to talk?

Do you remember being born?

Does that mean those things never actually happened?

Maybe there are all kinds of things you did in the past that you don’t remember?

Curt: In this sense, there can be no theological debate about whether God exists, assuming one believes that anything is real.

Ohh, I disagree. If you can’t convince yourself first then you would never be able to convince anyone else even if they did exist.

Curt: But the crux of the debate is not whether there is something which created reality but rather what the nature of that creator is.

So do you consider yourself a “Deist”?

Curt: Although I am not religious, I suspect that few theists would accept the open-ended nature of your conception of God, i.e. whatever it is that created our consciousness(es), (which is not to say that you should necessarily vye to win the approbation of theists, but if you consider yourself one you might wish to re-evaluate your grounds for thinking this). You can of course adopt whatever conception of God you want, but the one you have proposed does not seem applicable to the theist/atheist dichotomy which we are addressing at the moment.

Suppose that you are a virgin and You and I sleep together.

Does that mean you are no longer a virgin relative to me alone, or are you no longer a virgin relative to Theists as well?

If you believe that any concept of “God” is possible then you are an Agnostic. If your Atheism only applies to the Christian/Jewish/Muslim concept of God (i.e. “the God of Abraham”) then you have merely allowed your enemies to define you.

"What evidence do you have to assume that Solipsism is False?"

For the last time, I'm not asserting any metaphysical proposition, be it materialism or solipsism. I'm simply observing that there are reasons to be skeptical of both. Since you are the one who is making the positive assertion, i.e. that solipsism is true, the impetus is on you to to produce arguments for it.

"To believe based on no evidence is an act of Faith (i.e. a “religious” act)."

Which is exactly what you seem to be doing with your belief in solipsism, since you have not given any reason why this belief ought to be believed.

"Now do patterns still exist as “patterns” when there exist nothing capable of perceiving the “pattern”?"

I think you are missing the point; the question is not whether there is such a thing as consciousness, as I am aware of my own thoughts, but rather whether there are other consciousnesses apart from mine. The fact that there are consciousnesses in general does not argue either way on this matter.

"Maybe your consciousness has always existed?...etc."

This is not the only way of thinking of consciousness. We do not have to think of consciousness as a single stream like a river, perhaps called into being sometime in our infancy. We can instead think of consciousness as something continually being created afresh. And indeed, since I do not remember many events from the period of my life in which I consider myself to have been conscious, but am yet still conscious and (occaisonally) aware of those past events, we can perhaps think of consciousness not as something continuous, but rather continually re-created. From this perspective, it becomes much easier to conceive of the origins of consciousness. Clearly, at every moment my specific, current consciousness is either a result of external stiumuli or of the train of my own thoughts (or of "information" if you prefer). In either case, I can easily imagine the origins of my particular consciousness, even if not the nature of the general mechanism, and I can furthermore assert that there is an origin of my consciousness as it exists now, even if in some sense there is a continuity of consciousness of indefinite length in my life.

"Does that mean those things never actually happened?

Maybe there are all kinds of things you did in the past that you don’t remember?"

This problem derives from the same inability to perceive the difference between consciousness in general and specific states of consciousness.

"So do you consider yourself a “Deist”?"

Not at all, and if you were paying any attention you would realize that I am almost insinuating the opposite. Theists often try to make the creationary argument that the sheer fact of our existence implies the existence of a God, because an infinite universe requires an infinite creator, etc. However, my point is that of course existence implies creation, but that does not prove anything about the nature of that creation or of the creator, which might just as well be something entirely inanimate as a God. Unfortunately, you seem to have aligned yourself with the theistic argument that I just outlined above, which is a poor one for those of a skeptical turn of mind.

"Suppose that you are a virgin and You and I sleep together."

Well, many assumptions and categories would be overturned that night.

"Does that mean you are no longer a virgin relative to me alone, or are you no longer a virgin relative to Theists as well?"

This is probably not the best example with which to force a hard relativistic point, since the only relevant conclusion to be drawn from it is that I would know the truth of the matter. This is definitely not equivalent to "If a tree falls in the forest...?"

"If you believe that any concept of “God” is possible then you are an Agnostic."

Wrong. To be an agnostic requires that you acknowledge and not dismiss the possibility that there is no God, and as I have been trying to make you realize, your definition of God is inadequate insofar as it makes belief or disbelief irrelevant, a semantic affair. Clearly there is some cause of what we experience, and whether you call it God or not makes little difference.

The Serpent: What evidence do you have to assume that Solipsism is False? [In other words, what is your (positive) evidence for assuming the actual existence of “others”?]

Curt: For the last time, I’m not asserting any metaphysical proposition, be it materialism or solipsism.

What does that mean?

Obviously you are supporting a position. Now you simply seem to be trying to hide it.

Curt: I’m simply observing that there are reasons to be skeptical of both.

There are reasons to be skeptical of the existence of “Matter”.

There are reasons to be skeptical of the existence of “Others” (i.e. Solipsism = False).

But there aren’t any reasons to be skeptical of your own existence.

That would seem to put you in the default starting point of Solipsism. You seem to want to pretend that this is not the case. I’d say that I comprehend why, but as a figment of your imagination that isn’t really true.

Curt: Since you are the one who is making the positive assertion, i.e. that solipsism is true, the impetus is on you to produce arguments for it.

So in other words, your only “logical” escape from Solipsism is for a figment of your imagination to deny Solipsism for you?

I’ll assert what-ever you want me too. I cannot do anything other than what you programmed me to do.

The Serpent: To believe based on no evidence is an act of Faith (i.e. a “religious” act).”

Curt: Which is exactly what you seem to be doing with your belief in solipsism, since you have not given any reason why this belief ought to be believed.

This is one case where your imaginary “priest” (i.e. Hawking, Feynmen, -- your “betters”) are not going to be able to help you. No, this time I’m afraid you are going to have to do something that every Atheist hates – think for yourself!

You want to pretend that there is no evidence for Solipsism … ? … no skin off my teeth.

The Serpent do patterns still exist as “patterns” when there exist nothing capable of perceiving the “pattern”?

Curt: I think you are missing the point; the question is not whether there is such a thing as consciousness, as I am aware of my own thoughts, but rather whether there are other consciousnesses apart from mine.

And what is the evidence, which supports that belief?

Curt: The fact that there are consciousnesses in general does not argue either way on this matter.

How did you come to assume that any consciousness other than your own exists?

I didn’t see your proof, so I would say that you have as much evidence for Solipsism being False as you have evidence that “matter” exist (i.e. No evidence).

Curt [Maybe Your Consciousness has always existed?] This is not the only way of thinking of consciousness. We do not have to think of consciousness as a single stream like a river, perhaps called into being sometime in our infancy. We can instead think of consciousness as something continually being created afresh.

So in other words you are asserting that Causality may be False?

How is that any different than asserting a belief in Mysticism?

Curt And indeed, since I do not remember many events from the period of my life in which I consider myself to have been conscious, but am yet still conscious and (occasionally) aware of those past events, we can perhaps think of consciousness not as something continuous, but rather continually re-created. From this perspective, it becomes much easier to conceive of the origins of consciousness.

I’d say that any assumptions you make about consciousness are also fair game to make about reality as a whole.

In other words, perhaps think of reality not as something continuous, but rather continually re-created. From this perspective, it becomes much easier to conceive of the origins of reality.

Curt: Clearly, at every moment my specific, current consciousness is either a result of external stiumuli or of the train of my own thoughts (or of “information” if you prefer). In either case, I can easily imagine the origins of my particular consciousness, even if not the nature of the general mechanism, and I can furthermore assert that there is an origin of my consciousness as it exists now, even if in some sense there is a continuity of consciousness of indefinite length in my life.

I’m not sure what you are trying to tell me other than the fact that Materialism seems to be an axiom (perception) you are unable to persist without.

Curt This problem derives from the same inability to perceive the difference between consciousness in general and specific states of consciousness.

I’m not sure I follow? What happen to “I Think therefore I am”?

Does self-awareness (self-perception) have anything to do with intellect or “evolution” in your estimation?

Curt [Are you a “Deist”?] Not at all, and if you were paying any attention you would realize that I am almost insinuating the opposite. Theists often try to make the creationary argument that the sheer fact of our existence implies the existence of a God, because an infinite universe requires an infinite creator, etc.

Who said the universe is infinite?

Can you define “Infinite”? (what’s infinity +1 equal?)

The universe is only as big as what you imagine. Nothing else exists.

Curt: However, my point is that of course existence implies creation, but that does not prove anything about the nature of that creation or of the creator, which might just as well be something entirely inanimate as a God.

Well I would say it depends …

If You are “conscious” (whatever that means) then TLOP (The Laws of Physics) are also “conscious”.

Whereas if you are merely a set of rules (a deterministic Algorithm (i.e. “inanimate”)) then TLOP is similarly just a larger more complex set of rules (a Superior Algorithm (i.e. but also “inanimate”)).

Curt: Unfortunately, you seem to have aligned yourself with the theistic argument that I just outlined above, which is a poor one for those of a skeptical turn of mind.

So you say, fortunately I don’t exist so it’s rather a moot point.

Curt: Well, many assumptions and categories would be overturned that night.

hehehe … yes, I thought you might get a kick out of this analogy. ;)

Curt: This is probably not the best example with which to force a hard relativistic point, since the only relevant conclusion to be drawn from it is that I would know the truth of the matter. This is definitely not equivalent to “If a tree falls in the forest…?”

My point is that if you are Agnostic relative to me, then you are Agnostic in reality and calling yourself (mislabeling yourself) as an “Atheist” is only an act of dishonesty.

For a person who claims that there is no logical basis for “materialism” you seem awfully eager to ally yourself with the forces of Illogic.

The Serpent: If you believe that any concept of “God” is possible then you are an “Agnostic”.

Curt: Wrong. To be an agnostic requires that you acknowledge and not dismiss the possibility that there is no God …

Think of it as a coin flip.

HEADS – Theism/Deism = “God” exists.
TAILS – Atheism = “God” does not exist.
NO CALL – Agnosticism = “God” equals Unknown, or not enough information do determine.

Curt … and as I have been trying to make you realize, your definition of God is inadequate insofar as it makes belief or disbelief irrelevant, a semantic affair. Clearly there is some cause of what we experience, and whether you call it God or not makes little difference.

Well why do you think I am a “Deist”?

Since you seem persistently unable to distinguish the difference between skepticism and a negative assertion (ironically the very fallacy so common among atheists which I began this post by criticizing) there seems little point in continuing this discussion. I shall only make two points in closing:

1. I have never disputed the validity of the Cartesian starting-point ("I think, therefore I am") but it establishes an ontological criterion for certainty that very little else, or anything, can match. This proposition, which I see little cause to doubt, is not at all synonymous with the statement "I alone exist," which I have every reason to doubt. When you come to understand that they are different and in what the difference consists, I think that the reason that we can be certain only about ourselves will also become evident.

2. Consciousness is also not in dispute, as far as I can surmise. What is in dispute is only whether consciousness resides only in me or outside of me as well. Certainly I cannot be sure that other consciousnesses exist, but to believe on this basis that there are none is extremely arbitrary. To say that it is arbitrary means that it may be true, but if it is it is entirely coincidental, because there is nothing in my line of thought which proves or guarantees that it is true.

I am in fact no less inclined to accept solipsism or idealism as materialism, but your dogmatic and unsubstantiated insistence on it only makes more evident to me the reasons for doubting it.

Curt: Since you seem persistently unable to distinguish the difference between skepticism and a negative assertion (ironically the very fallacy so common among atheists which I began this post by criticizing) there seems little point in continuing this discussion.

It is you who are committing the fallacy.

Asserting there is no evidence that a flipped coin will land HEADs up is not a proof that the coin will definitely land TAILs up.

But that is exactly what you are trying to claim.

Curt: I have never disputed the validity of the Cartesian starting-point (“I think, therefore I am”) but it establishes an ontological criterion for certainty that very little else, or anything, can match.

You make this assertion based on what? … cynicism? … pessimism?

I get the distinct impression that your “Atheism” is nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy.

But perhaps you want it that way? All of the evidence would seem to indicate it is so.

Okay, you think therefore you are. So now you are stuck? No more progress is possible? I think you gave up too easily …

Curt: This proposition, which I see little cause to doubt, is not at all synonymous with the statement “I alone exist,” which I have every reason to doubt.

Why do you have reason to doubt it? What’s your reason(s)?

You mean because you don’t like the idea?

Since when does what you want have any bearing on what is true in reality?

Curt: When you come to understand that they are different and in what the difference consists, I think that the reason that we can be certain only about ourselves will also become evident.

If you are the one asserting that there is a difference then you should be able to articulate that difference.

But there is no difference which is precisely the reason you are unable to articulate a difference.

The sad thing is you could prove that other consciousnesses exist, and you could prove it in the same way that “I think therefore I am” is true for you. The problem is that you can’t even contemplate the idea that Solipsism could possible be true. The very thought threatens your sanity (at least that’s the impression you give).

Curt: Consciousness is also not in dispute, as far as I can surmise.

Not all Atheists agree. It’s an absurd position in my mind – to deny the existence of consciousness. In my mind consciousness is the one thing that you can be most certain of. Apparently in a lot of Atheists minds “matter” is even more real then “they” are.

But hey, like I always say, Atheism is nothing more than the utter rejection of common sense.

Curt: What is in dispute is only whether consciousness resides only in me or outside of me as well. Certainly I cannot be sure that other consciousnesses exist, but to believe on this basis that there are none is extremely arbitrary. To say that it is arbitrary means that it may be true, but if it is it is entirely coincidental, because there is nothing in my line of thought which proves or guarantees that it is true.

Consciousness is not what you think.

Consciousness is the byproduct of another process.

Ergo whenever you perceive another consciousness it is only logical to conclude that it is the direct result of that process in action, even though you only experience your own processing directly.

Are you a Determinist, Curt? Do you believe that Consciousness is an Algorithmic process, or is it possible that Consciousness is non-algorithmic?

Assuming you respond that Consciousness is “non-algorithmic”, could you please define precisely what you mean by that term? How would a non-algorithmic process operate (by what mechanic)?

Curt: I am in fact no less inclined to accept solipsism or idealism as materialism, but your dogmatic and unsubstantiated insistence on it only makes more evident to me the reasons for doubting it.

I am also very “dogmatic” and insistent that 2 + 2 = 4. By this same bit of “logic” are you telling me that you also have doubts about the sum of 2 + 2?

How about Red Traffic lights? Ever get the uncontrollable urge to run one just for the “fun” of it? I am very “dogmatic” and insistent that “red light” means stop, does that mean you have doubts now?

Serpent, exciting as it is to read your cryptic pronouncements, how about some concise, straightforward statements? You can start with the following questions:

1. Are you a solipsist? Why or why not?

2. Are you a determinist? Why or why not?

3. Does God exist? Why or why not?

Are you a solipsist? Why or why not?

I started off as a Solipsist, but I am not a Solipsist now.

As to why I am not a Solipsist, I’d say it’s the same reason that I use to be a cripple, but now I have learned to walk – I evolved.

Are you a determinist? Why or why not?

I am a Determinist (I prefer the term Fatalist). All the evidence I perceive tells me that Determinism is True, while I perceive no evidence that Determinism could possibly be False.

In fact, the only way I could possibly see Determinism as False is if Solipsism were True and Individuality did not exist in reality.

Let me put it like this (an “Apple”) …

In my right hand I have Individuality and Fatalism – two sides of the same coin.

In my left hand I have Solipsism (i.e. Conformity) and Free Will – two sides of a different coin.

Which coin do you want? (hint: True Atheists always ultimately pick the second coin)

Does God exist? Why or why not?

Define “God”?

If Solipsism is true then is the person reading this “God”?

I’d say yes.

But let’s assume Solipsism is False for a moment …

Here’s my definition of the term “God” (I concede it may not be the same as yours).

God = A superior (conscious) entity capable of generating a Universe.

Some other terms:

Universe: = A shared reality (frame of reference).
Superior = Greater in Mass = having a larger quantity of (beneficial) information.

So yeah, even if Solipsism is False I’d say that there was a God (a Goddess actually). You might call her TLOP (the Laws of Physics) and claim that She is non-conscious, but to me that makes about as much sense as claiming that YOU are non-conscious.

Even you would concede that TLOP created YOU, and I am even willing to bet that eventually you’d concede that it is more accurate to say that TLOP controls YOU then it is to say that YOU control TLOP.

Now, YOU control your CAR, which I would say is evidence that YOU are more conscious than your CAR. So by the same logic I’d say that it is obvious that TLOP is more conscious than YOU are. Ergo, your claim that TLOP is non-conscious is analogous to claiming that YOU are no more conscious than your CAR is.