Posted: Apr 10, 2018 12:20 am
by Thommo
You misunderstand. Most of us trust your sincerity (indeed, a brief review shows the mistrust runs the other way - try it yourself with the forum search function on words like "disingenuous").

I'd be happy to engage seriously with you, but you don't take yourself seriously. You don't reason from your premises, you don't respond to criticism of your attempted arguments or admit faults with them. I don't suppose other people feel differently. In reality though, we saw what your "best" effort was, I'll repeat it again if you like:

jamest wrote:A simple overview of my idealist philosophy

None of this will suffice as a proof of my opinions, as the brevity of an overview prohibits me from providing such. It’s intended – and I have been requested to do it (indeed, I have banned myself from this forum until I respond to that request) – to give the reader a general insight into my mindset.

I start at a place similar to Descartes. That is: I experience, therefore I am.

… The awareness of a series of orchestrated/related sensations/qualia (red; pain; cold; itchy; sweet; etc.) suffices as evidence of ‘my’ existence. It must do, because there has to be something privy to these events (‘nothing’ cannot be aware). However, none of this suffices to disclose my actual nature/identity. Though I interpret my sensations/qualia to read as “I am jamest in the world”, I cannot (nor should I) trust my interpretation to be indicative of my true nature/identity. At this juncture, the metaphysical field is open to all partygoers.

I have explained a thousand times why science is of zero metaphysical value in supporting the biased anti-theist opinions of the physicalists/materialists. Experienced B is not B itself (upgraded from observed B is not B itself, due to pedantry surrounding the concept of observation) renders the physicalist/materialist devoid of any support whatsoever for their beliefs in the reality of humanity and/or the world. Their beliefs are wholly questionable, putting them on a par with those who simply believe anything. Order and commonality of experience do nothing to substantiate the claim that the objects of experience must [therefore] exist independently of their experience.

At this juncture, the reader is cordially invited to question their brainwashed mindset and objectively open their mind, prior to actually reading anything else I have to say on the matter. Your truth mill is kaput. Shut the fucker down. If you want to judge my philosophy, do it reasonably. You cannot do this if you judge what I have to say in the light of the existence of the world itself being a fucking given. It isn’t.

At this juncture, I can move in one of two directions. One of those directions is to show why the world itself cannot exist. Or, alternatively, why existence must be indivisible (existence is absolutely singular). I have provided different arguments for each. I’m not going to go over them again here in an overview.

The opposite direction to move is to show why only ‘you’ exist and to prove that ‘you’ are God. The first thing to note is that I do argue that there is an objective/reasonable way of defining God such that the concept has meaning within philosophy. That is, philosophy can disassociate itself from all religious connotations of the divine concept. The second thing to note is that since one’s identity/nature is in doubt, what one thinks/experiences of oneself must at all times be put on the shelf whilst assessing these arguments. ‘You’ transcend what you experience/think (you transcend your consciousness). The very fact that you cannot account for the content of your consciousness, proves this. Which is why, on several occasions, I’ve explained why solipsism is fubar. Indeed, amongst several terms I’ve coined over the years, ‘naïve solipsism’ is prominent.

With that in mind, I have produced many arguments for the existence of God. Again, I’m not going to go over them here in an overview. My philosophy is quite expansive, as any search of the threads I’ve started will show.

What I will say is that this is all a work in progress. I’ve been doing this for about 15 years now. I’ve constantly gained new insights; I’ve acquired new knowledge; I’ve learnt how to present myself better. I’m neither averse to criticism nor revision. I’ve learnt a lot from my discussions with many members here and elsewhere.

Clearly, the above would not suffice as the intro to a book. Something I’ve been half-heartedly threatening for about a decade. Yet, the readers of any book I might write will not have access to the search engine you lot have here. If you’re genuinely interested in the details, then go and look for them.

The only reason I have done this overview is to regain access to the forum. I’ve done it, so I’m back. Tough shit.

Edited: had to correct "existence cannot must be indivisible".

Even you admitted that you half arsed this, and it was as good as it gets as far as your "philosophy" goes. Don't get me wrong - there's time to improve and I think everyone, including you, would love that. So... let's do that? Let's improve the quality of debate.