Randolpin

Sorry , let me change. Not all aspects.... The devil is not only metaphorical but also spiritual. We are undergoing spiritual battle between good and evil. I want to share guys that the status of our world today is already prophesies in the bible.

The devil has influenced all aspect of our world today. What is your respond to this?

The fact that we observe the same skies at night, living in the same planet thus prove that we have the same reality and we all really "in" in this reality. Common sense is somewhat also plays an important role.

Arose from nothing? how can nothing create something? If this "nothing" create something, therefore it must be something not nothing. Again, I argue that q potential is purely naturalistic.

Conscious being imo can never be made by naturalistic means. If we humans invent robots, this robots can never have consciousness because it is dependent on the way it is programmed. No matter how complex the way it is programmed, it can never achieve consciousness. It is because of the infinitude of consciousness and intelligence. But we humans are different, our first ancestors must be created by supernaturalistic means because we have this consciousness. So, "if only" we are in a simulation, the being that controls that simulation must have supernaturalistic characteristics in order to create us conscious beings. *Grammatical error. I change independent to dependent.

First I want to ask, why solipsist insist that all around us are hallucinations? Why is this so? My argument which is called conscious individual argument, is I think, the stepping stone to defy solipsism. I am conscious myself, you are conscious yourself, we are conscious ourselves. This discussion are worthless If you are only my illusions and I am only the one that exist.But obviously, it is not. And you know that. Again from the idea above that there are many conscious individual thus prove that I am not the only one that exist. We can't say it is only due to my illusion that I conclude this. If you ask, what is the evidence, again the evidence is in this discussion itself. This discussion is worthless of you are only my illusions. So I think that you are not my illusions because you are as rational, have ideas as I. I am not completely agree with this. I think the best way to study reality is to combine science and philosophy. We are able to speculate soundly if we are able to form arguments base on valid premises proven and validated by science. Philosophical debates would end if one of the debaters speculate soundly. I have also this new argument. This is called sameness argument. This argument proves that others exist as well as you because you have the same characteristics to them physically, intellectual rationality, etc. Since I have the same characteristics as you being a human being, therefore it follows logically that you have also consciousness just like me and therefore you exist also just like me. You are not being fooled by your senses because your senses agree with each other and also senses also agree to the logic above.

How can you consider our reality or the reality that surrounds you as a hallucination? Consider this new argument. This argument is called constancy argument. In this argument, you cannot consider the reality around you as hallucination because it appears always as what it should be with LEC. You see your bedroom the same way it is before and after you sleep. No matter what you do it still appear the same. Meaning your surroundings is independent from you. You are just a member of your surrounding, not a master mind of your surrounding. This is the constancy argument.

But how can a hallucination can have a rational mind just like you? Have physical characteristics just like you? Things that really exist has logical existence containment (LEC) -my own words. LEC means the individual exist in a logical way as you observed. Hallucinations does not follow LEC. For example a person takes a drug that causes hallucinations, suddenly a snake just pop into existence from nothing and bite his leg. The existence of the snake is invalid or not real because it does not follow the logical way because it is like magic, it just pop into existence.

I think the issue is solved because, you know I exist, as well as I know that you exist. There is no hard thing about this to attach to solipsism. You are not my illusion because you are independent from me. I don't even know what your mind is thinking now and vice versa.

I have a new argument against this. This is called- Conscious individual argument. This argument rationally argue against solipsism in the sense that each of us independently exist because each of us human beings are conscious on our own selves. I am conscious that you and others exist as well as you is also conscious that me and others exist and also others are also conscious that you and me and others themselves exist. Therefore since we human beings has consciousness on our own selves, and since we know for sure (base on solipsism) that you know you yourself exist and base on this, since all of us know individually that we exist therefore you, me and other people really exist.

Another idea that I think an argument against sollipsism is the fact that we ourselves are conscious and have freedom on what we will do (freewill). In this view, we ourselves are independent from an ultimate mind or consciousness because again we are free to choose which action we should do. Therefore, me, you and any other persons independently exist not depending from an ultimate mind or consciousness because again, we have free will.

Why they are both illusions? The 2 senses agree with each other on sensing the same thing. If they are both illusions, one sense would contradict the other sense. But they both agree.

Then it is not an illusion because your sense of sight confirms what you touch.

I have an idea that I think, a rational argument against solipsism. You see a chair, according to solipsism, you don't know whether it really exist or not or just an illusion. But you touch it and feel it. So it is confirmed that it really exist and not just an illusion. Your sense of sight is not lying because your sense of touch confirm it. Even if you are blind, obviously, you can still touch and feel the chair. This is my argument against solipsism. You know that something apart from yourself, really exist. It doesn't depend on your senses. The chair still exist, even you don't have eyes to see it because you know it still exist thru your sense of touch. So, you can't say that yourself only exist and others are only illusion. You know that something exist apart from yourself because it is independent from your senses.Let me call it, sensory recognition approach argument (sraa).

When we say sound speculation, it means it follows the standards of logic which founded on a valid premise supported by facts of reality. While unsound speculation may be logical but it's premise is not valid and not supported by facts of reality. It may also be not logical.

I don't want to bring myself up. I just want to discuss the truth.

No, there are standards or requirements that measure an argument or speculation if it is logical or not. Let me call this standards as logical standards.

Yes, I agree This philosophies are incorrect (imo).Why they have that philosophy? Are they don't have consciousness? Obviously not. Consciousness itself tells you that you exist. For example, I am conscious with my whole self, that I exist. No, that is not what I mean. Here. Let me classify two types of Speculation. 1.Philosophy (Sound speculation) 2. Unsound speculation Your example of solipsism is classified as my second classification. In this view, my assertion that philosophy is always correct is justified because it is sound speculation. So (imo) the proper meaning of philosophy is speculating in a sound and meaningful way.

But it depends.. We assume that it is absolute truth until it will be discovered that it is not really absolute. It depends because it is not sure that there should be more to discover. But there are factors that a truth is no need to be scrutinized further because it is absolute. Example, the truth that I am typing this sentence now. There is really absolute truth. Another example is the truth that we exist is absolute. Don't tell me that it is still relative because if you do, you would actually not exist. There is only two options, to exist or not exist. The fact that we exist is truly absolute. This is the absolute truth of existence. Sorry if you don't understand what really my point is because of my English. I'm not really a native English speaker and not good in English.

Why do you say that? There is no difference at all. Probe the DNA of coconuts of the same species, they have the same genes. This is what I mean. There is absolute truth about coconuts of the same species as these coconuts have the same number of genes.

So let me give another example to clear things out. You see a coconut, somebody would say that what you see is coconut and so on.. All of them agree on what you see. This is what I mean. Now the question is,"How can you say that it is no way absolute?"

Sorry,if it is not clear to you. I just want everybody to see what is there description if they see a liquid from the faucet, rivers, ocean- in a common sense way. If I ask you, what is the liquid coming out from the faucet, you would obviously answer water. If I ask also the same question to another person and so on and so forth. They will still answer "water". That is really I want to convey. I hope this makes clear enough. That is the example of absolute truth I want to convey. Another examples, are the moon, the stars, the sun etc.-They are absolute truths. We all agree what they are. In this aspect, we see that there are really absolute truths of reality which is obvious. You can't say that the sun is triangle because we all know, it is round. It is not the view of some people which is pure opinion because that is not my point. The point is what is there label if they see a liquid from the faucet etc. They will answer water-Obviously. If I ask you, what is it that flows in the faucet? You would obviously answer that that is water. With regards to your question about relative truths. You ask how are relative view of truths different from relative truths (true view), they are different because the first is resulted from unsound speculation while the second doesn't require logic. I like coffee is not unsound speculation because you are a human being who have the ability to like. It does not require logic. Unsound speculations happens because it has standard to follow which is logic. Example of unsound speculation. Piranhas live in the land. Obviously it is wrong because it doesn't follow the logical premise that fish live in the water. It is unsound speculation which is a relative view of truth (wrong view) of someone who have mental disorder. But if we say that I love piranhas is not unsound(explanation is on the top). It is relative. Others may not love piranhas.But it is not unsound because it is the result of you being a human being and it doesn't require logic because nobody can say he is wrong if he likes piranhas because that's what he likes.

No, what I mean is that relative view of truths resulted from unsound speculations are different from relative truths base from for example our taste of food, clothing etc. No, sorry, you seem to misunderstood me. What I mean is that all of us know that if we see a liquid in oceans, rivers, bathtubs, flowing from the faucet, etc. each individual if asked what is it will answer that that is "water". So in other words, the truth about water is not relative to everbody but absolute to everybody. Offcourse, I know that water from the ocean compared to water from the faucet has different composition, but what I want you to see, is that in a common sense way- how people look on a liquid found in the oceans,rivers, faucet, etc.

So it depends on the perspective of an individual. That individual could be right or wrong. But what I mean is that there are really established absolute truths and relative truths of reality no matter what is the view of an individual. Meaning, it is independent on the perspective of an individual. Example of absolute truth is the truth about water. All of us agree that water is water. Example of relative truth is our favorite food. It is relative because it depends on the taste of an individual. See, absolute truths and relative truths exist independently. That differences of opinion happens only (imo) if we speculate unsoundly. It is different to our opinion for example of our favorite food because it really exist on ourselves.