I know this: I can't think of any 'grounds to doubt' that I exist which do not also presuppose that I exist; 'doubting that I exist' is, in fact, a performative contradiction. — 180 Proof

How about all those doubts you did not have?

*stands ready to catch the falling*

As for whether or not the self exists, who cares. Selves do not die any more than they live. — Swan

The oxymoron of samsara. It does have a solution though, which is why we care; I reckon.

What would be irrational would be to doubt where doubt is incoherent. — Banno

What would also be irrational is to outrule what it precludes though. It is merely the positions of the doubt that is coherent. Not what rests outside of it. That's where the very boundaries of the frame to think outside of involves initiative.

Thus the reality or existence of ourself is observable & identifiable with these particular & actual states of thought or perception, & isn’t to be looked for beyond or outside of these. — aRealidealist

Ideally so. Ideally too though, it does not exclude what it does not involve; it is simply just not within its ethereal purview. On it we can as a concept preclude what we do not understand and in doing so know what it is. Then it's just a matter of abstracting your way through living. There is no means to a matter - so to say. Boundaries are not my thing.

and that has never changed! — Daniel C

I wouldn't say that. There's a brave new world out here. Magic and unicorns around every corner.

Why do you need proof? Why the preference for doubt here? — Banno

The proof is sealed by the understanding of who we also are to exist. Doubt is merely a measure to perpetuate dignity to that conclusion. It's well worth the while.

Indeed; who would have the proof? — Banno

I've got it. In all honesty we've just got to work for it to be worth it. Enough for it to be evident.

On what ground can it be doubted? — creativesoul

God could be placing ideas in a creative way around a soul that does not exist. Then in adhering to its own introspection for the remainder of this idea in itself, the creative soul could with a little aid from within the introspection, be pointed to the fact. That maybe it?

we just collectively validate each other's existence because we interact with each other. — aporiap

It does not have to be freaky. Believe you are loved enough in the context that matters to you and there is validation enough to go around. I love you.

One cannot not know he exists unless he exists. One can only doubt his existence if he exists. Existence is a precondition to both knowing and doubting. — NOS4A2

Certainly; but do you think non-existence would bother with such technicalities?

If I could prove the relative physicalistic existence of my being (exist, as the general natural world) no one would understand it and I’d no longer ‘exist’. It’s more about the question being limited in it’s range and assuming it means something ‘beyond’ comprehension. — I like sushi

I get that. It means everything. If with it I can regardless on the state of my existence, from my non-existence infer that your existence has no meaning. Then in my non-existence, to which your existence has no meaning, I would have made a direct connection to it. Therefore both of us have real meaning and the state of my existence is non-essential. Feel me?

Hopefully to a consolation: I am sure to be at the cradle of an eternal civilization. We have much to consolidate ourselves with, but our wills are strong and intent on living together. We are gonna make it.

Such abstract, Platonic world is not observable and has nothing to do with observation. — alcontali

It is observable too - as concepts. The world is dualistic, which means in the end that every statement is true to it. You're right, ofcourse - as well as non-exclusive. This is the inclusion. Duality is a bitch; but only for as long as it needs to be taught. After that we can always agree fundamentally.

By the way, what are the minimum necessary concepts to derive the concept of colors? — Zelebg

I hereby coin that color B: for Batch - the number of concepts required to derive a concept. If you ever figure the quanta of it's batch out; hit me up.

Love,
EL

Logic is just grammar; ways of putting symbols together. Nothing to symbolise means no symbols. — Banno

The ways to put them together still remains - the grammar. The conceptual prospects still remain to symbolize. Logic without information is concepts. Try living with the prospects for all concepts forever. Even the dead can't escape that reasoning. It takes higher faculties of self-deception to pull that off. Nothing is not a thing. The concepts owning up to that truth is the purity of Kant's right in my opinion. Despite how little we are, with the prospects of it we can still think about it.

The moral of the story does not reveal the will of God; only the directions of God. It would have been right by God to in any case pertaining to good and evil, provide the option to learn, while weighing the positive and negative against each other in the probability for the endeavor to be undertaken. It is then right for the humans involved to do whatever they so desire. God's will cannot be eluded. That is the very fundament of the definition of what a God is.

The only moral I conclude is conduced between the Jewish and Christian view. There is none. Humanity was given an option and it was fair by terms of balance between the created and its creator. This rather adheres to the Muslim view of God than any other; where only subservience to God's will exists. Do what you will, it will never ever be outside of the scope of God's will in any regard that it might succeed.

The evil resides in the multitude of pain that would unleash from eating the fruit, in order to discern the difference between good and evil. It in itself is not evil; although probably good. It all depends on your take on whether life itself is good or bad in its fullness. Given the depiction we have of God, I know we all can be certain given the context for the morality that it was the right call. Love life or not is rather the ultimate question here.

If you can imagine being a God - then God condones the imagination. No more, no less. If all the while you can be a God; then congratulations - God are on your side. Fabled or not - this is it, right?

I expect religion to keep being religion. It is the fabling about God one way or another. I don't expect God to be more found in it than in any other area. It wouldn't be a very interesting God to fable about if all there was to it is religion. We can find treasures that belongs to any other area from all areas. God is the greatest decentralization of all. To monopolize it whatsoever is hearsay to a potential end of God, but never God itself. A God - for sure. I don't believe in limiting the almighty; not by moral, nor by prestige or even number.

My answer to the question is thus: Neither, nor neither and either. A counter-question I pose is: What would you make of it? In any case possible, it would be a gift from God - I deem that nothing more than a blessing.

If YHWH murdered Adam and Eve for this, I congratulate us. Would you have ever asked yourself the immeasurable question about your own divinity without the notion? That's just the way it is. Although murdered they were not in any technical sense. They were merely prohibited to eat from the tree of life. Makes sense to first know good from evil before that decision to be made either way. Given a real scenario, the prospect of eating the fruit will have reflected the issue in terms of becoming aware that it was supposedly either good or evil and that it could not be known to any conclusion without first partaking of the fruit. The consequences were realized.

The importance for humanity with regards to religion is not the means to a measure, but the measure of the means. I will happily be a bad example if need be. Fear of being a subject to scrutiny is not a good reason to turn your back on reality. I'm with God on this one and I do not believe that He made anyone anything - not good, nor evil or anything else. Be what you want - no-one else can. I know I am.

Best wishes,
EL