I intelligo.

My two coins ... for what they're worth.

Solipsism is about knowledge (epistemology) and not ontology (metaphysics). The only proof that's for sale is what can be known to exist (with certainty). The project won't fly mon ami.

I can't believe in something I don't know to be true, even if I don't know if it is not true. Are we having fun yet? :razz: — Tom Storm

I'm under the impression that we may have "reasons" other than a good argument to believe. No, I'm not having fun. Fun and I parted ways thousands of years ago. :lol:

The problem is set by the similarity between the two, which suggests that their epistemic classification should be the same, and the difference in their circumstances (i.e. the fact that Betty’s car has been stolen), which strongly suggests that it is different. So the fact that Betty’s car has been stolen makes me classify her as believing and rather than knowing. Conclusion – knowledge is not just about the psychological state of the knower. Hence, for example, how confident they each are is irrelevant. — Ludwig V

Then I don't understand Vogel. Full steam ahead!

What are we to do? — BC

I don't have answers to good questions like yours.

... in chess and in the road — 180 Proof

Précisément!

Another one of The Architect's macguffins. Remember, Smith: "There is no spoon." (i.e. there is no Matrix) :smirk: — 180 Proof

:smile: There are only forks! :lol:

I loved 4 times and I lost 4 times. Should I be giving up? :broken:

Ubi amor, ibi dolor.

Are "all doors" actually locked? — 180 Proof

:lol: I dunno but Mr. Anderson, Morpheus, and Trinity are looking for The Keymaker.

I intelligo.

I intelligo.

What is the word?

The question: Is there a key that unlocks all doors?

“Being challenged in life is inevitable, being defeated is optional.” – Roger Crawford — Gnomon

I intelligo.

As a philosophical naturalist I exclude non-natural 'first principles'. — 180 Proof

I intelligo.

My candidates for arche:
dao, or atomist void, or natura naturans ... :fire: — 180 Proof

The arche goes by many names. To Anaximander, it's apeiron; not sure about this but in Christianity, it's the void; to Laozi it was the Tao. If you'll permit me take a theistic stance, God is seen as a creator i.e. His creative power is Ein Sof and what could be more creative than pulling something out of thin air i.e. in the beginning there was ... nothing".

Well Vogel seems to think that there's a difference between Al's and Betty's epistemic circumstances. From what I can gather Al is more confident than Betty with regard to the current location of their car.

Will drop by.

Hypothesis non fingo.

Another another proof of solipsism ( :smile: )

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate — William of Occam

Ergo,

Ego solus est.

Another proof that I alone exist.

1.The 3 marks of existence are anicca (impermanence), anatta (no-self), and dukkha (suffering).
2. I alone bear these 3 marks^A
Ergo,
3. I alone exist

QED

A: Some are anicca but neither anatta nor dukkha; others are anatta but neither anicca nor dukkha; still others are dukkha but neither anicca nor anatta. In no person/thing in our universe do the 3 marks of existence instantiate simultaneously except in me. :grin:

:lol:

God moves in a mysterious way. — William Cowper

In connection to a thread on Theodicy.

I can't know there is no god. I can only decide there are no reasons good enough to believe in one. I am, like many contemporary freethinkers, an agnostic atheist. Agnostic in relation to knowledge of god; atheist in terms of belief in god. — Tom Storm

I don't know whether God is/isn't, but I believe God isn't. :up:

I'm sorry but you're commenting on a statement that I didn't understand. I hope @180 Proof gets it! Somebody has to, oui? For all our sakes ...

The video is restricted content, unfortunately. It doesn't matter, I'm used to censorship. As for your riddle, splendiferous!

Interesting. i was just wondering about how we would choose the arche from the available options if it's true that they're all different states of each other.

I haven't followed it but I vaguely remember they thought people would get a false sense of security wearing masks and increase risky behaviour? — Benkei

:up:

Here's my proof of solipsism

1. Only things that we're 100% certain exists exist.
2. The only thing I'm 100% certain exists is me (re cogito).
Ergo,
3. I alone exist.

QED

:lol:

P. S. I suffer from Cotard's delusion (I don't exist).

As to the efficacy of masks, any schoolkid could do the math - they do block droplets of a certain size and larger? Evidence? Try coughing & sneezing with a mask on. Does it feel wet? In the world of microbes, there's a minimum infective dose (MID) and this is where masks come in. By reducing the volume of respiratory infective material what masks do is prevent microbes like viruses from achieving the MID to cause an infection and setting off a chain reaction i.e. they stop epidemics, pandemics from occurring.

Aye skipper!

We always have a choice whether or not to hold rational (dis)beliefs — 180 Proof

:up: Danke kind person.

No "lack of belief" here, just active disbelief. — 180 Proof

We really don't have a choice, do we? It's either up or down. :sad:

:smirk: I don't need to google what I know is a fact - the absence of a scientific paradigm for consciousness. I hope you're not referring to Roger Penrose's microtubules idea. :roll:

Explain — 180 Proof

Point me to an theory/hypothesis we could employ to explain consciosuness.

Have you tried reading? — Isaac

I have not! Give me some pointers (not on reading, on explanatory frameworks for consciousness).

All I'm saying is there's at least some kinda theory/hypothesis to, at a minimum, attempt an explanation. None exist for consciousness.

:up: Ah, the all-famous lack of belief. In me humble opinion, atheists shouldn't co-opt lack of belief - that position is distinct enough to deserve a separate category (would save us a lot of trouble).

You do realise that that's not what solipsism says, Smith? Not I exist, but I alone exist — Banno

:ok: I didn't know, but can you review Cartesian skepticism and get back to me if you find anything interesting.

Although you've been kind enough to share your insights with us, I'm afraid the distinction you make between god's existence and theism escapes me. Wait! I get it now. You're right on the money, si señor! Theism can't/shouldn't exist, because god's existence/nonexistence is adiaphora i.e. undecidable.

No one has either proved/disproved the existence of god. All that has been accomplished is refutations of mainly theistic arguments, that they're unsound. Atheism is happy just doing that, but it bears mentioning that it hasn't disproved god. As a (wannabe) skeptic, this is perfect weather for epoché (to suspend judgment i.e. adopt agnosticism).

Regarding empirical evidence for God, what about order (re clockwork universe); "there's gotta be a ordering principle" say theists, which is God.

Solipsism is true in the sense of what is 100% certain - our own existence. If you lower the bar to may exist, solipsism is no longer as strong a position.

I started a thread a few months ago about my belief that others exist for sure, but not me à la Cotard's delusion (the mirror image of Descartes' cogito).

Yeah but not the "god of religion" ... — 180 Proof

:chin: