I always enjoy reading logical ping pong, it's entertaining.
Paradox is just a logic hiccup. The Universe still gets on with doing what it does, despite human musings about paradox and/or infinities.
I am always surprised that an 'intelligent' person can ever satisfy their personal search for the T.O.E,
with the god fable. Especially when it clearly is just a filler story (or god of the gaps) for phenomena that humans just can't explain yet. As has already been suggested, it is lazy thinking.

For me, despite the barber's paradox, everyone that wants a shave, seems to be able to get one, despite any protest from, or hiccup in, propositional logic.
Paradox and infinities just indicate that we have not answered all the questions yet.
I hope we never do, as I am not sure what we would be for after that.
If we do ever answer every question, it will perhaps turn out that the Universe will become 'self-aware' and all sentient life in the Universe, can as a totality of thought, declare itself God.
Because at that point, the totality of thought from all life in the Universe would effectively satisfy the three qualifiers for godhood,
Omnipotence (no more questions to answer so this must have been achieved),
Omnipresence (no part of the Universe would exist, which is not affected by the totality of life within it), and Omniscience (ditto with omnipotence)

Your conclusion is correct and it would be more helpful to write your second equation as a question, or a statement to be actioned, such as:

(Find values of x such that) sin x = 0.5 (and both sides of this system will be balanced)

To me, that's what sin x = 0.5 means in my head. sin x = 0.5 is just 'shorthand' is it not?

I think it is the balance that matters most, yes, rather that whats on either side of =

Balance....imbalance.....return to balance
chaos...combination....order....entropy..chaos...combination....order.......

waveforms have balance points or tipping points, in-between a single crest and trough, so you have:
balance.....up crest.....tipping point(or perhaps another balance point)....down crest.....balance.....down trough.....tipping point......up trough.....balance. There are many symmetries in waveforms as well.
The concepts of Balance, Imbalance, Chaos, Order are certainly very important in Philosophy, I think.

:up: :up: :up:

I think the concept missing from your OP is balance. Equal means both sides are balanced.

in Computing := means 'becomes equal to.'
So a program variable is given an initial value using :=
For example, using camel casing:

personName:= Jinty

The textual variable personName becomes equal to Jinty
OR 'is instantiated' to Jinty

= is more about balance than symmetry.
A tonne of feathers is not symmetrical in size to a tonne of steel but they are both balanced in weight.

???.....Ghosts don't exist.

It seems to me, that the main exchanges so far would suggest that the majority view here is that there is no objective example of a 'human philosopher.' There are 'gradations of human philosopher,' which is governed by 'level of study.' and the subjective opinions of others.
But could we create a 'better' philosopher by electronic, perhaps even quantum electronic, means?

I have copied and pasted comments below that I just entered on the thread 'What constitutes a philosopher' because I think it's relevant here too but from a slightly different perspective. I think it speaks to the debate here about the relevance of emotion/instinct/intuition etc to decision-making through thought.

Artificial Intelligence is still very much in it's infancy. Most computer systems only produce INFORMATION as an output to a screen, a printer or through speakers etc. They therefore mostly process raw data, not information.
Systems like the Mars rover etc are often described as having some sort of 'decision making' ability, in that they have a lot of sensors to provide feedback. Even the most powerful computers we have, can only simulate human decision-making. Their 'decisions' are solely based on logic operations involving base concepts such as (IF, AND, OR, NOT, etc) combinations where the bit 1 represents the state 'true' and the bit 0 represents false.
Raw data like 25 has no meaning so is not information. 25 apples or Person age:25 is information.
Data+contextual label = information. This removes examples like Orange 25 which is data until contextualised by perhaps 'My entry code is Orange 25,' then it becomes information.

Demonstrating understanding of an item of information is what I would call knowledge.
Current electronic expert systems contain a component called a 'Knowledge base.'
You can enter your medical symptoms and the system will 'pattern match' with its knowledge base to diagnose your problem and then it will display advice for treatment, that it finds stored in a data file or record structure, matched to the name of an ailment. Such systems are in my opinion not 'intelligent.'

To demonstrate intelligence, a computer must be able to 'demonstrate ability beyond the parameters of its programming.'
If a computer system/robot does ever demonstrate such an ability, would it then be able to truly think?
No emotion would be involved in such a system. Perhaps like Commander Data on Star Trek, was he/it capable of thinking like a human? Could he/it philosophise for example
What is the absolute minimum an electronic system would have to be capable of to demonstrate the human thought process?

Artificial Intelligence is still very much in it's infancy. Most computer systems only produce INFORMATION as an output to a screen, a printer or through speakers etc. They therefore mostly process raw data, not information.
Systems like the Mars rover etc are often described as having some sort of 'decision making' ability, in that they have a lot of sensors to provide feedback. Even the most powerful computers we have, can only simulate human decision-making. Their 'decisions' are solely based on logic operations involving base concepts such as (IF, AND, OR, NOT, etc) combinations where the bit 1 represents the state 'true' and the bit 0 represents false.
Raw data like 25 has no meaning so is not information. 25 apples or Person age:25 is information.
Data+contextual label = information. This removes examples like Orange 25 which is data until contextualised by perhaps 'My entry code is Orange 25,' then it becomes information.

Demonstrating understanding of an item of information is what I would call knowledge.
Current electronic expert systems contain a component called a 'Knowledge base.'
You can enter your medical symptoms and the system will 'pattern match' with its knowledge base to diagnose your problem and then it will display advice for treatment, that it finds stored in a data file or record structure, matched to the name of an ailment. Such systems are in my opinion not 'intelligent.'

To demonstrate intelligence, a computer must be able to 'demonstrate ability beyond the parameters of its programming.'
If a computer system/robot does ever demonstrate such an ability, would it then be able to philosophise?
No emotion would be involved in such a system. Perhaps like Commander Data on Star Trek, was he/it capable of philosophy?
What is the absolute minimum an electronic system would have to be cabable of to demonstrate an ability to philosophise or perhaps even be called a philosopher?

Very interesting stuff, and I respect your candor. I have never tried any non-prescription drugs either, so I also can't talk from personal experience of psychedelics. It's just the claims you hear about from artists/writers etc about their drug-induced state of mind, when they produced their 'best work.' or at least 'experienced elative clarity of thought' etc. I do find the area of 'State of mind,' interesting from philosophical and scientific respect.

Reasoning?

The relationship of emotion to knowledge is not causative. It is an adjunct, or maybe a catalyst--it participates in the formation of knowledge without becoming part of it. — Bitter Crank

Just a follow-up question. Do you think the intensity/extremity of the emotional state experienced affects your above description? Psychedelic drugs for example? can they alter knowledge 'flow' and aid creativity? In autism, some individuals can express insight or 'unusual knowledge,' considering the difficulties they have. Do you think that in these more extreme emotional states, including horror, terror, ecstasy? That you're statement above still holds?

But is the difference you suggest enough to separate the two?
'How to be wise' as opposed to 'how to stop being unwise and by doing so, I assume, become wise', which just seems to me to be the counterfactual position. So the sophist is merely the counterfactual of the philosopher?
Is this accurate?

I watched a lecture on YouTube a while ago that was the beginning of a philosophy course and that particular lecturer (A young American guy) described a philosopher in the literal translation of 'philo' meaning love and 'sophie' meaning wisdom, so as was posted earlier, a lover of wisdom.
I was more interested in his definition of a sophist, as 'one who is wise', without the 'love' aspect.
I also thought it was interesting when he said that a main difference between a philosopher and a sophist is that a sophist offered their wisdom for sale or for payment. He went on to say that this was not true of people like Socrates, so Socrates was not a sophist.
So would all teachers who accept pay today be correctly called sophists?
Could philosophers who take money for on-line debates etc also be called sophist?
Is it because money became involved in disseminating wisdom that sophistry became a word associated with an intention to deceive and someone who should not be trusted?

There's often detectable traces of truth in what I say, and here it's the idea that in-depth knowledge of a philosopher's works can become a prison for the mind. I think that's true. So don't let people browbeat you with appeals to authority. I also believe there are, what I call 'obscurantists' - who, for a variety of reasons, seek to make things as complicated and obscure as possible — karl stone

Yep, all valid observations in my opinion.

You seem to have an agile and enquiring mind, but come across as a bit uncertain of yourself. I just wanted you to know, in depth knowledge of philosophy doesn't make you a philosopher. — karl stone

Thanks for your kind words. I am glad regarding "a bit uncertain of yourself,' Otherwise, the danger is 'arrogance' and even 'delusions of superiority over others.' I recently retired, so I'm old enough to at least claim to be, not one of life's neophytes.
I appreciate what you say regarding:
"in depth knowledge of philosophy doesn't make you a philosopher"

but I agree more with the general case of a comment made earlier by another contributer, in that
You can qualify as a Philosopher and demonstrate an in-depth knowledge of the field but you might not be a good philosopher. Someone said earlier that 'Jordan Peterson may be a philosopher but he may not be considered a good one.' But then again it's also important to note that good/bad philosopher is within the opinion of the observer and such opinion can, of course, vary greatly.

The motives of the latter group vary, from intellectual masturbation through to religious protectionism via various political motivations — karl stone

I am so going to steal the term 'intellectual masturbation,' I don't seem to have encountered (I refuse to say 'come across it'..oh,...I just did) it before. It is a great descriptor for the smug look I have often viewed on the face of one protagonist when they think they have just scored an intellectual point against another. I think I will be using that term when I see that look in someone's face again. I think its a great counter. I admit to secretly feeling that way myself, when in debate but I have always felt a little ashamed afterward. Or at least, it makes me question my own motivations and priorities when dealing with others around me.

Thanks Garrett.
Yeah, I agree with all you said in your response. You sound like one of the contributors who is able to clarify aspects of academic philosophical theory. From your studies, you will know the accurate labels that I don't know. In my opinion, its not your job to explain the labels so that I can grasp their underlying concepts. That's what the like of google search can do for me. So the ownness is on me to take the time to study the meanings behind any label you present before I respond to you about it.
If I don't 'get it' after reading about it then I ask pop a question on the forum.
Such activities can only help me better form opinions on the issue under discussion.
That's probably what we are all here for!
I'm away to google 'operationalisation,' I'm not familiar with that label.

I specifically agree with your comment regarding the need or extreme usefulness of the human ability to categorise. Although I don't subscribe to Plato's use of that skill to introduce his 'Forms' and his suggestion that 'Logos' is the big TOE, or the ultimate label. I have been introduced to no evidence that convinces me of the existence of the metaphysical or the divine. Yet!

I take issue with the idea of a philosopher this statement implies. There are people on this forum who have extensive knowledge of what, usually - a few particular philosophers have said, but who couldn't reason their way out of a paper bag. They are devotees, not philosophers - and if you're not careful, they'll induct you into their cult! — karl stone

Ha Ha... thanks for the heads up!
If what you say has any element of truth within it then perhaps, over time, I will be less concerned about being able to hold my intellectual ground during dialogue with all comers on this forum. Hopefully, I will also never ossify and always maintain an open mind towards the viewpoints of others.

I don't know enough of the academic details put forward by a wide enough range of past and current individuals who claim or have been given the label 'Philosopher,' to call myself one.
I do not dedicate enough of my time and effort to the area to be able to 'debate' the details that the more seasoned practitioner (often called expert) can present.
I cannot 'debate the experts' in the field but that does not stop me from becoming a 'gifted amateur' and it does not mean that I could not come up with a 'wee gem' no one else had thought of.
I think this is true in all fields of study.

I take a rather simplistic but valid viewpoint, I think:

Humans need labels to try to make sense of the Universe.

Scientists use the scientific method to create their labels and combine them into equations and formulae and even laws and then they constantly scrutinise these labels to make sure they are still valid when they encounter new relevant scenarios and data. If a label does not hold then it is rejected.

Politicians create their labels and use them to make policies and establish doctrines, etc and all our lives are affected by their musings and their deliberations.

Philosophers create their labels. They then assess their labels and everyone else's labels from a more esoteric standpoint. They assess the wisdom and rigor of the suggested consequences implied by a particular set of labels. They ruminate about the implied meaning behind individual and combined labels. Their goal is ultimately the same goal as the scientist but from a different perspective. They both seek the big TOE. Theory of everything. The philosophers may be happier with the idea that they seek 'The real truth about existence.'

Every human on the planet uses all the labels created by all these other people to the best of their understanding and each person will mix/combine them, with labels produced by their own local dialect and create conversations and make decisions.

I am not a philosopher (although I declare a serious interest) but I enjoy entering their playpen.
I hope they don't find me too unqualified to take part.
As I said, my viewpoint is a very simplistic one:
I see a multitude of labels and I watch the need to scrutinise the validity of every one of them and the relationships between them, EXHAUSTIVELY! in pursuit of the big TOE.

I apologise for my extensive use of the word 'label'...... :naughty:

What is life but not a low whisper of limiter relevance. — pfirefry

Ha ha......aint it the truth! But nah, life is wonderful!......mostly

Ok...... :smile:

I agree....

My field is Computing Science so I am familiar with the type of system you are describing.
The electronic information systems used in Artificial intelligence and Natural Language Processing based on Neural nets and distributed and relational database storage and retrieval systems is a fascinating area. As are the algorithms used to simulate human decision-making. One point I would raise with you however, based on:

I think I explained this relatively poorly, but my main point is that information by itself is not useful until we put it in a context of a particular problem. This speaks to the pragmatic approach to knowledge described in the OP. — pfirefry

and it's a point you probably already know based on your software engineering background. Its only at the front end of software that we get information. Information comes through the screen or the printer etc as a result of the HCI or human computer interface. The system only processes raw data. Information has as you say, context and therefore meaning but that 'meaning' is only apparent to the user. It is not apparent to the computer system so I think your example does speak a little to the OP but I think it's a low whisper of limited relevance

No. It's the path I've taken. I find it's useful. I present it here. Pragmatism is a metaphysical position. It's not true or false, it's just more or less useful in a particular situation. Which is a very pragmatic definition of metaphysics. You disagree? I have no problem with that.

As for pragmatic epistemology being a strategy, it's not, at least not as I've laid it out here. It's a philosophy, a way of seeing reality, the whole shebang. Ontology, epistemology, yadda yadda yadda. It has all the bells and whistles of any other philosophy — T Clark

Fair enough, again I appreciate the exchange of viewpoints.

Be careful, his big brother might decide you are a snotty little twerp and decide to slap you down a lot harder. All vendetta starts this way. Turn it off and that way, it does not grow.

I am not suggesting that T Clark is the only person on this forum that could improve on the phrases they choose to employ during a dialogue.

??? I need to get past the fairytales? I did not say all philosophies were based on fairytales, T Clark did.

Now go away and come back when you know a little more about metaphysics.

I just wanted to say that in my opinion, you should disregard this advice...... :smile:

I shouldn't say this, but I will - all philosophies are based on fairy tales. Now go away and come back when you know a little more about metaphysics. Try "An Essay on Metaphysics" by RG Collingwood — T Clark

Wow, I see that your arrogance buttons are easy to activate. If all philosophies are based on fairytales then does that not make 'Pragmatic Epistemology' based on a fairytale. Off the cuff remarks like that can cause a politician's position to be no longer tenable. Many learned people believe that the metaphysical does not exist. Perhaps it's more accurate to say that we can all learn more about......
There is no need for anyone to go away and come back when......
Perhaps you can just decide to improve your level of politeness when debating others.

This thread is about knowledge as seen from a pragmatic perspective. It's about knowledge, not behavior. — T Clark

Have we not covered this already? Does knowledge not inform behavior? They are strongly linked!

It's not that a philosophy of instinct or intuition doesn't exist, I'm sure it does. It's that it wasn't involved in the actions taken to protect the child. No philosophy was. Why would there be? I don't get it. — T Clark

There are two separate and parallel streams of discussion here.
In one stream, you posit that pragmatic epistemology is not just a valid strategy for dealing with the experience of living a human life. You are suggesting, it seems to me, that it is the best strategy for living a good human life, as an individual, and it is also the best method of assisting other humans in their lives. I disagree and I propose that mere pragmatism is an insufficient epistemology to achieve such goals. You yourself state:

I assert that the primary value of truth and knowledge is for use in decision making to help identify, plan, and implement needed human action. — T Clark

I am saying that pragmatism alone will not furnish you with the level of 'truth and knowledge' needed by people in their everyday lives.

The second stream comes from my counter, that instinctive or intuitive acts which are not pragmatic can provide very valuable new knowledge to help people make decisions. You introduced a parallel line of discussion by suggesting that instinctive acts and intuitive acts have no basis in philosophy. I think I demonstrated through my internet search results that they do.

You then conflate the two streams and say there was no 'philosophy' in my scenario about the child.
I didn't introduce the example of the child to demonstrate a 'philosophy', I introduced it to exemplify an instinctive act which would result in very useful new knowledge that would assist future decision making.
(Such new knowledge may even save the childs life, if the coffee table danger is dealt with).
This is just as important as new knowledge gained from pragmatic thought.

You did not respond to the question is Pragmatic/instinctive/intuitive epistemology more accurate than just pragmatic epistemology as a guide for how to approach optimum decision making?

There was no philosophy of any kind involved. What's your point?
— T Clark — universeness

This was your response when I offered a scenario where new knowledge may be gained due to an instinctive act. Perhaps something like:
'If the child is standing near the coffee table then stand near the child in case they fall, perhaps this is a toddler learning to walk.' Before the instinctive act, no-one present at the time had reasoned that the child might fall against the table, the instinctive act saved the child from injury. Pragmatism may now be employed to prevent future harm to the child but the initial learning was through an instinctive act and not a pragmatic one. You said there is no philosophy here.
I asked if 'The philosophy of instinct' was an incorrect phrase.
You responded with

I don't know what this means — T Clark

I typed 'philosophy and instinct' into google and got hits with titles like

"what are the current theories about instinct in philosophy of the mind?"
"The role of instinct in David Hume's conception of human reason"
"William James - what is an instinct - The information Philosopher"
"The philosophy of Instinctualism (almost what I typed)"
"Peirce on Intuition, Instinct & common sense"

I did not read all of the associated material to pick out statements that would support your position or mine but I did quickly find:

Hume said 'human reason is nothing but a wonderful and unintelligible instinct'

Based on the above findings, I would suggest that your comment that there is no philosophy in instinctive acts was inaccurate. I would imagine the same follows for intuitive acts or acts of inspiration. I simply suggest that such acts have very little to do with pragmatic thought, especially during the time of the event. You can have a pragmatic analysis afterward, which informs future action, but that's not my point.
So would it be just as valid to suggest, a 'Pragmatic/Instinctive/Intuitive epistemology?'

Pragmatism and intuition are not in the same category. Intuition is a source of information just like observation or deduction. Pragmatism doesn't care where the information comes from. It's how we handle that information that matters — T Clark

Observation and deduction are elements of pragmatism. I don't think any epistemology 'cares' where data or information comes from.

Catching a child before its head smashes against a coffee table is instinctive.
It was an action and it saved the child, which is good, and there was no pragmatism involved.
— universeness

There was no philosophy of any kind involved. What's your point? — T Clark

So, would a phrase such as 'the philosophy of instinct/intuition' be an incorrect phrase?

Perhaps we are now just discussing the perceived semantic rules, associated with certain terminology.
Probably a boring area for both of us.

I never said that. — T Clark

Well perhaps not 'only' but you imply that your opinion is that its the 'best' way to travel.

I never said intuition is not a valid mechanism for gaining knowledge. What does that have to do with pragmatism? — T Clark

Well, if you are agreeing that instinctive actions and intuitive actions are valid methods of gaining knowledge and pragmatic actions are another valid method then are you merely saying that of the three, in your opinion, pragmatic actions produce 'more valuable' knowledge?

I will post, just below this post, my (lengthy) conclusion derived from the points I've posted here so far.
So, universeness, it being your job to demolish my conclusion, proceed — ucarr

I will respond to your points, as best I can, not with the intention of 'demolishing your conclusion,' but with the intention of attempting to scrutinise the logic you employ.

My work entails establishing a connection between atheism & solipsism, plus their two modes: monism & idealism. — ucarr

I don't see much connection between atheism and monism. Atheism is not an expression of monism, it's simply a non-belief in god. I can be atheist and believe in the multiverse, such a belief is not monist.
I see the connection between solipsism and monism from the argument that only 'self' is real. But I think solipsism is nonsense as each of us experiences self. Why would my claim of self be more valuable than yours? Solipsism, to me, is just a 'silly idea.'

I do not see atheism as an ideal, there is no perfection that is the source of atheism. To me, such thinking is just flowery tosh. again I state that an atheist does not believe that god(s) exist. I am not in search of any 'ideal atheism.'
If you are suggesting that atheism is merely a construct of the human mind and therefore not real then by that same logic, so is god and so are all constructs/concepts of the 'ideal.' For me, the metaphysical does not exist.

I do not see solipsism as an ideal, it's just an idea and a bad one in my view.

Simple counter-argument to knowing, authoritatively, with certain knowledge, God doesn’t exist.
If I say I am a swimmer, then I can prove what I am, by taking a dip in the pool.
Grammatically speaking, I am a swimmer is a verbal equation. I (subject) + (linking verb) am + (subject complement) a swimmer condenses down to I = a swimmer.
God, by definition, comprehends all existence. This is a well-defined property of God. — ucarr

Are you seriously saying that someone displaying an ability to swim, is evidence for the existence of god? God, by definition, comprehends all existence. This is a well-defined property of God
This is a claim, made by theists in their construction of god. That does not give it any credence whatsoever! This provides no evidence of the existence of god and is mere sophestry. It is not even clever sophistry.

According to the unrestricted comprehension principle of set theory, for any sufficiently well-defined property, there is a set of all and only the objects that have that property.
If I say, God is not, then I can prove what I know by revealing to you all existence.
This is the unrestricted comprehension principle in application.
Grammatically speaking, God is not is a verbal equation. God (subject) + (linking verb) is + (subject complement) extant not condenses down to God = extant not or
God ≠ extant.
If I know all existence, a power unique to God, then knowing there is no God means I am God.
If two things comprehend all existence, how can they be different? — ucarr

I always find amusement when a theistic argument is placed in an academic frame in an attempt to give it scientific credibility. Such attempts are so transparent.
Your god properties are not well-defined, as if god was omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent then it would have appeared in the center of London, New York, Paris and Washington D.C, simultaneously by now. It has never demonstrated any of the properties you assign to it except within folklore and fairytale.
You are just engaging in meaningless rhetoric and boring wordplay. Let's cut through it. Get your god to show up and do stuff. I have challenged it many times in my own ways. No results, at all, because it does not exist.

I read through the rest of the points you made and got more and more bored.
I suggest that all theists in existence communicate with each other, and make one big prayer/demand of your superhero to appear and show us, inferior humans, what it can do.
Your god has no power as it does not exist. It is a simple scapegoat for the bad behavior of some humans. Many humans use the god fable to commit heinous acts and then claim god is working through them to enact its will. A very convenient way of demonstrating why it is always absent.
The claim is: "God works in mysterious ways. god is in me, I act in gods name, etc, etc."
Humans have to become grown-ups and get rid of god. When the majority of us have achieved this, perhaps we will be ready to leave the nest and start to inhabit more of this vast Universe.
Let the movie industry be the place where gods/superhero's exist. That's their most useful purpose, as an entertainment.

Anyone read Caesar's Messian (The roman conspiracy to invent Jesus) by Joseph Atwill or
Creating Christ (How Roman Emperors invented Christianity) by J.S Valliant and W. Fahy?

OR

The personal memoirs of U.S Grant?

This thread has not been about pragmatic behavior, it's about pragmatic approaches to knowledge. As I noted, in pragmatism "the primary value of truth and knowledge is for use in decision making to help identify, plan, and implement needed human action." — T Clark

.
Knowledge informs and causes related human action. You are suggesting that using pragmatism as an epistemology ("pragmatic approach to knowledge") is the only way to travel.

"the primary value of truth and knowledge is for use in decision making to help identify, plan, and implement needed human action."
But human actions can be instinctive or intuitive, which in my opinion is not pragmatic but is just as valid in many circumstances.
Here are two examples:

Catching a child before its head smashes against a coffee table is instinctive.
It was an action and it saved the child, which is good, and there was no pragmatism involved.
Another example of the kind was referring to in my opinion is:

'It was my intuition that told me you were cheating on me. I had no evidence but it turned out to be true.'

Again an intuitive assumption resulted in new correct knowledge obtained but the new accurate knowledge was not based on a pragmatic epistemology.

You are putting too much space between knowledge and behavior or cause and effect.
Instinct and intuition are valid methods to use to gain new knowledge and so is pragmatism.
It may well be true that pragmatism will be a more fruitful approach compared to instinct or intuition but this does not mean it is wise to ignore your instincts or intuition on every occasion and wait for your pragmatism to kick in.

Atheism →→ Solipsism →→ Theism — Agent Smith

So your logic goes something like:

I do not believe in the existence of any god(s)............> I have no evidence that anything outside of me, exists..............> I do believe in the existence of god(s)

Where is the paradox? This is merely a 'belief' challenged by solipsism that you posit is strong enough evidence for flipping 'belief in god' from no to yes. That is not a description of a paradox.

Solipsism is nothing more than a possible consequence of 'I think therefore I am.' Nothing more. It can be used to suggest that 'self' IS god as only self is real and the universe is a construct/projection of self! But that's not true either as it implies that we are all individual gods, in which case we are just as well all being human.
What is solipsism to a dolphin? Does it suggest that based on solipsism, A dolphin has no evidence that humans exist, including the humans that are in the process of killing it?

It's the same old brinkmanship that's been used by gang-sized to nation-sized groups for centuries.
It's those in power trying to find ways to ensure they or their legacy stay in power.

It will never end until we become one planet and one species and there are no nations.

The danger is as always, the fact that we have the technology to destroy ourselves.
If Russia invades Ukraine then they will be initially successful, and then we will enter the guerilla warfare stage and many soldiers and civilians will die on all sides.
This will continue until enough general revulsion occurs and they come to an agreement to end the conflict.
Then all the powers will assess the outcome from the standpoint of who gained what and who lost what. This informs future tactics.
A child could accurately predict subsequent events if Russia invades Ukraine, including noting that M.A.D(mutually assured destruction) is always on the table for our species.
The 'hawks' within each of the major powers, safe in their offices/bunkers always like to probe/prod their enemies.
The arena involved does not really matter.
All the sides involved will send their best new materials and employ their best new strategies.
The goal is to find out how much each player has improved since the last encounter.
M.A.D is nonetheless unlikely (but not impossible) as the powerful rich on each side, don't mind the death or misery of the 'ordinary' people but they don't want to cause their own destruction.
That would 'not be cricket'!

I think I get what you are trying to type.
I think you are trying to claim that Science uses current technology to produce experimental results which confirm their theories and their intention is to deceive. If I am correct then I would say that though this may be true in a very small number of cases, it is in general absolutely untrue.

I call myself a pragmatist because the decisions I agree with are almost always pragmatic. I was pragmatic before I was a pragmatist. It's not a question of priority, it's how I see the world. Right action is what solves the problem at hand honorably, quickest, and with the fewest negative consequences. — T Clark

Well, at the end of the day, if we all saw the world the same way then there would be no need for TPF.
Thanks for the exchange of viewpoint :smile: