1. "Before the earth existed, in the midst of the primordial darkness, before things were known, he created that which would be the foundation of human language, and the true First Father Ñamandu made it part of his own divinity." (Guarani Myth of creation, as recorded in the Ayvu Rapyta) — Arcane Sandwich

Wonder if there is a correlation with that creation myth and John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God".

I was thinking about this, and this is what I came up with:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

What do you think? — Ayush Jain

I think there were trees in the forest before anyone saw them.

I'm no expert but it may be a positive sign that gender dysphoria is on the rise. — Tom Storm

Then it's oxymoronic because it can't be dysphoric and be good. The opposite of dysphoria is euphoria, but I don't know that we can consider those who believe they're something they're not in a state of bliss, nor can we can generally call those who medically alter themselves euphoric. Maybe they find some benefit, but transitioning has hardly shown to be curative of the depression and other symptoms associated with gender dysphoria.

There simply is no good logical explanation for why gender can be entirely removed from ontological reality and be declared entirely a social construct and yet other genetic designations cannot unless you say that we as a society have the right to arbitratrarily decide which designations to allow be linked to reality and which to societal choices.

And that is a long way of just saying you can't say that gender is not associated with chromosomes but race (or any other genetic condition) is unless you just arbitrarily decide to do that. As indicated by the OP:

For some, the solution is to dismantle traditional categories entirely, embracing fluidity and rejecting labels. For others, the answer lies in retreating into the comfort of established norms, reclaiming what feels like authenticity in an increasingly disorienting world. Yet neither path fully resolves the underlying problem, as both are reactions to a distorted reality. — Benkei

What this means is that the reason you refuse or permit someone of Nordic descent to declare themselves of Asian descent is based upon one of two reasons: (1) we choose fludity and allow the person to call themselves Asian, or (2) we choose the comfort of tradition and insist he call himself Nordic.

My response it that the decision is based upon neither, but it's based upon the unstated #3, which is that we don't call the Swede Japanese because he's not, and he will not be regardless of how he might change appearance, dress, speach patterns and whatnot.

If we deny it's my #3, but instead insist we've just chosen option #2 in this instance as it pertains to ethnicity because we arbitrarily have chosen to do so, then you have no reason to object to the person who choses #2 as it pertains to gender. They have just acted arbitrarily differently than you.

And this was the crux of my initial response to the OP, which was that it was correct in noting the problems, but that it still had buy in to the notion that we as a society have complete freedom in declaring what reality is. Your post suggests we should celebrate as each traditional shackle is removed and handed back over to society to decide what to do best. I'm disagreeing with that because there is a right way and a wrong way regardless of what society says.

Either we declare immutable truths or we don't. The consequence of not is what we're currently dealing with. You can base the immutablity of truth on God or just plain stubbornness if that suits you better, but without it, you end up with the anything goes chaos described in the OP. And your question is when should we do this, when should we declare we've reached a barrier and not permit society to allow the change.

I'd respond by saying that we shouldn't allow the Nordic person to be accepted as Asian. If you don't agree with me, why not?

It's all a matter of conflict resolution. We appeal to reason, we draw straws, we file lawsuits, we throw eggs at their house, we throw a punch, we fire a weapon, we level their city. There are all sorts of ways to resolve issues, some more costly than others.

Within civilized societies, we reject the concept of "self help," which means we don't allow people just to figure out the best way to resolve their problems on their own without regard to standards, but we set up processes. If you violate the rules in football, the referee calls the penalty, and failure to follow his rule will result in greater and greater penalty.

The problem arises when there is no accepted authority and no rule for adjudication. We can't sue Putin for the damages exacted in Ukraine and we can't imprison him.

It's a thought I had about the international court issuing the warrant for Netanyahu's arrest, where they went through what they felt to be a legally binding process such that they are now authorized to arrest him. I would suggest that the capture of foriegn leader who does not accept your way of conflict resolution would be an act of war and and an expected warlike response should be anticipated. It's not a matter of whether the arrest warrant is justified under some moral theory or another, it's whether the enforcement is an accepted one by the entity being affected and whether that entity is ultimately powerless to resist it.

The breaking down of traditional, cultural and national identities in favor of the communist 'identity' of total uniformity is commonplace historically. — Tzeentch

I suppose if you see it through the lens that the effort is at converting the population as opposed to opening it to other norms, then i guess the argument could be made, but i think it ultimately fails.

I don't see how the argument can be logically maintained because it assumes a pervasive culture being attacked by a rising discontent where the discontented must be defined as collectivist. Why wouldn't the currently existing culture be also collectivist if it's aim was just a uniformity of a different brand?

It's hard to follow how you can call a society with an entirely homogenous ideology and routine less collectivist than a diverse one. I think of 1950s US and certain Asian cultures, and I don't see how their homogenuity correlates to individualism. I think the 1950s US example as individualistic, but not the Asian one.

I think much of this is a misuse of terms. We're comparing homogenuity to diversity and somehow this is being morphed into a capitalism versus communism discussion. I think a case can be made that Marxist countries are more subject to social discord and infighting and internal purges and whatnot than more capitalist ones. The stereotype is that conservatives are too busy to protest.

I also see the collectivist/individualistic distinction a sociological one, rooted in history and often available resources. Poverty demands sharing. Collectivist social customs also don't foreclose capitalism, like Japan, for example, and especially among Asian immigrants to the US.

Anyway, this just feels like all social ills are being blamed on the boogeyman of communism.

I've got nothing good to say about communism either. I just think the objection raised is inapplicable.

The fragmentation of groups into other groups and the rise of identity politics is the business of collectivism. Replacing one group identity with another is a collectivist act. And none of the categories listed are in any sense individualistic in practice or in principle — NOS4A2

I don't follow this. How can hyper-individualism be collectivist? Feels like a McCarthyist response, where all that is objectionable in the world must be rooted in communism.

I share your disdain for communism, but I don't see how you see that here.

One of those rare people who 'knows' what is true and good. Would you also consider yourself a conservative (socially/politically/culturally)? — Tom Storm

Not sure if this is sarcastic, as if to imply everyone thinks they know right from wrong, yet no one does.. Are you arguing for a subjectivism, or just being snarky? Not that snark is bad, but I'm just trying to understand your criticism, if that's what it is.

To the other question, I think I'd fall right of center in the US. On TPF, farther right of center.

So essentially you believe in tanscendent notions of truth and good and you see these as stemming from God? What would count as an example of barbarianism? — Tom Storm

I think it's clear I used the term metaphorically and hyperbolically, referencing those immoral things we wish to keep out of our society. This sounds again like your first question, which challenges absolute notions of morality, suggesting a subjectivism.

I'm really just trying to cut to the chase of what you're asking. You're sounding Socratic and I'd rather you just say you think my bold assertions of certainty are foundationless rants of a right winger if that's what you think. It won't insult me, but that's the best I'm deciphering from your questions.

That would align with the Trump movement too, but I understand you may be ambivalent about that. — Tom Storm

Probably accurate, but I think this thread suggests a reckoning with the political shift to the right that goes beyond Trump and American politics. The OP implies an abandonment of unified values leads to fragmentation and alienation. My response was agreement, but moralizing and saying that the OP doesn't just identify a sociological phenomenon when you don't share a common culture, but it identifies what happens when you do what is wrong.

And, if I've got this right, that moralizing resulted in your seeing a Republican in your midst and so you called me Trumpesque. I'd have preferred Jefferson. Donald has more baggage than I'm willing to accept.

This sounds demure. Wouldn't we require barbarians to be vanquished? — Tom Storm

Sure, if we take metaphors literally, we don't want to be besieged by wild eyed maniacs pounding at the gates or whatever picture you envision.

But, if we take the metaphor to mean we don't want to be besieged with that which violates our moral norms, I don't think the wholesale murder of our adversaries is in order. Maybe we just vote.

My first vote is to end the use of the term "demure." I made it 50+ years without it, and now it's a staple. I've now identified a barbarian for you.

My given name. — NOS4A2

People use pseudonyms to hide their identity. I've seen it before. Like now.

I do not call myself that. You call me that. — NOS4A2

What do you call yourself?

How does one hide a real identity? — NOS4A2

You call yourself NOS4A2 for example.

So, what do you think? A fever dream of mine, or do you recognize something similar happening in our world? — Benkei

For others, the answer lies in retreating into the comfort of established norms, reclaiming what feels like authenticity in an increasingly disorienting world. — Benkei

I generally agree with the observation that modern society's embracing of non-traditional values has led to general alienation and lack of direction.

The part I might disagree is in your phrasing of the second quote above, as if traditional value systems offer a safe harbor of retreat, to suggest their value is simply pragamatic, a quiet space in the corner away from the noise. I'd suggest the comfort derived from them is not simply that they happen to work because of their stricter standards and their clear offers of direction, but it's because they are true. It's not as if any standard will do as long as we have a standard, but it's that we have a correct standard. That is, I don't fall back to my traditional systems because I can't take my neighbor's chaotic system, but I stand firmly in my traditional system because it's the correct way to think and to act. That is, by doing right, one ends up without the psychological stresses of those who do wrong.

The distinction isn't subtle because it gives a nod to absolutes, to right, to wrong, to immutability over fluidity. It is not just living by clear dictates that avoids the stress of chaos, it is the belief that there are clear dictates that are with certainty true that avoids those stresses and it's adherence to an actual true standard that matters.

This isn't to suggest that the way things were were the way things should have remained because not every expression at any given moment is consistent with the way things ought to be, but I do see what "ought" to be as an objective question, not just a personal expression for the moment.

It's as if we erected all these fences so long ago and we forgot why, so we tore them down and barbarians invaded we never knew existed, so we frantically try to protect ourselves until someone suggests we might wish to reconstruct some of those fences. My metaphorical point here is that we ought re-erect those fences not just because we wish to find personal peace, but because those barbarians are evil, not just an inconvenience we don't know how to accomodate. If we don't take that stance, then we're just going to keep tearing those fences down again and again, thinking he can make friends with the barbarians and all get along.

And don't misunderstand all this to mean I'm looking to force certain behaviors out of people. People get to celebrate their uniqueness and ultimately make their own decisions how they see fit, but they don't necessarily get to be saved from hearing the commentary regarding their behavior from their opponents. I do think though we've reached a point that we might be finally be relenting from where we could not even question whether every personal expression is a good one.

I did not indicate how long it took me to read the book. — T Clark

Neither did I. I provided the outcome of a hypothetical situation and then I commented on your ability to perform in that hypothetical situation, which would have been poorly.

Laughably poorly. As in, ha ha, Clarky can't even read 1/2 a page daily.

The only one on your list I've read is "The Wisdom of Insecurity." — T Clark

To complete that book in a year, you would need to read 0.44 pages per day. No way you read that fast.

That is a total of 11,720 pages, which would be 32.1 pages per day if all read in one year.

I dumped that into ChatGPT and asked it. I didn't actually look each one up individually. Had I manually looked up each book for the number of pages and then did the math myself, GPT says it would have taken me about 1 hour and 20 minutes.

just don't understand why aliens from distant planets want my used appliances and furniture. They could at least offer to trade something -- maybe their old orgazmatron couch, or some nice floor covering? — BC

Aliens are huge thrift store shoppers. They like a good deal and love knick knacks. The clutter in their space ships looks like a grandma's house.

Atheists believe in UFOs because they don't believe in God. Theists don't need to believe in UFOs because they believe in God. — Leontiskos

I think my reasons set out to 180 directly above makes more sense, but I'm interested in why you think an atheist would need there to be UFOs to impart meaning on their lives and why you think theists would lose something if they accepted that UFOs existed.

My view is that there aren't aliens because I've never seen one in the zoo. If you can show me one, I'll change my mind. It's sort of like bigfoot. I'll believe in it when it walks through my backyard,.

Just as atheists are less likely than religious people to "believe in" angels & ghosts. As you're well aware, we (confabulatory metacognitive) h. sapiens are quite often (virally) delusional. — 180 Proof

UFOs and bigfoot could exist under our current concept of physics and scientific reality. Gods and angels, not so much. Many theists subscribe to Creationist accounts, and most such literature makes no reference to otherworldly creatures, except for those who reside up high or down low and have supernatural powers.

I think that's probably why atheists can better accept UFOs and fundamentalists cannot.

"UFOs" = angels & ghosts :roll: — 180 Proof

I wondered about that, but this article says religious people are less likely to believe in UFOs than are atheists.

https://religionnews.com/2021/08/23/for-atheists-the-idea-of-aliens-seems-real-religious-people-doubt-it/

Shoot them down and wait to see who sues you. Problem solved. — Leontiskos

Where do you get a surface to air missle?

It is hard to wade through all this, but given the framework I provided of context, evidence, and sources, how should one evaluate claims? — schopenhauer1

I don't view this through an epistimological lens, as if suggesting the meaning of "truth" has shifted or that there is some paradigm shift where we now accept non-scientific perspectives when deciphering what is true or not.

I view this through a political lens, as in who is saying it, why they're saying it, and what power they wish to gain through saying it.

It's a strange turn of events, but the right today represents a counterculture perspective in some regards. They no longer believe in traditional institutions. They reject what the government tells them as all being propoganda. They reject consensus scientific view as being designed for a malicious purpose. Vaccines are designed solely for profit and population control, climate science is designed to offer support for Robin Hoods to control wealth, the FBI is designed to eliminate freedoms, and theories get thrown around about how the entirety of Washington is a massive pedophelia ring. Universities are viewed as powerful mechanisms of control and manipulation of the average citizen, bringing about a 180 degree change from the day when the universities viewed themselves as the speaker for the average citizen.

The UFO thing is consistent with all of this. It's another instance of someone or something having taken over society in some surreptitious way, with a final plan to take the hard earned belongings and freedoms from average Americans. It's all the result of distrust and paranoia.

The problem is that the distrust and paranoia has been earned. It's not that the right is rational in its response, but it's not that the left has maintained a moral high ground either. Do what you want, say what you want, try to get what you want, and if you get caught, be more clever the next time.

Meanwhile, drones fly over NJ and no one is entitled to an explanation.

Any ideas, thoughts, observations, theories? — schopenhauer1

Someone must know what they are or they'd have been shot down by now. So far, they've not done anything interesting.

My feeling is we work so hard to maintain the right to be armed in this country, you'd think we'd be more excited to finally have a menacing target to shoot at.

Lastly, is it just me, or is there some truly unfortunate, bitter irony in holding faith and hope in prayer when unanswered prayer results in an increase in skeptical atheism and/or agnosticism? … Nevertheless, the following poem is for the growing number of people for whom there’s nothing to be thankful for on Thanksgiving Day, or any other day of the year. — FrankGSterleJr

How do you know the prayer was unanswered as opposed to the answer having been no?

As to the OP, you should be thankful for nothing to the extent that what you haven't received is part of your bounty as well.

so be it. — Mikie

Then it is.

Obviously that was extrajudicial, but at the same time, perhaps it is good that powerful people are reminded every once in a while that there a limits to how far one can push innocent people. — Tzeentch

You're arguing that this instance of first degree murder was perhaps good?

Is it possible other health insurance executives in the industry might reevaluate their companies' denials of coverage policies in light of the murder? If one thinks that every denial of coverage could result in one's murder, wouldn't that be an incentive to reduce those denials a bit? — RogueAI

Considering someone is immoral enough to kill someone else for only having allegedly denied a valid insurance claim, it is entirely possible that someone else will exercise the poor judgment to modify his claims processing based upon fear of murder. That is, sure, someone might make a bad decision. It happens all the time.

To the actual possibility that claims handling will be impacted by some murdering thug, that's pretty doubtful. The driver of corporations is profits and if claims payments are going to be increased, premiums will as well. What you make is the case for stricter police enforcement and greater protection of corporate decision makers if you actually believe decisions are now going to be made literally at gunpoint.

This idea of villifying corporations to the extent you actually believe the murder of their leaders is understandable and should give pause to reconsideration of current policy is a considerable part of the reason the left saw the election results they did. You can't expect to hold any moral high ground if you're going to insinuate that murder is an acceptable response to a health insurance denial and then somehow condemn the relative child's play of infractions committed by those across the political aisle.

That anyone has any hesitation to fully condemn the shooter and to refuse to use his actions to promote any outstanding agenda reveals someone just terribly misguided without any moral compass.

This is just to say that if rising heathcare premiums and increased healthcare denials lead to more murders, we don't need reduced premiums and higher claims approvals. We need more police and more jail cells. Whatever you might think of jails and law enforcement, consider yourself in the tiny minority if you think first degree murderers should be granted leniency.

The issue isn’t with the CEO, it’s with the corrupt, immoral, profit-over-people system that leads to his existence. — Mikie

The issue is that there was a murder.

The healthcaee crisis is a non-sequiter to that.

The murderer did not address the issue, clarify the issue, or make the world in any way a better place.

We just agreed on something. First sign of the apocalypse.

The doctors refused to provide the care, not him. Why not kill them?

The problem with US healthcare is that insurance is unaffordable for many, not that the claims process for those insured is more burdensome than would exist in a nationalized healthcare system. It's not like nations with national free healthcare approve every procedure and efficiently provide service.

In fact, the reason the US has rejected public healthcare is due to fears of not being able to choose one's own doctors and having their healhcare decisions made by beurocrats.

I refuse to allow a sociopath who committed first degree murder to have any voice or to shape the direction of any conversation regarding anything other than what sentence he deserves, with the objective of silencing him forever.

Let his actions be in vain, for nothing, just so he can die anonymously alone 50+ years later.

Whatever conversation needs to be had about whatever is going on in the world can arise as it would have anyway.

I don't lost sleep over the death of someone so distant, but I don't subtract sympathy based upon Brian Thompson's occupation or standing. That the shooter was also of privilege also doesn't subtract any sympathy by me. My lack of sympathy for the shooter is based upon him being a shooter.

What does infuriate me is any suggestion Brian Thompson deserved the death penalty from a deranged street murderer any more than other random person walking about.

Senator Fetterman said it well:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fetterman-blasts-liberal-magazine-calling-210015478.html

The Nihilsum embodies the paradox of freedom, where we confront both the possibility of existence and its inherent nonsense. — mlles

This is the only part of your post that made sense to me. You've identified a supposedly new category and freedom is the only example you've provided that goes into this category.

Libertarian freedom is a complicated notion in that it asserts an uncaused cause and it attributes moral responsibility on that agent that originated the uncaused cause. How such a cause can arise without a cause has no good answer.

But there are many unanswerable philosophical questions, so I'm not sure what distinguishes this one.

For clarity, what other examples other than freedom fall into this category?

I actually do like that it's real and unapologetic, the feeling that it's immutably forged from some formative personal experience and societal rejection that doesnt lend itself to debate. You either embrace wholeheartedly their manifesto, or they have you fuck off. I can trust they believe what they say, which is more than you get from most.

There's something Cool Hand Luke about it you've got to respect.

But since I'm not an accepted member of that tribe (alas, being cuntless), I can only observe their artistic expression from afar. I couldn't actually interact with those gentle souls because I'd be likely be struck by the grenades their military wing would toss at me.

The Georgia law against incest:

"(a) A person commits the offense of incest when such person engages in sexual intercourse or sodomy, as such term is defined in Code Section 16-6-2, with a person whom he or she knows he or she is related to by blood, by adoption, or by marriage as follows:
(1) Father and child or stepchild;
(2) Mother and child or stepchild;
(3) Siblings of the whole blood or of the half blood or by virtue of adoption;
(4) Grandparent and grandchild of the whole blood or of the half blood or by virtue of adoption;
(5) Aunt and niece or nephew of the whole blood or of the half blood or by virtue of adoption; or
(6) Uncle and niece or nephew of the whole blood or of the half blood or by virtue of adoption.
(b) A person convicted of the offense of incest shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than ten nor more than 30 years; provided, however, that any person convicted of the offense of incest under this subsection with a child under the age of 14 years shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than 25 nor more than 50 years. Any person convicted under this Code section of the offense of incest shall, in addition, be subject to the sentencing and punishment provisions of Code Section 17-10-6.2.:"

Note the prohibition against sex with adopted relatives, meaning this is not about eugenics, at least not entirely.

The question ought to be what is the good thing to do and then you could ask why that's the good thing to do, but you wouldn't agree upon what the good thing is to do and then ask why do it.

The "good" thing is the thing you want to do because that's what it means to be good.

The prohibition on incest is a form of eugenics, and that's okay. — Leontiskos

I think it's a proxy against molestation as well. Obviously it's theoretically possible to consent to incest, but it so rarely occurs between two consenting adults that it's used as an identifier something is terribly amiss.

But if you favor eugenics, why limit based upon consanguinity? Why not use more accurate genetic testing?

And I win the argument here for knowing the word "consanguinity."

I knew a guy who claimed that if we don't go over to the Mayan calendar, the world will end. — frank

One day the world will end, and we won't know why it will end until it does end. Until then, the jury is out as to whether the guy you knew is correct.

I know that argument, but that's the stupid argument from logical necessity, like God can be created by syllogism.

My novel contribution to the field of Cartesian analysis that appeared for the first time here argues that God is required in order to avoid to solipsism, an inherently incoherent position. That is, feel free to be an atheist, but your position is incoherent.

Descartes saved us from the unsalvagable pits of eternal and infinite skeptism by reminding us that God would not allow for such. There being no other way out, God becomes the only way for such salvation.

That's my contribution to the field.

So I see Descartes as claiming not faith but knowledge of God's existence -- and this need not even counter faith. Especially at the time scientists and theologians weren't far apart. In a way I'm trying to bring out "the spirit of the times" by focusing on the prima facie meaning to put Descartes in the context of the Enlightenment. — Moliere

If you're distinguishing between faith and knowledge, you'll have to define those terms. If we accept that knowledge requires a justified true belief, it would seem that the distinction between faith and knowledge would somehow hinge on the justification element. Those who believe in God based upon faith do not admit to having no justification for their faith, but they might use personal conviction, religious text, mystical feeling, or even pragmatic reasons to justify that faith. Some might even suggest an empirical basis (as in their experience of reality leads them to believe there must be a God), so that question is somewhat complicated.

That's not to say there are not differences between the justificaitons used by the faithful and those who are not of faith, but it's difficult to say one "knows" something and the other doesn't. What I think those who question those of faith really are attacking is the "truth" element, meaning they simply think there is no God and there is no way you can "know" something that isn't true. So, if you say Descartes knows there is God, then you are saying there is a God because to know something means it must be true.

My main point here isn't to suggest that Descartes made an intentional argument proving God by arguing that failure to accept God led to an incoherent solipsitic position. I just think that by working backwards and seeing what Descartes required to avoid solipsism you can come to the conclusion that God is necessary for Descartes to avoid that.

I do see the similarities with Kant's approach, but I also see the differences. With Kant, as it pertains to time, he argued that you could not begin to understand something without placing it in time. That is, an object outside of time is meaningless.

With Descartes, there is an private language argument problem that can suggest a complete incoherence to solipsism. https://iep.utm.edu/solipsis/#:~:text=The%20Incoherence%20of%20Solipsism,-With%20the%20belief&text=As%20a%20theory%2C%20it%20is,his%20solipsistic%20thoughts%20at%20all . What this would mean is that if God is necessary to avoid solipsism and solipsism is incoherent, then you need God to avoid incoherence.

Whether you want to go down that road, I don't know. I'm not necessarily arguing that a godless universe would result in a complete inability to understand anything, but, even if I did, I still see a distinction between that sort of incoherence and the one Kant references when he says time is imposed on objects and therefore a necessary element of the understanding.

This whole argument here has expanded as I've thought about it, so maybe there is a good argument that human understanding is impossible without God if one follows Descartes' reasoning. This wouldn't mean there is God. It would just mean you can't know anything without God.

How does faith get us out of the cogito? — Moliere

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. I was saying faith gets us out of solipsism, which is the net result of the Cartesian method of complete skepticism. The cogito leaves us with just knowing that the single mind of the single doubter is all that exists. To get beyond that, you have to have faith. That's what Descartes indicated by his reliance upon God.

But maybe I didn't fully understand your question.

So, if I have you right, you're making the argument that he's more targeting atheists in saying that if they do not believe in God then this is all they can know, and given that they know more than that, they ought consider believing in God. Sort of like the Secret Atheist, but instead he's dressing it up for the church while talking to his contemporaries too. — Moliere

I just think that what Descartes did was to doubt all basic foundations and then all he had left was knowledge of his self as a doubting thing. That is a solipsitic conclusion. In order to get himself back to where he could have some knowledge of the world and of other minds, he pulled in God and used God to form the foundation for all knowledge of the world.

If you buy into this approach, God becomes necessary in order to avoid solipsism. It doesn't mean God exists. It just means that you cannot know anything without God's existence (except knowing that you exist as a not knowing thing).

Many find Descartes problematic because they believe he has doubted that which no person would actually doubt and that he has created a fabricated quandary and from that Western philosophy has gone down this road of trying to prove that which no person truly doubts. I don't find Descartes problematic at all because I never doubted that the foundation for our beliefs was faith and that without faith you will have nothing but doubt. Perhaps the opposite of doubt is faith.