"Laws of nature" don't exist. What appear to be "laws of nature" are only the regularities by which God governs creation.

Material reality forms the basis of our experiencing dreams. — Heister Eggcart

If your life is a continuous dream then it's the other way around: dreams form the basis of your idea of 'material reality'.

So your assertion begs the question against dreaming skepticism.

Life has no inherent meaning, — Bitter Crank

Prove it.

no meaning ordained by God. — Bitter Crank

Prove it.

I think there's a lot of counterevidence to the ‘nothing happens when you die’-understanding of death.

Consider dreams. I frequently die in my dreams, and yet, here I am still existing.

I’ve dreamed of falling to my death from a great height. I’ve dreamed of being shot to death. I’ve dreamed of drowning to death. I’ve dreamed of being eaten alive by wolves. And yet despite all that, I still exist. I am clearly indestructible.

Since the waking world is a dream, I fully expect to survive my waking death in pretty much the same way I survive my dream deaths.

Write a controversial book? Dude, the chances that anybody will actually read your work is close to nil.

Professors usually spend about 3-6 months (sometimes longer) researching and writing a 25-page article to submit an article to an academic journal. And most experience a twinge of excitement when, months later, they open a letter informing them that their article has been accepted for publication, and will therefore be read by… an average of ten people.

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/why-professors-are-writing-crap-nobody-reads

No… The experiential content of my present sensations is incorrigible.

Not lately, but massacres in the name of Mormonism have happened. See here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre

https://mountainmeadowsmassacre.com/

Not to mention there are still a good amount of Mormon fundamentalists throughout the US who do a lot of really creepy things (polygamy, blood atonement, blatant racism, child abuse, etc.) that generally flies under the radar.

http://www.salon.com/2015/09/19/americas_little_known_isis_the_fundamentalist_mormon_sect_that_blends_polygamy_child_rape_and_organized_crime/

Yikes!

They're quite similar, to be honest.

The way many philosophers cling to positions like materialism or realism reminds me of the way most religious fundamentalists cling to figures like Jesus, Allah, Joseph Smith, etc. (minus the occasional terrorist attack)

Additionally, both pursuits require a tremendous amount of faith. Philosophy requires a large amount of faith in the reliability of your cognitive faculties while religion requires a large amount of faith in the reliability/worship-worthiness of God in light of the tremendous amount of suffering/evil that plagues the world.

I think we can reasonably infer the existence of a non-perceptual reality since perceptions are constantly changing. It's not a "refutation" of solipsism but it's satisfying enough for me.

1. Perceptions are constantly changing.

2. Something changing can't change itself.

3. Therefore, there must be some non-perceptual reality that causes perceptions to change.

4. Furthermore, since this non-perceptual reality cannot itself be changing, it must therefore be immutable. (I would go on to claim this 'non-perceptual reality' is the God of classical theism.)

Obviously, none of this proves other people have minds but it does show that you are not alone (since God exists too) and it may be possible for other people to have minds. That's good enough for me.

Two things.

1. This looks more like a poll for the best philosopher of Christianity as opposed to a poll for the best philosopher of religion. If you want to make a poll for the best philosopher of religion (and not just Christianity) then I would suggest including Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, and other thinkers (dare I say Mormon? Hugh Nibley anyone? lol) as well.

2. Since there's no way for anyone to be familiar with the work of each philosopher in depth, then the poll is more a reflection of who on the list you actually took the time to read instead of who of them is "the best". So with that said, I'm going with Berkeley just because I recently read the following quote from him that resonated with me:

"For it is downright impossible that a soul pierced and enlightened with a thorough sense of the omnipresence, holiness, and justice of that almighty spirit, should persist in remorselessly violating his laws. We ought therefore earnestly to meditate and dwell on those important points, so as to become convinced beyond all doubt that the eyes of the Lord are in every place beholding the evil and the good; that he is with us and keeps us in all places to which we go, and gives us bread to eat, and clothes to wear; that he is present and conscious to our innermost thoughts; and that we have a most absolute and immediate dependence on him. A clear view of these great truths cannot but fill our heart with awed caution and holy fear, which is the strongest incentive to virtue and the best guard against vice." — George Berkeley

Well then, perhaps we're dreaming, perhaps there is no "external world," perhaps there are no "other minds," and perhaps there is no free will. And now, back to living. — Ciceronianus the White

But philosophers are still unable to determine whether life is worth living or not.

Someone ought to say in response to Samuel Johnson: "I refute it (realism) thus" (as they press on their eye and create a double-image)

Which God is pragmatically the best?

Speaking for myself, I would say the Christian God is pragmatically the best for at least the following three reasons:

1. Christianity offers its followers a perfect exemplar for moral behavior in the person of Jesus Christ. The imitation of the life of Christ can serve as the archetype for moral human behavior. No other religion offers such a luxury.

2. Christianity offers its followers unique access to God. If Jesus really is God then this means we have a way of interacting with God because there's a personal 'mediator' between us and God. In the absence of such personal 'mediator', how could we ever gain access to the divine?

3. The suffering of Christ on the cross gives us resources to cope with our own suffering.

For these reaosns I regard Christianity as pragmatically superior to basically every other religious belief system.

Now, what do I actually believe in? I personally believe in the God of classical theism. I also believe in Jesus, to an extent. I'm just really unsure how to make sense of the claim that a human being can be God.

... which God are we supposed to believe in though?

The Triune God? The Muslim God? The Jewish God? The Mormon God? Hare Krishna? Zeus? Thor? Apollo?

Philosophy again succumbs to skepticism.

Um... those five items are of vital importance.

If you don't know whether your cognitive faculties are reliable, whether you're dreaming, whether the people around you are conscious, whether you are truly morally responsible for your actions, or whether the walls of your room continue to exist when you're not experiencing them, then you are in a state of total intellectual paralysis.

There's no 'value' that can come out of such a state.

I fully agree that there’s something special about mind-body correlations. There's definitely something 'deeper’ going on than mere coincidence. There must be a causal relationship behind mind-body correlations. But what is the nature of this causal relationship?

One thing that must be pointed out right from the outset is that causation must be ‘noumenal’, or imperceptible. And by restricting causation to that area of existence which is ‘noumenal’, we definitively rule out the possibility that human sense-organs are the cause of mind-body correlations since your own human sense-organs belong to that area of existence which is ‘phenomenal’, or perceptible. Something else, then, besides human sense-organs must be the cause of your mind-body correlations, but what? I think we can make several reasonable inferences about the attributes of this causal entity.

The causal entity must have the following attributes:

- Powerful (this causal entity must be of extraordinary power since it is creating and sustaining the entire perceivable world, which includes your mind-body correlations)

- Intelligent (this causal entity must be of extraordinary intelligence since it is creating and sustaining incredibly intricate and orderly perceivable relationships, including your mind-body correlations)

- Immutable (this causal entity must be unchanging since perceptions are constantly changing)

- Omnipresent (this causal entity must be omnipresent since it is causally present anywhere a perception exists and, on idealism, perceptions constitute the entire world)

- Spaceless (this causal entity must be non-spatial since space is an aspect of perception)

- Eternal (this causal entity must be eternal since it must exist outside the temporal succession of perceptions. It must also be eternal since it exists uncaused)

... I could carry on arguing for more attributes (like ontological simplicity) but I think you get the idea. We end up with a God-like entity who is the cause of experience (including the experiences that constitute mind-body correlations). Thus I conclude that the God of classical theism is cause of your mind-body correlations, not human sense-organs.

There’s really only two options here: You either have to claim your perceptions exist uncaused (which you yourself admit do not find plausible) or posit some God-like entity that causes perceptions.

The argument for that premise is the impossibility/incoherency of the contrary.

It is necessary to posit a transcendent entity that 'has' experiences because otherwise you will end up explaining the very phenomena you are seeking to explain in terms of itself, which is circular/incoherent.

Furthermore, if it was true that experiences are capable of having their own experience then why is this so at odds with observation? I never observe an experience having its own experiences. Do you?

This is my argument:

1. Whatever 'has' experiences must transcend experience.

2. Human bodies (including my own) do not transcend experience.

3. Therefore, human bodies (including my own) cannot 'have' experiences.

4. If human bodies (including my own) do not 'have' experiences then they must be p-zombies.

5. Therefore, all human bodies (including my own) are p-zombies.

What premise didn't I present an argument for?

I fully agree - whatever 'has' experiences is a non-zombie.

But I am arguing that whatever this entity is that 'has' experiences cannot be a human being. This would entail that all human beings - including the human body you think of as 'yourself' - are p-zombies.

So can any of the p-zombies here refute anything I said in the OP?

You won't have much success, I'm afraid.

John I don't think that's correct. Consider the following two ontologies:

Ontology 1: 5 visual fields

Ontology 2: 5 visual fields + an independently existing human body

Ontology 1 is simpler...

Why would the world be structured as such? — darthbarracuda

Darth, I contend that reality is structured in such a way as to privilege the existence of conscious beings (like yourself) precisely because God loves you and wants to have a personal relationship with you. Eternal fellowship with God demands consciousness because it is not possible for God to share his love with an unconscious thing. You can freely choose to pursue God’s love or you can freely choose to ignore his promptings and continue wallowing in a state of permanent isolation. He is not going to coerce anyone into loving him.

Now that explains why reality is structured to privilege the existence of conscious beings, but what accounts for the isolation? I think it is a form of protection. Protection from what, you ask? In Eastern Orthodox theology, God’s loving presence is experienced as Hell to those who are unprepared to meet him. For those who turn their love inward and worship themselves, for those who reject the freedom Christ offers and embrace their slavery to sin will inevitably experience God's presence as eternal torment. Therefore, it is first necessary to undergo a radical moral transformation (what is called 'divinization' in Orthodoxy) before you can enjoy the unmediated presence of an absolutely just and holy being. I thus contend that God, in his mercy, has erected a ‘veil of perception’ between you and Him as a means for you to complete 'divinization'. I further hypothesis the beatific vision will not only be a vision of God but also somehow include the minds of other people – thus permanently ending the isolation.

Hey, TS, your response reminds me of the Mormon fundamentalists I speak with every now and then.

“If logical reasoning fails to establish that Joseph Smith was a prophet then so much the worse for logical reasoning.”

You would fit in well with them. Have you spoken with missionaries yet? They could use someone like you.

I think abandoning logical reasoning is the better of the two options.

... what the heck? I swear I've had these same exact thoughts before. I feel like I am reading my subconscious thoughts on the screen.

But yeah, I feel pretty much the same way. I too have pretty bad dpdr, especially when I begin doubting the existence of other minds. I just find it so easy to doubt the existence of other experiencers/experiences since I never (directly) perceive them. But then I come across posts (like the one in the OP) which so accurately describe my own experiences and I can't help but feel like there really are other conscious beings out there and that our minds are communicating in some incomprehensible way. That's my hope, at least. Okay, lol, let me get back on topic.

It's like normally you're 'in' life, doing things as your body within the world, but then you're sucked backwards and you're watching yourself as if you aren't your body at all, you're observing your body as a non-embodied perspective, for the first time.

Wow! I know exactly what you're talking about! Most of the time I feel like I am perceiving my body from afar - like every experience is an out-of-body experience. It's like a human life is being played on an IMAX screen and what I truly exist as is the entire IMAX screen, not the human being who appears on the screen.

It is so weird how you describe an experience that is so similar to mine. This is why I don't think I can ever give up my belief in other minds despite me being completely unable to understand how they could ever work.

Psychiatrists call something like this "derealization", and "depersonalization". But personally I see this as a philosophical thing. Life really is incomprehensibly bizarre, and it makes perfect sense to have this response of sheer terror. — dukkha

I completely agree! I too have been diagnosed with DPDR but I don't consider it a "disorder' at all since it is based entirely on phenomenological facts. Consider the following "symptoms" of DPDR (taken from the dpdr subreddit):

- Experiencing life as a dream
- Watching oneself experiencing the world
- Experiencing life as if watching events unfolding through a screen

As far as I can tell, each of the above 'symptoms' are grounded in facts about conscious experience.

The world IS a dream - there's no boundary between the waking world and the dream world; they're the same thing

You ARE watching yourself (your body) experience the world - see the IMAX screen analogy again.

You ARE experiencing life as if watching events unfold through a screen - it's called having a visual field.

Thus I conclude - along with you - that DPDR is not a "disorder" at all. It is a body of facts and non-DPDR is the real disorder.

I think there's something of real philosophical significance here

I do too. I take it as a call to surrender to God. Which God, you ask? Choose one. I personally like the Triune God but other people have different preferences.

No, it isn't. The idea that a human brain - which is itself a particular type of conscious experience - gives rise to conscious experience is a complete joke.

Academic philosophers are absolute jackasses for spending so much time on a problem that doesn't even exist.

'How does the brain give rise to consciousness?' It DOESN'T !

God has made foolish the wisdom of this world.

No, I cannot choose experiences. :C

Perception/creation just happens involuntarily. I have no choice about which experience to create or whether to create experiences at all.

But why is that a problem? God never chose to be a creator. He just is a Creator.

Choosing experiences leads to an infinite regress anyway, so creation can't be a matter of choice.

Why choose experience A? Because of B. But why choose B? Because of C. Why choose C? Because of D.... and so on to infinity.

"Choice" is an anthropomorphic phenomenon. God is no less of a God if he is unable to choose. (or is he? Lol, I don't know).

Here's how to reconcile them: Biological sense organs are nothing but a particular type of sense-perception.

That was easy.