Yes here, I am using a sub-particle in this kind of an example, but as I mentioned, something else could be used as a better substitute. Yes, as you say in empiricism no thing is created like this, however, I'm making a more abstract argument in this sense.

Yes in science, that seems to be the case that there is a teleological approach. But here we are putting teleology aside, for philosophical inquiries.

It seems like a contradiction to us because we regularly observe only cause and effect in the universe, at least on the macro scale. I've been thinking about where did it all come from -- what is the first cause that had an effect? Of course, no one knows, but I think we can narrow down the nature of the first cause or the First Thing that ever existed. It either did indeed emerge spontaneously from nothing, or it always existed. Is there any other option? If these are the only two options, then there was no purpose before the First Cause. This means that a purpose for anything had to evolve or develop after at least one thing already existed. — A Ree Zen

I like this point Ree Zen.

I'm not the one making the strong claim that something came from nothing. I'm just saying that it seems like there's a contradiction in something coming from nothing. — RogueAI

It's definitely one of the oldest questions about the universe. Yes, it seems like a contradiction, as to how a state of nothingness, completely void of anything, can produce something.

But there's another contradiction with something coming from something (rather than something from nothing). Where did the initial something come from? How can the initial something have always existed? It had to come from somewhere, right? Which again leads us to the simplest initial phase -> nothing. But that is again a contradiction as well.

That reminds of Lawrence Krauss's book "A Universe from Nothing". The laws of nature that allows for virtual particle creation/annihilation are "something". Where did those laws come from? We're not going to cover any new ground that hasn't been covered. — RogueAI

For that, I think you'd need to study empty vacuum of space void of anything to further clarify the issue. We're only thinking here :) I'm afraid.

Nonetheless, even after "that" kind of a scientific study. One can still say those evidence are based in empiricism and there are arguments against empiricism.

That seems impossible. — RogueAI

Just remembered something about 'something from nothing' universe: virtual particles can appear out of nothingness and disappear into nothingness. I guess this provides a lot more support that the universe can create itself out of nothingness.

That seems impossible. — RogueAI

I think you'd have to better clarify the definition of nothingness and the modern ideas behind spontaneous creation from nothingness.

I'd rather not get into that here, but create a brand new discussion on it.

I'll ping you, once I write it.

I guess regarding solipsism and idealism ... there would still need to be a true external world somewhere out there ... but not necessarily the present world.

How would you apply solipsism and idealism as possibilities? I guess I have a few ideas, but I'd have to think about it more.

A Christian who develops cancer doesn't spend his days and nights in prayer, he runs to science in hopes of prolonging his life. This is reality, the other is empty, abstract ideology. — JerseyFlight

I guess to this some Theists may say that they do not believe in medicine or going to the doctor, but their "cult," the Christian Scientist Church, would heal through prayer.

I also think that Unicorns and Fairies are important nonetheless. You never know if you are in a simulation and in a simulation, anything is possible, even seeing a Unicorn or a Fairy.

But maybe we've strayed too much from your original argument. Perhaps you should re-ask the question and someone else can answer it.

I believe you are entitled to those beliefs :)

People can have wicked ideas without being wicked. Islam doesnt think so but they are wrong — Gregory

So is only Christianity right? Islam is wrong. What about the Jews? Are they kinda right or completely wrong?

Well if a human has conscious thoughts, the human can at least know that his "mind" is real. But yes, the rest can and is very likely a digital projection of the self.

Do you think Nick Bostrom does drugs? Is he secretly a junkie by night and a philosophy professor by day?

I've never heard that it's immoral to believe in the simulation argument.

I guess if you're trying to escape from something, then it is irrational and you should confront your fears and etc ...

However, by itself, people like Nick Bostrom don't appear immoral to me.

That's a good point as well. If I'm envious of people, then I believe they are a simulation. Although, I'm not sure that would work, because the pain of envy would still get to you, as it's probably not that easy to trick your mind solely for this purpose. Or maybe it is.

But again, we can arrive to the simulation hypothesis for other reasons.

But which one does it stem from? Why is the simulation argument a product of greed, anger, pride, sloth, gluttony, or envy.

What argument could we make here?

Perhaps sloth? Are we too lazy to think that others are real? But couldn't we arrive to the simulation hypothesis for other reasons?

Plus how do you know the Old Testament has anything relevant to say about God. Perhaps thats a misconstrued word of God. Gods mind is infinite, how could mere few hundred pages say anything about it? I just don't know.

Well a simulation hypothesis is not immoral. I'm sorry, but I cannot read the entire Old Testament based on a post from some guy name Greg. That just doesn't make any sense.

That's a good point, why wouldn't God allow us to choose a sin, but prevent us from carrying it out. Maybe those who are sinned against are not real somehow, and God is showing us the evils of man.

Anything is possible with the exception of a theistic God. ANYTHING. It doesn't bother me. I live by morals. Your God actualizes everything right? So he actualized child rape, sick avatars that he is huh — Gregory

Well in the child rape case, a I guess a Theist could argue that for there to be good and evil, there ought to be a choice between committing good and evil. There wouldn't be point to Heaven and Hell, if one could not make a choice.

I feel like there's another argument to the child rape case. Maybe it'll come to me later.

And again, how can we understand the infinite mind of God. Perhaps the child who is being raped is secretly an angel who feels no pain, sent by God to show mankind the evils of carnal flesh.

It's not about God's mind, but his nature. Reality reflects him yet he can't protect the innocent. That's absurd — Gregory

Well God's nature is derived from God's mind. If we cannot understand the infinite mind of God, whose to say that we can understand his nature. We may see what we believe to be evil, but it could be something that we just can't comprehend.

1) The world, which reflects God nature, proves that God is not all good. If it's not in God's nature to create a world and allow humans to sin all the while protecting the innocent from pain, then God's nature is imperfect or evil — Gregory

I guess to add to this, one may say that animals are re-incarnations of evil doers, like Hitler or something. This way, the evil doers are imprisoned in the animal flesh of hell. A theist may say that God works in mysterious ways and this way pain is given to those who have seriously sinned. (I'd say this one is pretty creative lol)

1) The world, which reflects God nature, proves that God is not all good. If it's not in God's nature to create a world and allow humans to sin all the while protecting the innocent from pain, then God's nature is imperfect or evil — Gregory

Theist may say that God's infinite mind is too complex to understand for one of us. Perhaps there is more to it, than this argument.

The other possibility is that it is very likely that we are living in a simulation. And in a simulation, animals are very likely not real. What's the point of simulating animal minds? Perhaps in the real world, animals behave differently, who knows?

I guess I can try to play the devils advocate here. What would a good Christian say? Perhaps they would say that God wants you to get lost for a very long time. Sorry, I don't how good of a devils advocate I'll be here without knowing much religion, but the good Christian could say: "Moses was lost for 40 years with barely any food or water, and eventually the Israelites found their way to the promised land." (Minus Moses, who collapsed and died just as he saw it.)

Similarly, God places people into a hopeless and meaningless situation, before He shows them the way to the truth. God wants them to suffer in this sense. Perhaps they are too stubborn or perhaps one can learn much from pain, etc...

Hope that helps. I have no idea about animals. I don't know if God cares about animals.

Kant did say something like ... "the way we treat animals, is a reflection to our approach to humans." or something like that. Maybe there's something there in that paraphrased quote.

That is true. Something external must exist. Somewhere there is a real world. However, this world could only be an illusion. The other problem is, if we do wake up in another world, we may never know if it's the real world or not. No matter what world we travel too, we may never know if it's the real world or simply another illusion.

While we may "believe" that we hold reasonable beliefs about the external world, our senses can always deceive us. Of course, we may draw examples from "that" "perceived" external world, to fuel our thoughts for thinking.

The truest form of thoughts would or may reside in idealism. What is ultimately true. Our moral beliefs may also be grounded in idealism, if we can think of "abstract" examples to which we can express our moral thoughts on.

(thank you for your comment, whether or not you think I wrote something smart or not)

It's all in the OP. It delves from Cartesian doubt about the external world, to Hume-ean skepticism, and finally arriving at a solipsism-ist position. Quoting just one line does no justice to the entire OP.

The point here is about the solipsism-ist argument from the OP.

The language about race can be considered "sense data" from the external world. The premise or premises do not imply any belief about the external world, until we reach the final conclusion. It's all one point of view, no matter how real the external world may seem!

"Here" is your post.
"Point" is the discussion.

This same line applies here: However, even though this data may be meaningless, it can, nonetheless, be used to illustrate a point.

It doesn't seem like that to me. Nonetheless, I appreciate your comments.

I am a human. "I think, therefore, I am!"

Using our 'sense organs,' we gather 'sense data' from the "perceived" external world.

However, even though this data may be meaningless, it can, nonetheless, be used to illustrate a point.

Descartes later-meditations, after the Evil Genius hypothesis, in those he does reach the idea that God is good and would not deceive him or us. However, I believe the central thesis to this is the Evil Genius. He provides no real argument for a good God, in my opinion. The Evil Genius is the real point here, that we cannot trust our senses.

I cannot own the presumptions on my list, because the sense data we receive from the external world can be highly doubted. The Cartesian stuff is not a sideshow, but a necessary doubt in philosophy. I cannot call these deficits, if they're true ideas of philosophy.

Those matters cannot be owned, because as Descartes pointed out, an Evil Genius can deceive us about any or all of our sensory experience. However, even though this data may be meaningless, it can, nonetheless, be used to illustrate a point.

That is the "sense data" we gathered from what we "perceive" to be a "real world." So, perhaps it's an example that can be used, while itself may be meaningless, but nonetheless, can be used to express a point

Perhaps a solipsism-ist in this sense is still bound to their sense organs from which sense data can be gathered, like the use of a certain language. Perhaps it's an example that can be used, while itself may be meaningless, but nonetheless, can be used to express a point.

Ok, thanks for your comments :) ... good or bad

Thank you for your response Bitter Crank, but how would you consider Cartesian, Solipsism-tian, and Hume-ean ideas applied to this? Or let me add this, you believe that applying these principles will cause us to be not-racist for the wrong reasons. But aren't these principles the bedrock of philosophy and we are on a philosophical forum?

At this time, I will not be editing the OP. Again, the only thing I will say is I did not design this to troll. And I don't believe we should suspect Dingo of any kind of domestic abuse :)

I appreciate your response praxis, but again the only thing I will say to this is I did not design this to troll.