@solipsim

OMG I AM LEARNING SO MUCH HERE!!!!!!

i always had a feeling like "what if I am the only real person in existence, and everything and everyone is just a figment of my own mind??"

I didn't know there was a philosophy about it???!!!!!!!!!

(November 1, 2013 at 8:19 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: I believe the argument is that since we accept the existence of other minds without proof, it is also rational to accept the existence of a god without proof.

The argument as I see it is not meant to prove the existence of 'God', but to provide a rational reason to believe in 'God'.

The argument fails on many obvious levels.

While I guess it can't be proven with absolute certainty that other minds exist, (please let's not sink into a discussion on solipsism), the evidence for other minds existing is pretty massive. Even before modern advances in neuroscience.

The evidence for the existence of 'God' is none existent in comparison.

And even if the argument was valid and sound, it still does not get you to Yahweh or Jeshua.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

You're wrong. The evidence for "other minds" is not "pretty massive". I was pleasantly surprised that you made a fairly accurate representation of the argument and what it is meant to prove. But then you started spouting nonsense.

(November 5, 2013 at 11:29 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:

(November 1, 2013 at 8:19 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: I believe the argument is that since we accept the existence of other minds without proof, it is also rational to accept the existence of a god without proof.

The argument as I see it is not meant to prove the existence of 'God', but to provide a rational reason to believe in 'God'.

The argument fails on many obvious levels.

While I guess it can't be proven with absolute certainty that other minds exist, (please let's not sink into a discussion on solipsism), the evidence for other minds existing is pretty massive. Even before modern advances in neuroscience.

The evidence for the existence of 'God' is none existent in comparison.

And even if the argument was valid and sound, it still does not get you to Yahweh or Jeshua.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

You're wrong. The evidence for "other minds" is not "pretty massive". I was pleasantly surprised that you made a fairly accurate representation of the argument and what it is meant to prove. But then you started spouting nonsense.

What would your response to the original question be then, Vinny? Also, elaborate more on why you don't think there is an abundant amount of evidence for other minds.

The problem with making the comparison to solipsism is that it can neither be proven nor disproven (and plenty have tried). Plantinga making that analogous with God essentially equates giving up all apologetics as being either invalid or unsound.

PlantingDerp.

(November 7, 2013 at 8:45 am)free_thinker_at_last Wrote:

(November 5, 2013 at 11:29 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: You're wrong. The evidence for "other minds" is not "pretty massive". I was pleasantly surprised that you made a fairly accurate representation of the argument and what it is meant to prove. But then you started spouting nonsense.

What would your response to the original question be then, Vinny? Also, elaborate more on why you don't think there is an abundant amount of evidence for other minds.

Because all the evidence cited for the existence of other minds makes inferences that are unwarranted to any rational skeptic. Try it yourself- come up with evidence that your girlfriend has a mind. Then ask yourself whether that evidence could not exist if she was a p-zombie. You'll inevitably find that any evidence you cite can still exist with a p-zombie, and thus the existence of other minds is in principle unfalsifiable.

So you are forced to either be a solipsist, or to concede that it's acceptable to believe at minimum one type of unfalsifiable claims. One possible way to refute the argument is to reject the need to rely on basic beliefs, and thus you have to argue for evidentialism. But I don't know how evidentialism would cope with the problem of other minds.

Are you yourself an evidentialist? Apart from the argument of God and other minds, how do you deal with the problem of other minds on evidentialism?

The easy example of 'other minds' is a dream. Your dream-self usually thinks everyone else has a mind, and is incorrect.

Is his argument, that any explanation that could be deemed 'plausible' doesn't necessarily have to be founded in things that are concrete, because essentially, all our beliefs are based on one concrete idea, that we have a mind, and the rest is a series of assumptions branching out from that?

It looks like he's an intelligent design guy, so he'd be wanting to say that you don't need concrete evidence for the idea of God designing this versus it being happenstance to be a plausible belief. With the sheer improbability and order of our existence making the case for it to be not chance?

I don't know that he's particularly wrong with the premise you don't need concrete evidence to believe something to be true. My belief that the universe's origin is some fancy math and science explanation that is unknown to me isn't much more concrete. But there's plenty of paradoxical nonsense regarding God existing that makes believing him silly, so it's kind of a moot point.

(November 12, 2013 at 11:17 pm)wallym Wrote: The easy example of 'other minds' is a dream. Your dream-self usually thinks everyone else has a mind, and is incorrect.

But they do have minds, it's just that the mind they have is yours

(November 13, 2013 at 5:59 am)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote:

(November 12, 2013 at 11:17 pm)wallym Wrote: The easy example of 'other minds' is a dream. Your dream-self usually thinks everyone else has a mind, and is incorrect.

But they do have minds, it's just that the mind they have is yours

Should have written 'other minds.'

(November 12, 2013 at 10:27 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:

(November 7, 2013 at 8:45 am)free_thinker_at_last Wrote: What would your response to the original question be then, Vinny? Also, elaborate more on why you don't think there is an abundant amount of evidence for other minds.

Because all the evidence cited for the existence of other minds makes inferences that are unwarranted to any rational skeptic. Try it yourself- come up with evidence that your girlfriend has a mind. Then ask yourself whether that evidence could not exist if she was a p-zombie. You'll inevitably find that any evidence you cite can still exist with a p-zombie, and thus the existence of other minds is in principle unfalsifiable.

So you are forced to either be a solipsist, or to concede that it's acceptable to believe at minimum one type of unfalsifiable claims. One possible way to refute the argument is to reject the need to rely on basic beliefs, and thus you have to argue for evidentialism. But I don't know how evidentialism would cope with the problem of other minds.

Are you yourself an evidentialist? Apart from the argument of God and other minds, how do you deal with the problem of other minds on evidentialism?

Hi Vinny,

I'm not a big philosopher so by evidentialist, you mean a person who will only accept proof of something if that proof can be totally confirmed by our five senses and totally supported by hard evidence, right?

If so, I don't think that I am. For example, I think a multiverse of some sort exists but in all reality, our universe is the only one for sure that we know exists. The multiverse may exist and can be showcased in physics and cosmological modals and in theory be detectable; however, we don't have any "hands-on"evidence of it.

As to your second question, I don't know how I would deal with it on evidentialism, if I was an evidentialist. I guess that's why I'm here getting some help from fellow atheists on these topics...ha.

I thought that a lot of research in neuroscience has provided sufficient evidence between brain/mind and a great amount of evidence has pointed towards the corner that w/o a physical brain, we can't possibly have a mind. Because humans have brains, surely, we must have minds. It would be strange to think that only I have a mind and everyone else is just a robot. Likewise, anyone else w/ some sense of reason would feel the same.

How would one deal with the this other minds issue?

(November 14, 2013 at 8:55 am)free_thinker_at_last Wrote:

(November 12, 2013 at 10:27 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Because all the evidence cited for the existence of other minds makes inferences that are unwarranted to any rational skeptic. Try it yourself- come up with evidence that your girlfriend has a mind. Then ask yourself whether that evidence could not exist if she was a p-zombie. You'll inevitably find that any evidence you cite can still exist with a p-zombie, and thus the existence of other minds is in principle unfalsifiable.

So you are forced to either be a solipsist, or to concede that it's acceptable to believe at minimum one type of unfalsifiable claims. One possible way to refute the argument is to reject the need to rely on basic beliefs, and thus you have to argue for evidentialism. But I don't know how evidentialism would cope with the problem of other minds.

Are you yourself an evidentialist? Apart from the argument of God and other minds, how do you deal with the problem of other minds on evidentialism?

Hi Vinny,

I'm not a big philosopher so by evidentialist, you mean a person who will only accept proof of something if that proof can be totally confirmed by our five senses and totally supported by hard evidence, right?

If so, I don't think that I am. For example, I think a multiverse of some sort exists but in all reality, our universe is the only one for sure that we know exists. The multiverse may exist and can be showcased in physics and cosmological modals and in theory be detectable; however, we don't have any "hands-on"evidence of it.

As to your second question, I don't know how I would deal with it on evidentialism, if I was an evidentialist. I guess that's why I'm here getting some help from fellow atheists on these topics...ha.

I thought that a lot of research in neuroscience has provided sufficient evidence between brain/mind and a great amount of evidence has pointed towards the corner that w/o a physical brain, we can't possibly have a mind. Because humans have brains, surely, we must have minds. It would be strange to think that only I have a mind and everyone else is just a robot. Likewise, anyone else w/ some sense of reason would feel the same.

How would one deal with the this other minds issue?

Hey, I'm no big philosopher either. I'm just glad there are atheists who think about these issues beyond simply bleating about their antipathy towards religion.

But could you point to the work that shows that brains are conclusive evidence of the existence of minds? I'm not familiar with any such work.