The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God

[Neo-Scholastic]

The PNC rules out solipsism since it is self-evidently true regardless of whether any minds exist to contemplate it.

[Jackalope]

The PNC rules out solipsism since it is self-evidently true regardless of whether any minds exist to contemplate it.

The what?

[Edwardo Piet]

The Perfectly Nice Cunt, of course.

[Cyberman]

Police National Computer. Back in my Civil Service days I had access to this system.

[Jackalope]

Solipsism erases any certainty in logic, that reason itself would or could generate true conclusions.  If we arrive at solipsism through reason..........but reason offers no credible prospect of certainty.........we may not have understood what it was we arrived at, or how, lol.  It's useless for the game, because it doesn't allow play.

True enough... You may notice that I did say that one might want to argue from that point of view if one wanted to argue for epistemological nihilism. I didn't say it would be a persuasive argument.

[robvalue]

I would never act "as if" solipsism was true, because of the incredibly high stakes should I have made a mistake. No matter how I look at it, assuming it is false is the only sane approach I can think of.

The worst that can come of it is that I'm doing a load of stuff that isn't real, with people and animals who aren't real, but who seem real. Nothing has been lost, and "I" am still having some positive experiences.

It's my thoughts about solipsism and reality that helped me come to the conclusion that things are as real as they appear to be, for any particular observer. Trying to pin down what "is real" beyond that seems fruitless. The best we can do is try to agree on an objective "reality" that we all experience, and not worry about how real it really is.

[Edwardo Piet]

As simplistic as it is, despite my love for philosophy, I sometimes like to deal with some mentally masturbatory "philosophical problems" with the "No that's retarded" defense.

With solipsism, if I can't be arsed getting into the solipsism debate, the conversation might go like this:

Them: What about solipsism? Have you considered the possibility?

Me: Yes I've considered the possibility. But it's not remotely realistic.

Them: So do you think perhaps we're just a brain in a vat?

Me: No that's retarded.

It's a good conversation ender sometimes, when dealing with mental masturbation.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The PNC rules out solipsism since it is self-evidently true regardless of whether any minds exist to contemplate it.

The what?

The Principle of Non-Contradiction. It rules out solipsism.

[robvalue]

As simplistic as it is, despite my love for philosophy, I sometimes like to deal with some mentally masturbatory "philosophical problems" with the "No that's retarded" defense.

With solipsism, if I can't be arsed getting into the solipsism debate, the conversation might go like this:

Them: What about solipsism? Have you considered the possibility?

Me: Yes I've considered the possibility. But it's not remotely realistic.

Them: So do you think perhaps we're just a brain in a vat?

Me: No that's retarded.

It's a good conversation ender sometimes, when dealing with mental masturbation.

Lol, sure Well, there is certainly no duty for anyone to have to discuss stuff like this if they don't want to. It's kind of a self-contained subject, and it seems there can never be a conclusion. The mistake people sometimes make is to try and use solipsism to prove things about reality. This is bullshit and doesn't work. I would not continue the conversation beyond pointing this out, if someone is trying to suggest the problem of solipsism actually has any practical implications.

[The Grand Nudger]

The Principle of Non-Contradiction. It rules out solipsism.

Solipsism rules out the PNC, friend.  Sorry. It tells you that you cannot trust your observations - that the world is not as it seems, does not behave as it seems. What do you think the PNC is? Try approaching it with some actual thought. If you are a brain in a vat™, how can you possibly know that the PNC holds, to what could you point, even as justification for holding the PNC as an unprovable or unproven belief?