On Unbelief I. Introduction

[Exian]

I'm a tad too intimidated to respond to such a well thought out and articulated post. I doubt I have information that nobody else has, that might add to this discussion. I also doubt my thoughts will be of any value, as they are not bolstered by quotable authors or scientific experiment. At the same time, I attribute all my knowledge to great authors, communicators, and scientists, but my ability to categorize is lacking, and recalling information that exists as a vague soup is difficult. But, here's my best shot.

I tend to lump solipsism and nihilism into the same group as just the general idea that atheism leads to a worldview of pointlessness. While I understand the differences and the need to specify, I reject them all the same.

On nihilism; yes, I understand that the things I do on a day to day basis will have no effect and matter very little to the cosmic heat death, but more importantly, to me, the cosmic heat death has no effect and matters very little to the things I do on a day to day basis. This is most apparent when, upon realizing such a possibly bleak idea, you wake up the next day despite the death of the universe in however many trillion years, and you keep waking up and you keep living. I think that's what you might call self-evident. In fact, bridging my small life to anything on a cosmic scale is too difficult for me to achieve within reason, and so, that it is ever imagined by theists that our existence has cosmic consequences seems ridiculous.

On solipsism and faith; I take it, that the initial base assumptions we must make in order to glean any information from our surroundings are just that: basal and initial. Once we get the ball rolling, some of the information becomes transcendental, and the base assumptions are no longer needed. Within the question of solipsism, evolution can dispel the doubt of the existence of things, our 3D world, by explaining that without that 3D world our senses would not have arisen, at which point we can throw out the base assumptions, and the faith or questionable trustworthiness that goes along with them. "But, we learned of evolution by using our senses", I hear you say. True, but, as I've said, while employing the base assumptions, we learned from where our senses came. If we found nothing, or if what we found varied from test to teat, I might lend credence to solipsism, but what we find are laws.

And so, from this point of view, I see subjectivity as nothing more than objects gathered in a particular way. Subjectivity becomes illusory, in a sense, rather than objectivity. A better way to say this might be that subjectivity is built on, or made of objectivity.

A question I have dealing with the other dimensions mentioned in the OP: If our senses arise from the interaction with the forces of our surroundings, and we don't perceive our world in 1 dimension or 2, why didn't we develop the ability to sense the other proposed dimensions?