Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[bennyboy]

Alas you have yet to exhibit an actual experinceor (person to experience), experiencee (fictitious persons or things to be experienced), or experience (the act of).  In which case your distinction between utility of an idea of actual experience vs convenience are the same.  In order to resolve your philosophical problem, by which you need other persons, you choose to believe other people have minds because you have an actual experience (as determined by you, which is not determinate of the truth) they do all the things you would expect from a mindful being (of course they also do things you would not expect from a mindful being such as act without thinking or act in an irrational way).

Of course I know you recognize this argument is readily available to the theist as well.  Who chooses to believe because they have an actual experience (as determined by them, which is again not necessarily determinate of the truth) of Him in which he did ALL the things they expect from Him (even if he does somethings they would not expect from him).

I don't think the process is the same. My expectations about things are symbolic representations of experience, which I project onto candidates for same-ness. I experience an actual human sentience, my own, and project that onto ten-fingered, ten-toed beings.

So what of the God idea? Obviously, I cannot have a comprehensive experience of God, since by definition God cannot be comprehended. So if I project God-hood onto events I CAN experience, what am I projecting? Only a very distilled, very incomplete idea. But here's the important part-- the idea is so far removed from the hypothetical "reality" of an actual Deity that it cannot be said to be representative at all: the symbol is personal to me, or to people who have described it to me, and CANNOT exist. In short, you are necessarily stuck trying to project a myth onto a thing.

Determination of an action as moral, amoral, or immoral must give consideration to the intention of the actor (on this we agree) as good, indifferent/nonexistent, or bad.  I would even agree this relative intention is to be referenced in accordance to an objective evaluation of the good, indifferent, or bad intention in the scenario.  

I once again cannot agree with the subjective evaluation of the world view by which one may state my world view is "I do not risk my ass in the slightest for anyone or anything."  Now I do not endeavor to give aid to anyone (including those I can aid with only minimal or nominal risk) and such is "good" as it is in accordance with my world view.  Or I may adopt the world view of "Their loss is my gain".  In which case any act taken by my person resulting in their loss (without specifying what is lost) is "good" because it is in accordance with my world view of it being my gain (regardless of whether their loss was was deserved or not).

The Biblical God takes this position constantly. The commandments, which are supposed to be good, says "Thou shalt not kill," and yet he kills. He also counsels his followers to kill, at least sometimes, as the loss of non-Judaic people represents a gain for the Jews. Is this moral? How about the laying to waste of whole towns, or the killing of the first-born in Egypt? Had all those first-born boys committed sins worthy of death?

I am not saying your world view is inherent to person (that is for you to argue).  I am saying if you want to say your world view is inherent to your person than I would be justified in saying your world view is your person and we may readily drop the pretense of the world view as the determinate of morality as being something other than just subjective morality of the whims.

This is non sequitur. The love of chocolate is inherent to my person, but I am not my love of chocolate.

1.  While you are readily willing to believe in the existence of any number of fictitious relative beings which are uniquely un-unique to endeavor to reach a consensus for moral determination.  You may more easily believe in the existence of a single fictitious objective reality by which all subjectives are mere perspectives, that serves to grant validity to your own subjective experiences and judgments while simultaneously providing a means of correlation between any number of subsequent fictitious persons one wishes to believe as to reach consensus.  

You could say that in my world view, there's a kind of archetypal man, from which everyone else deviates in small ways, and that whatever I think this being's mores would be represent my moral views-- so long as we recognize that we are still just talking about my ideas, not projecting this archetypal man onto an actual being which we are positing.

2. You believe you see bodies with 10 fingers and those bodies are inhabit by a person.  But you have not proven you exist, much less that you have seen anything beyond you.  Furthermore if we are to say something exists beyond you and that you "see" it then we are lead to our argument of objective vs. subjective existence beyond you (under the assumption that at least you actually exist).  

I think we're on the third trip around the merry-go-round, now. This will be my last time restating this line.

If I'm living in the Matrix, then I am OF the Matrix, and the apparent existence of other Matrix people is sufficiently convincing that I take the philosophical position that they are real. If I'm in the mind of God or a brain in a jar, little matter: I still talk to (apparent) people all the time, and believing them to be real is necessary in order for any of my social behaviors to make sense.

In ANY of these contexts, the idea of God is irrelevant, because it isn't founded on any of the observations I'm able to make, and comes FROM OTHERS. Best case scenario, other people are real, and their God ideas represent truth-- but I have means of establishing the other as representing truth. Next best, other people are real, and their God idea is mythological-- not representing truth. But add your suspicion of the reality of people, and you are just shooting yourself in the foot, because now, other people are not real, and so I'm deriving my God idea from something that is itself unreal.

I'm sorry, but the posts are getting tl;dr. I'll have to stop there, and I may attempt to take up the rest of your post later.