# My take on God, if anybody cares. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 25, 2011, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-take-on-god-if-anybody-cares/607372 "2011-12-25T19:16:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2012, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-take-on-god-if-anybody-cares/607372/221 "2012-01-02T14:23:07Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > Proof: > 3. Either the claims of solipsism are true or the claims of solipsism are false. > 4. The claims of solipsism are false. That’s your _proof_??? ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2012, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-take-on-god-if-anybody-cares/607372/222 "2012-01-02T16:00:45Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > That’s your _proof_??? That’s _part_ of my proof. **The Hamster King** ’s proof that his own mind exists is _Cogito ergo sum_. > [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > _Cogito ergo sum._ The claims of solipsism are true. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2012, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-take-on-god-if-anybody-cares/607372/223 "2012-01-02T17:32:14Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > 1. Either the claims of solipsism are true or the claims of solipsism are false. > 2. The claims of solipsism are false. Baldly asserting something isn’t proof. > [@](#): > > 1. Therefore, everything, except one’s own mind, is “sure to exist”. > [@](#): > > Did you even read my answer? _You_ can’t PROVE that the external world and other minds exist. Do you even realize that you’re contradicting yourself? First you say that you can prove the external world exists. Then you say that you can’t prove the external world exists. Which is it? > [@](#): > > The Hamster King’s proof that his own mind exists is Cogito ergo sum. Yes. Notice that “cogito ergo sum” is an ARGUMENT, not a bald assertion. If you have a REFUTATION of Descartes’ argument for the existence of the mind, please share it. ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2012, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-take-on-god-if-anybody-cares/607372/224 "2012-01-02T18:41:16Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > Do you even realize that you’re contradicting yourself? First you say that you can prove the external world exists. Then you say that you can’t prove the external world exists. Which is it? First, I say that [the external world and other minds cannot be known and that only one’s own mind, alone, is “sure to exist”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism). That is solipsism. Then I say that the external world and other minds can be known and that only the external world and other minds, together, are “sure to exist”. That is anti-solipsism. Where’s the contradiction? > [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > Yes. Notice that “cogito ergo sum” is an ARGUMENT, not a bald assertion. If you have a REFUTATION of Descartes’ argument for the existence of the mind, please share it. ARGUMENT [QUOTE=Rene Descartes] for whether I am awake or dreaming, it remains true that two and three make five, and that a square has but four sides; nor does it seem possible that truths so apparent can ever fall under a suspicion of falsity [/QUOTE] REFUTATION [QUOTE=Kozmik] for whether one’s own mind is “sure to exist” or not, it remains true that the external world and other minds are “sure to exist”; nor does it seem possible that truths so apparent can ever fall under a suspicion of falsity [/QUOTE] > [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > However, I have no proof that that math is an essential part of reality. Do you have proof that the external world and other minds are essential parts of reality? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2012, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-take-on-god-if-anybody-cares/607372/225 "2012-01-02T18:47:39Z")
I thought the topic of this debate was the nature of God, not Reality? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2012, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-take-on-god-if-anybody-cares/607372/226 "2012-01-02T19:00:51Z")
That quote from Descartes is not about the existence of mind, but about the existence of other types of a priori knowledge (specifically, math). So by refuting it you’re not refuting _cogito ergo sum_. And your “refutation” seems to consist of baldly asserting that the external world is “sure to exist”. That’s not a refutation. WHY is the external world “sure to exist”? How do you JUSTIFY making that assertion? > [@](#): > > Do you have proof that the external world and other minds are essential parts of reality? No. I’ve never claimed they were. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2012, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-take-on-god-if-anybody-cares/607372/227 "2012-01-02T19:05:21Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I thought the topic of this debate was the nature of God, not Reality? I’d be happy if \*\*Kozmik \*\*wants to take this to another thread. Then maybe he could explain what the hell his point is. ---
**Author:** ![Anduril](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@Anduril](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anduril)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2012, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-take-on-god-if-anybody-cares/607372/228 "2012-01-02T19:20:02Z")
Kozmik’s idea of argumentation is little better than what the grapist employed in the past. ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2012, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-take-on-god-if-anybody-cares/607372/229 "2012-01-02T19:25:35Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > That quote from Descartes is not about the existence of mind, but about the existence of other types of a priori knowledge (specifically, math). So by refuting it you’re not refuting _cogito ergo sum_. My argument, restated: First, I say that the external world and other minds cannot be known and that the _cogito_, alone, is “sure to exist”. _Cogito ergo sum_. That is solipsism. Then I say that the external world and other minds can be known and that only the external world and other minds, together, are “sure to exist” That is anti-solipsism. > [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > WHY is the external world “sure to exist”? How do you JUSTIFY making that assertion? Other minds are “sure to exist”. > [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > I’d be happy if \*\*Kozmik \*\*wants to take this to another thread. Then maybe he could explain what the hell his point is. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > Reality. > [@Anduril](#): > > Kozmik’s idea of argumentation is little better than what the grapist employed in the past. I like Czarcasm’s argumentation much more. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2012, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-take-on-god-if-anybody-cares/607372/230 "2012-01-02T21:33:52Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > My argument, restated: > > First, I say that the external world and other minds cannot be known and that the _cogito_, alone, is “sure to exist”. _Cogito ergo sum_. That is solipsism. Then I say that the external world and other minds can be known and that only the external world and other minds, together, are “sure to exist” That is anti-solipsism. That’s not an argument. Those are just definitions. An argument is explaining WHY a position is justified, not just stating what it is. ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2012, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-take-on-god-if-anybody-cares/607372/231 "2012-01-02T23:07:33Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > That’s not an argument. Those are just definitions. An argument is explaining WHY a position is justified, not just stating what it is. Solipsism cannot be justified. Solipsism claims that only one’s own mind, alone, is “sure to exist” and that the external world and other minds cannot be known. The claims of solipsism cannot be justified. I refute the claim that the external world and other minds cannot be known. I declare that the external world and other minds can be known. I refute the claim that one’s own mind, alone, is “sure to exist”. I declare that only the external world and other minds, together, are "sure to exist’. Anti-solipsism claims that the external world and other minds can be known and that only the external world and other minds, together, are “sure to exist”. Anti-solipsism can be justified. The main claim of solipsism is that everything, except the external world and other minds, is “sure to exist”. The main claim of anti-solipsism is that everything, except one’s own mind, is “sure to exist”. The main claim of solipsism cannot be jusified. The main claim of anti-solipsism can be justified. Anti-solipsism is justified. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2012, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-take-on-god-if-anybody-cares/607372/232 "2012-01-03T01:12:44Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > Anti-solipsism can be justified. > [@](#): > > The main claim of anti-solipsism can be justified. > [@](#): > > Anti-solipsism is justified. Merely repeating that it’s justified over and over doesn’t mean that it is. You have have to show your work. Step by step, like this: 1. I think. 2. If I can think, something must be doing the thinking. 3. Therefore my mind MUST exist. 4. My mind experiences a sequence of sensory inputs. 5. These sensory inputs APPEAR to be generated by an external reality. 6. As of yet, I have not been able to PROVE they are generated by an external reality. 7. Therefore external reality might not exist. Personally, I live my life as though external reality does exist. However I accept that this assumption is not a proven fact. If you have a PROOF that reality exists (not merely an assertion), then I invite you, yet again, to share it. ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2012, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-take-on-god-if-anybody-cares/607372/233 "2012-01-03T02:33:02Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > Personally, I live my life as though external reality does exist. I believe that the external world and other minds can be known. I understand that the solpsist believes that the external world and other minds cannot be known. Personally, I live my life as though other minds live their life as though the external world does exist and can be known. ---
**Author:** ![Anduril](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@Anduril](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anduril)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2012, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-take-on-god-if-anybody-cares/607372/234 "2012-01-03T16:44:17Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > I believe that the external world and other minds can be known. I understand that the solpsist believes that the external world and other minds cannot be known. > > Personally, I live my life as though other minds live their life as though the external world does exist and can be known. See? Is this any better than “This post has been graped by the grapist”? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2012, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-take-on-god-if-anybody-cares/607372/235 "2012-01-03T18:21:15Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > I believe that the external world and other minds can be known. Belief doesn’t enter into it. Can you PROVE the external world exists? ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2012, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-take-on-god-if-anybody-cares/607372/236 "2012-01-03T21:00:04Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > Belief doesn’t enter into it. Can you PROVE the external world exists? You are not a solipsist. I am not a solpsist. I am an anti-solipsist. I’d happily switch, too. However, I will not switch from anti-solipsism to solipsism. The solipsist says that the external world and other minds cannot be known. I SAY that the external world and other minds _can_ be known. Solipsism is the philosphical idea that one’s own mind, alone, is “sure to exist”. Anti-solipsism is the philosophical idea that EVERYTHING - the external world and other minds - EVERYTHING, _except one’s own mind_, is “sure to exist”. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2012, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-take-on-god-if-anybody-cares/607372/237 "2012-01-03T21:03:42Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > You are not a solipsist. I am not a solpsist. I am an anti-solipsist. I’d happily switch, too. However, I will not switch from anti-solipsism to solipsism. The solipsist says that the external world and other minds cannot be known. I SAY that the external world and other minds _can_ be known. Solipsism is the philosphical idea that one’s own mind, alone, is “sure to exist”. Anti-solipsism is the philosophical idea that EVERYTHING - the external world and other minds - EVERYTHING, _except one’s own mind_, is “sure to exist”. Is that a “yes” or a “no”? ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2012, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-take-on-god-if-anybody-cares/607372/238 "2012-01-03T21:14:42Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Is that a “yes” or a “no”? That is a “no” to solipsism. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2012, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-take-on-god-if-anybody-cares/607372/239 "2012-01-03T21:17:03Z")
> [@Kozmik](#): > > That is a “no” to solipsism. Is that a “no” to the question actually asked, though? ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2012, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-take-on-god-if-anybody-cares/607372/240 "2012-01-03T21:42:50Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Is that a “no” to the question actually asked, though? You mean this question: > [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > Can you PROVE the external world exists? No; however, I can prove that other minds exist. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-take-on-god-if-anybody-cares/607372.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-take-on-god-if-anybody-cares/607372.md?page=13)