Which of these is Real and True?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5562
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: We can accept that the apple exists independent of human experience...

Post by henry quirk » Sat Nov 30, 2019 7:25 pm

...but we have no means at our disposal to actually prove it exists.

Sure we (I) do: I pick it up, smell it, take a big bite. It's an apple, or sumthin' else (like mebbe a wax replica).


When a human experiences an apple, it certainly exists for that human, as long as that human accepts its own experience as evidence.

There's no reason to deny or doubt or reject my own experience. Across 57 years, many varied circumstances, multiple environments, and, occasionally, drunk as a skunk, my experience of the world, and myself in the world, has been consistent and coherent. That there's seven billion of us millin' around, shenaniganizin', sez a lot about how trustworthy our apprehending of the world is.

Folks who deny, doubt, or reject their experiences of the world as false generally have more than one screw loose.

commonsense
Posts: 1377
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: We can accept that the apple exists independent of human experience...

Post by commonsense » Sat Nov 30, 2019 9:37 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 7:25 pm
...but we have no means at our disposal to actually prove it exists.

Sure we (I) do: I pick it up, smell it, take a big bite. It's an apple, or sumthin' else (like mebbe a wax replica).
To be sure, it’s an apple, or something else (like a replica or a hallucination.
henry quirk wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 7:25 pm
When a human experiences an apple, it certainly exists for that human, as long as that human accepts its own experience as evidence.

There's no reason to deny or doubt or reject my own experience. Across 57 years, many varied circumstances, multiple environments, and, occasionally, drunk as a skunk, my experience of the world, and myself in the world, has been consistent and coherent. That there's seven billion of us millin' around, shenaniganizin', sez a lot about how trustworthy our apprehending of the world is.

Folks who deny, doubt, or reject their experiences of the world as false generally have more than one screw loose.
I already said that what you experience in 57 years or more is exactly what you perceive it to be.

I already said words to the effect that a person would be insane not to trust his instincts.

The problem I highlighted was about what happens to the apple when no one is looking. It’s probably still there, but I cannot know that it’s still there unless I look at it (or smell it, etc.)

The problem is that now that I’ve gone ahead and looked at it, I’ve only proved that it’s there while I’m looking at it.

If I have to look at the apple to show that it exists whenever I’m looking at it, I can’t prove anything.

In other words, what’s not the frame of reference is the frame of reference.

The same goes for artichokes.

:mrgreen:

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5562
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: We can accept that the apple exists independent of human experience...

Post by henry quirk » Sat Nov 30, 2019 10:14 pm

"The problem I highlighted was about what happens to the apple when no one is looking. It’s probably still there, but I cannot know that it’s still there unless I look at it (or smell it, etc.)"

This is not a problem: the apple you place on the table exists. When you leave the house for the day that apple sits there, lonely, pinin' for the fjords. It does not appear and disappear. Your attention is not required. Trust me on this.

#

"The same goes for artichokes."

You're mad, sir, MAD I say! Artie Choke is a urban myth.

commonsense
Posts: 1377
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: We can accept that the apple exists independent of human experience...

Post by commonsense » Sat Nov 30, 2019 11:09 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 10:14 pm
"The problem I highlighted was about what happens to the apple when no one is looking. It’s probably still there, but I cannot know that it’s still there unless I look at it (or smell it, etc.)"

This is not a problem: the apple you place on the table exists. When you leave the house for the day that apple sits there, lonely, pinin' for the fjords. It does not appear and disappear. Your attention is not required. Trust me on this.

#

"The same goes for artichokes."

You're mad, sir, MAD I say! Artie Choke is a urban myth.

:wink:

roydop
Posts: 325
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:37 pm

Re: Which of these is Real and True?

Post by roydop » Sat Nov 30, 2019 11:42 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:40 am
A real apple ...;
  • 1. .. is a fruit
    2. .. is a physical thing of material, colors, solidness, etc.
    3. .. comprised n-numbers of molecules
    4. -- comprised n-numbers of atoms
    5. -- comprised of n-numbers of protons and electrons
    6. -- comprised of n-numbers of particles or waves
    7. -- comprised of n-numbers of quarks
    8. -- possible to comprise of an unknown numbers of substance
The above as reference to an apple is merely an example.
The above principles applied to all things that are supposed to be real.

Are all the above true statements?
If yes, why are there so many true statements.
What is the most truest statement one can state of an apple.

What philosophical implications can you abstract from the above?

It gets even more interesting.

Is there an apple if the word "apple" doesn't arise in consciousness?

From my direct experience, the answer is "no".

I say "my direct experience" because i am able to effortlessly abide in the thought free state (not constantly, but for some periods of time), and it's an undivided whole. I feel that the observation problem in quantum physics is metaphor of this thought free experience. The wave function is a description/metaphor of the act of pure observation, without conceptualization. The collapse of the wave function is the moment of conceptualization (eg. "apple")

The reason why this hasn't really occurred to anyone else is because everyone (99.9999% ish) is convinced of the substantiality of thought, and are unable to stop conceptualizing.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5562
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"Is there an apple if the word "apple" doesn't arise in consciousness?"

Post by henry quirk » Sun Dec 01, 2019 1:26 am

Being a solitary, outdoorsy sort, I often take long walks in the woods. Let's say on one of my walks, I stumble across a crabapple tree. I plunk myself down beneath it to gnaw on one of the stunted, sour fruits. As I eat, an exceptionally large and heavy crabapple directly overhead comes loose and comes down on my head in just the right way. I'm knocked unconscious.

Now, what some folks would have us believe is: the friggin' apples disappear when my attention on them ceases.

This, of course, is an insane notion promoted by those who have gazed into their navels for far too long.

No, the apples exist independent of me, exist independent of my attention, independent of my thinking.

As I lay there, droolin' on myself, zonked out cuz of a crabapple beat-down, the trees and the apples and the soil and the air and the insects and the sun and my clothes and the reptiles and the bacteria and the birds and the coyotes and the everything else continues, not carin' one jot about where my eye falls or where my attention is directed.

Shocking notion, yeah? Apples, and almost everything else, don't rely on you or me or anyone to 'be'.

We -- you and me -- bring names and meaning to the World and to all the things in the World.

That's it, that's all: isn't that (more than) enough?

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2711
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Which of these is Real and True?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Dec 01, 2019 5:13 am

roydop wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 11:42 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:40 am
A real apple ...;
  • 1. .. is a fruit
    2. .. is a physical thing of material, colors, solidness, etc.
    3. .. comprised n-numbers of molecules
    4. -- comprised n-numbers of atoms
    5. -- comprised of n-numbers of protons and electrons
    6. -- comprised of n-numbers of particles or waves
    7. -- comprised of n-numbers of quarks
    8. -- possible to comprise of an unknown numbers of substance
The above as reference to an apple is merely an example.
The above principles applied to all things that are supposed to be real.

Are all the above true statements?
If yes, why are there so many true statements.
What is the most truest statement one can state of an apple.

What philosophical implications can you abstract from the above?

It gets even more interesting.

Is there an apple if the word "apple" doesn't arise in consciousness?

From my direct experience, the answer is "no".

I say "my direct experience" because i am able to effortlessly abide in the thought free state (not constantly, but for some periods of time), and it's an undivided whole. I feel that the observation problem in quantum physics is metaphor of this thought free experience. The wave function is a description/metaphor of the act of pure observation, without conceptualization. The collapse of the wave function is the moment of conceptualization (eg. "apple")

The reason why this hasn't really occurred to anyone else is because everyone (99.9999% ish) is convinced of the substantiality of thought, and are unable to stop conceptualizing.
I agree with the above.

1. The reason people cannot stop conceptualizing is because that is a default to ensure survival progressively which naturally comes with its cons and negatives. The extreme of conceptualization is the idealization and reification of a thought as God, which is actually an illusion which lead to fundamentalism then to terror, evil and violent upon non-believers.

2. To deal with the cons and negatives of the above, there is a need to be enlightened [from experience] with a thought-free-state, i.e. in the NOW and the subsequent realization of it. However the extreme of this is a mis-perception that leads to escapism, asceticism, fanaticism, and the likes.

However in practice and to optimize the well-being of the individual[s], one should not be stuck with the extremes of 1 and/or 2 at all times.

What is recommended as the most effective is the Middle-Way as in Buddhism-proper, the Path of the Tao and other practices where one effectively engages either 1 or 2 [or combination in degrees] to maintain optimality and equanimity re the well-being of the individual[s].

The above discussion is to support my hypothesis like;

God is an Impossibility to be Real
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2711
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: "Is there an apple if the word "apple" doesn't arise in consciousness?"

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Dec 01, 2019 8:01 am

henry quirk wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 1:26 am
Being a solitary, outdoorsy sort, I often take long walks in the woods. Let's say on one of my walks, I stumble across a crabapple tree. I plunk myself down beneath it to gnaw on one of the stunted, sour fruits. As I eat, an exceptionally large and heavy crabapple directly overhead comes loose and comes down on my head in just the right way. I'm knocked unconscious.

Now, what some folks would have us believe is: the friggin' apples disappear when my attention on them ceases.

This, of course, is an insane notion promoted by those who have gazed into their navels for far too long.

No, the apples exist independent of me, exist independent of my attention, independent of my thinking.

As I lay there, droolin' on myself, zonked out cuz of a crabapple beat-down, the trees and the apples and the soil and the air and the insects and the sun and my clothes and the reptiles and the bacteria and the birds and the coyotes and the everything else continues, not carin' one jot about where my eye falls or where my attention is directed.

Shocking notion, yeah? Apples, and almost everything else, don't rely on you or me or anyone to 'be'.

We -- you and me -- bring names and meaning to the World and to all the things in the World.

That's it, that's all: isn't that (more than) enough?
The formula is this;

Humans + basic concepts + concept of apple + consciousness = emergence of a real apple.

Without the humans variable and consciousness, there is no emergence of a real apple.

That is the most be can represent whatever is.
How else?
Theist will include God into the above equation, but God is an illusion for God to exists as real.

It is the same with the issue of 'If a tree break down in a forest with no one, is there a sound'.

Here is a crude demonstration of emergence;

Note this 3D Einstein Mask;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pH9dAbPOR6M

In the above there is the convex and concave side of the 3D mask.
However there is an emergence of a "convex" 3D mask even when the side is actually a concave, i.e. hollow-in side.
Point is you cannot force your brain to generate that emergence, the brain/mind present the emergence spontaneously.

In the above, if a person is not informed of the real situation, he will always perceive a 3D thing on every turn of that 'thing' and take that as the truth.
It is the same with everyday reality which is an emergence but because it is the default and the majority are ignorant they take what is reality to them as absolutely real, not knowing in one sense, it is an illusion.

I am not sure, but non-humans may not see both sides as 3D.
But non-humans will have their different sense of emergences.

So an apple is an emergence upon this equation;
Humans + basic concepts + concept of apple + consciousness = emergence of a real apple.

If the person dies, there is no more of such emergences, i.e. no more apple relative to the person.
If ALL human die, there is s no more of such emergences, i.e. no more apple relative to the any one.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5562
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Which of these is Real and True?

Post by henry quirk » Sun Dec 01, 2019 12:47 pm

"Humans + basic concepts + concept of apple + consciousness = emergence of a real apple."

I think it's more like this...

Man apprehends thing, experiences its qualities, names those qualities, names the thing.

Without Man there is no apprehending of thing, no experiencing of thing's qualities, no naming of those qualities, no naming of thing, but thing remains or persists.

Thing retains all its qualities and exists but does so un-apprehended, un-experienced, un-named, never given significance.

Man brings recognition and meaning and names to Reality (Man brings significations to things) but Man does not create Reality (or the things in it)

commonsense
Posts: 1377
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Which of these is Real and True?

Post by commonsense » Mon Dec 02, 2019 3:16 am

henry quirk wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 12:47 pm
"Humans + basic concepts + concept of apple + consciousness = emergence of a real apple."

I think it's more like this...

Man apprehends thing, experiences its qualities, names those qualities, names the thing.

Without Man there is no apprehending of thing, no experiencing of thing's qualities, no naming of those qualities, no naming of thing, but thing remains or persists.

Thing retains all its qualities and exists but does so un-apprehended, un-experienced, un-named, never given significance.

Man brings recognition and meaning and names to Reality (Man brings significations to things) but Man does not create Reality (or the things in it)
If someone were to say to me that anything we experience is real in every way and does not change when it is not being experienced or thought of, I would say that that sounds sorta like something that Henry has been telling us all along.

And I would guess that this is correct, but I cannot know that with certainty. If someone could just prove it to be correct, then I would know it to be unquestionably true.

So I suppose that the proof I’m waiting for would look something like this: If [insert argument here], then an object exists even when no one experiences or thinks of it.

I assert that there is no proof like that.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5562
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Which of these is Real and True?

Post by henry quirk » Mon Dec 02, 2019 3:38 am

commonsense wrote:
Mon Dec 02, 2019 3:16 am
henry quirk wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 12:47 pm
"Humans + basic concepts + concept of apple + consciousness = emergence of a real apple."

I think it's more like this...

Man apprehends thing, experiences its qualities, names those qualities, names the thing.

Without Man there is no apprehending of thing, no experiencing of thing's qualities, no naming of those qualities, no naming of thing, but thing remains or persists.

Thing retains all its qualities and exists but does so un-apprehended, un-experienced, un-named, never given significance.

Man brings recognition and meaning and names to Reality (Man brings significations to things) but Man does not create Reality (or the things in it)
If someone were to say to me that anything we experience is real in every way and does not change when it is not being experienced or thought of, I would say that that sounds sorta like something that Henry has been telling us all along.

And I would guess that this is correct, but I cannot know that with certainty. If someone could just prove it to be correct, then I would know it to be unquestionably true.

So I suppose that the proof I’m waiting for would look something like this: If [insert argument here], then an object exists even when no one experiences or thinks of it.

I assert that there is no proof like that.
The only proof I can offer is the one I offer up to refute solipsism (which is what this thread is really all about), that being: I'm too fuckin' dumb to be imaginin' all the shit that seems to exist outside of, and apart from, me, so all that shit, in all its glory, must exist independent of me.

So, generalizing: If human beings are too stupid, too limited, too finite, to be consistently, coherently, collectively, imagining Reality into existence, then an object, any object, exists even when no one experiences or thinks of it.

Age
Posts: 3844
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: We can accept that the apple exists independent of human experience...

Post by Age » Mon Dec 02, 2019 5:44 am

commonsense wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 5:58 pm
...but we have no means at our disposal to actually prove it exists.

When a human experiences an apple, it certainly exists for that human, as long as that human accepts its own experience as evidence.

This acceptance, or assumption, is wholly dependent on the human.

If the human cannot accept/believe/trust his experience, he cannot function in the world he perceives.

So, to be a functional human being requires acceptance of one’s own experience as evidence or proof.

And when a human is not experiencing an apple, there is no means to verify the existence of apples.
Do 'you' trust and/or believe some things that are told to 'you', by "others"?

If yes, then when 'you' are not experiencing, firsthand, a thing, which is known as "apple", then could that be at least one means to verify the existence of those things known as "apples"?

Age
Posts: 3844
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: We can accept that the apple exists independent of human experience...

Post by Age » Mon Dec 02, 2019 6:01 am

commonsense wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 9:37 pm
henry quirk wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 7:25 pm
...but we have no means at our disposal to actually prove it exists.

Sure we (I) do: I pick it up, smell it, take a big bite. It's an apple, or sumthin' else (like mebbe a wax replica).
To be sure, it’s an apple, or something else (like a replica or a hallucination.
henry quirk wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 7:25 pm
When a human experiences an apple, it certainly exists for that human, as long as that human accepts its own experience as evidence.

There's no reason to deny or doubt or reject my own experience. Across 57 years, many varied circumstances, multiple environments, and, occasionally, drunk as a skunk, my experience of the world, and myself in the world, has been consistent and coherent. That there's seven billion of us millin' around, shenaniganizin', sez a lot about how trustworthy our apprehending of the world is.

Folks who deny, doubt, or reject their experiences of the world as false generally have more than one screw loose.
I already said that what you experience in 57 years or more is exactly what you perceive it to be.

I already said words to the effect that a person would be insane not to trust his instincts.

The problem I highlighted was about what happens to the apple when no one is looking.
Considering 'you' are calling 'it' an "apple", implies or infers that 'it' remains an 'apple', even when there are no human beings looking at 'it', thee 'apple'.
commonsense wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 9:37 pm
It’s probably still there, but I cannot know that it’s still there unless I look at it (or smell it, etc.)
True, but 'you' could place a video camera there and record it, and then 'you' could see if it was there when 'you' were personally not looking at 'it'.

you could also do other experiments to see and know if the thing known as an "apples" remains, or does some thing incomprehensible and/or magical, while 'you' are not looking at 'it'.
commonsense wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 9:37 pm
The problem is that now that I’ve gone ahead and looked at it, I’ve only proved that it’s there while I’m looking at it.
WHY would any one even really care if it was there or not there when they are not looking at it, anyway?

Do 'you' care about all of the other uncountable things also, when 'you' are not looking at them as well?

What is the actual point of this type of discussion about this type of issue, anyway?

And, what is the actual 'problem' when 'you' look at some thing and prove to "yourself" ONLY that it is there while 'you' are looking at it?
commonsense wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 9:37 pm
If I have to look at the apple to show that it exists whenever I’m looking at it, I can’t prove anything.
Are you SURE 'you' can NOT prove any thing?

If no, then okay.

If yes, then you can NOT prove that statement that you just made here is correct also.

Also, if 'you' have to look at some thing to prove to "yourself" that it is exists, then this supposed issue or problem evolves 'you' ONLY, and thus is yours ONLY.
commonsense wrote:
Sat Nov 30, 2019 9:37 pm
In other words, what’s not the frame of reference is the frame of reference.

The same goes for artichokes.

:mrgreen:

Age
Posts: 3844
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Which of these is Real and True?

Post by Age » Mon Dec 02, 2019 6:43 am

commonsense wrote:
Mon Dec 02, 2019 3:16 am
henry quirk wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 12:47 pm
"Humans + basic concepts + concept of apple + consciousness = emergence of a real apple."

I think it's more like this...

Man apprehends thing, experiences its qualities, names those qualities, names the thing.

Without Man there is no apprehending of thing, no experiencing of thing's qualities, no naming of those qualities, no naming of thing, but thing remains or persists.

Thing retains all its qualities and exists but does so un-apprehended, un-experienced, un-named, never given significance.

Man brings recognition and meaning and names to Reality (Man brings significations to things) but Man does not create Reality (or the things in it)
If someone were to say to me that anything we experience is real in every way and does not change when it is not being experienced or thought of, I would say that that sounds sorta like something that Henry has been telling us all along.

And I would guess that this is correct, but I cannot know that with certainty. If someone could just prove it to be correct, then I would know it to be unquestionably true.

But OBVIOUSLY NO one could prove that things do NOT change, when they are NOT being experienced nor thought of.
Why did this just suddenly now come into being questioned?

OBVIOUSLY things are ALWAYS CHANGING, even if they are being experienced and thought of or even if they are NOT being experienced or NOT thought of.

What is also OBVIOUS is things CAN and DO EXIST when they are being experienced or NOT being experienced, and/or when they are being thought of or NOT being thought of.
commonsense wrote:
Mon Dec 02, 2019 3:16 am
So I suppose that the proof I’m waiting for would look something like this: If [insert argument here], then an object exists even when no one experiences or thinks of it.
Adding and changing between the words 'exist' and 'change' does NOT help "others" to provide PROPER Answer/s.

If 'you' ACCEPT, TRUST, or BELIEVE your senses, then things EXIST even when 'you' are NOT directly experiencing nor thinking of them. This can be tested, and so can be verified or falsified.

But 'you' are NOT looking for this here. 'you' are looking for an 'argument' here, correct?

Now, IF absolutely NO ONE is experiencing or thinking of some thing, and IF that some thing exists or NOT is a whole other issue. 'you' have once again changed the outcome/Answer being sought here.

Now, when 'you' say "no one" what do 'you' actually mean?

Until then,

Human beings came to exist, or evolved into Existence, from other things.
Before human beings started existing there MUST OF been other things previously. (Unless, of course, 'you' BELIEVE otherwise.)
ALL 'things', by definition, are objects, so 'other things' also are objects.
Before human beings started existing obviously there were NO human beings experiencing and thinking.
Objects, therefore, MUST OF existed when NO human beings were yet experiencing or thinking, of ANY thing.
So, IF this is True, Right, Accurate, and Correct, THEN an object exists even when NO human being experiences or thinks of it.

However, in what EXACT way, shape, AND form those objects are EXISTING IN, EXACTLY, is a whole other matter. Because objects are ALWAYS continually changing at the subatomic structure.
commonsense wrote:
Mon Dec 02, 2019 3:16 am
I assert that there is no proof like that.
Do 'you' have ANY proof that there is NO proof like that, forever more, or even now?

Or, are you just making an ASSUMPTION based on what 'you' have so far previously experienced and/or thought about?

Do 'you' BELIEVE that there IS NO proof like that?

Or, are 'you' OPEN to the possibility that there COULD BE proof like that, one day, or are 'you' even OPEN enough to accept that the proof like that might even exist right now, when this is written? Or, are 'you' completely CLOSED to these POSSIBILITIES?

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2711
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Which of these is Real and True?

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Mon Dec 02, 2019 7:50 am

henry quirk wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 12:47 pm
"Humans + basic concepts + concept of apple + consciousness = emergence of a real apple."

I think it's more like this...

Man apprehends thing, experiences its qualities, names those qualities, names the thing.

Without Man there is no apprehending of thing, no experiencing of thing's qualities, no naming of those qualities, no naming of thing, but thing remains or persists.

Thing retains all its qualities and exists but does so un-apprehended, un-experienced, un-named, never given significance.

Man brings recognition and meaning and names to Reality (Man brings significations to things) but Man does not create Reality (or the things in it)
You had merely assumed 'thing' pre-existed prior to comprehension.

Note the Problem of a Heap.
At what point is a grain and falling grains of sand a heap?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox

So at what point or when is a thing, a 'thing?'
This is problem that leads to infinite regression.
If we insist there is an original real 'thing' to start with, that is a delusion.

To speculate of "things" we cannot even speak off would be delusional.
This why Wittgenstein proposed,
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
He meant it literally and thus one must shut up in such a situation.

We should start with the most certain fact we can speak off, i.e. humans exist as real.
Humans are the most real as evident from one own experiences and inferring the mirror existence of other humans.
That is why I started with 'humans' in the following equation;
"Humans + basic concepts + concept of apple + consciousness = emergence of a real apple."

All the above are empirically verifiable.

If we were to introduce 'thing' into the above equation, then we are lost with something unknowable.
Theists had already substituted that 'thing' as a real God which in certain cases commands theist to war against and kill non-believers.

The above equation has nothing to do with solipsism.
The fact is man and humans in the above are the real thing, how can that be solipsism.
That is the best we can do.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests