« Last post by ParkingPlaces on Today at 10:47:00 AM »
oh, come on, skep. That's not fair. It is not that we don't like it. It is that solipsism is a big bag of bullshit, an intellectual dead end, and it offers no actual insight or solution. Okay, I cannot prove I am not a brain in a jar. Now what? How does that inform me? What actions does that indicate I should take? What does that explain?
I've asked you this before and I do not recall a response.
My position is not that an atheist must believe we are brains-in-jars. Nor is my position that I believe we are brains-in-jars.
My position is that a strict balls-to-the-wall materialistic atheist can not describe what things are like without using a mind to describe it. So the notion of "outside the mind" becomes meaningless. I believe God is the eternal perceiving mind that allows everything to exist even when we are not around to observe it.
Materialism stems from the assumption (not fact) that things exist independently of minds. If things can exist independently from minds, then who needs God as an explanation?
Since trying to describe the nature of something without using a mind is an impossible task, the problem is solved by positing the eternal mind. Can I prove this? No, I can not. but it makes a lot more sense to me than something existing independently of all minds.
If I get squished by a boulder, how important is it that I perceive that I've been squished by a boulder for it to be effective?
You seem to be saying that everything has to be perceived to exist. Whereas I think that things have to exist before we can perceive them. You think that there has to be some supreme mind perceiving or there wouldn't be anything. I think that there has to be stuff before minds can come in to being. Am I understanding your point of view correctly?