zurew

It seems that you already baked in your hypothetical that you can get away with it, so appealing to practicality is redundant. So in this case we cant even appeal to things like karma or hell or punishment from society or suffering caused by your conscience. If we rule those things out, we are left with looking for objective morality. Even if there is a case to be made for objective morality, I don't think it would change anything (because if there is no punishment for not abiding by those objective moral laws, then why should you care about it)? Maybe we can appeal to certain traits that you may or may not care about like rationality and if we pressupose that there is such a thing as objective morality, then being perfectly rational would mean abiding by those objective moral rules. Or we can appeal to consciousness, where we pressupose that the more conscious you are, the less evil you are , but both of these cases (being perfectly rational or highly conscious) , what we are essentially doing has little to do with objective morality and more to do with appealing to your own subjective preferences (caring about being rational and or being highly conscious). So basically as far as I see it , no matter what line of thought we go down when it comes to your hypothetical, we end up with "yeah you dont have any good reason to be moral" (granted, that you wont be externally punished for it and granted that your conscience wont fuck you up) There is more to be said about you possibly deluding yourself about your own subjective morals and preferences but this is a different question and we can bake it in your hypothetical that you are not deluded.

You dont need to help anyone other than yourself. Right now you feel completely hopeless, because your mind is working overtime to create heavily negative narratives. But those are thoughts and narratives created by your ego mind and they are not reality. Your recurring negative thoughts and self judgements can be stopped. You are overwhelmed by thoughts and future predictions that are generated by your limited ego mind. Dont let your ego mind to win over your higher self. Why would you believe in the predictions and judgements and narratives of your limited ego mind? Your higher self doesn't run away from problems, it faces them head on. Professionals can help you with disentangling your negative narratives and with showing your mind that your situation is much more hopeful than what you think. Let people help you, give them a chance.

WLC argument doesnt make that much sense if you start to deconstruct things. Under his view God is all good and omnipotent, and by omnipotent some philosophers usually mean that God can do anything that doesnt entail a contradiciton (I believe this is how WLC use the word omnipotent). Now, the question comes up - could God create a world where there is no suffering and where there is no need to play horrific survival games? If the answer is yes, then he needs to bite the bullet that God cant have the following two properties simultaneously (all good and omnipotent) , unless he is using such a definition for "all good", that goes againt all our moral intuitions.So under this, the Christian God is either omnipotent but not all morally good or it is all good, but it is not omnipotent. Christians usually don't like to bite this bullet. If the answer is no (meaning that it is actually necessary to create a world ,where there is suffering) then I would like to see the argument that shows the entailed contradicition. There is also a question about heaven (where usually the claim is that there is no suffering and evil). If he wants to play a wordgame where being all good is compatible with there being a world where there is as much torture , suffering, rape and other atrocious acts as in this world, then sure he can say that, but then he will need to bite other bullets. So for example, under this view you need to say that the holocaust, ww1, ww2, all other wars, all torture, all rape and all other evil acts were necessary (to maximize good) and even though God could have stopped those events from happening, he had to let them happen. This is usually backed up by saying some things about free will (that creating moral agents that can choose to do bad things is morally overall better than creating a world where there is no evil at all) , but I don't think those arguments make sense. Firstly, free will is compatible with there being no evil at all (you still have the ability to choose, but you only choose from a set of good things). But even if we go with a definition where the ability to do evil is necessary , the argument still doesnt make much sense. Using our normal moral intuitions we wouldn't ever say that we ought to value a moral agent's ability to do evil things over stopping those things from happening. Note that we arent talking about flawed and powerless humans stopping things from happening, we are talking about an all knowing and omnipotent God , who can stop all evil from happening at any given moment with 0 struggle. Imagine watching your family members getting tortured and raped and God saying, "well it would be immoral for me to stop the torturer". Some other questions come up - 1) what about respecting the free will of the victims? If God values free will over everything, then how come he let one bad actor to kill and do things that go against multiple other moral agents wants? 2) What about kids who die before they are even born? Where is the ability for them to choose things or to do things? Some unborn kids get a free way ticket to heaven and others are given a life full of suffering and an almost a guaranteed path to hell? It seems like that WLC's God doesn't really care that much about free will at all and that his God likes to give other people such a life where they are almost guaranteed to go to hell (give them a set of life experiences and give them a preference structure and moral intuitions that all go against God's morals). There are some other interesting things under WLC view of Christianity: If he would be honest and would have normal moral intuitions, he would conclude, that given that his view is true - It is immoral to have children, because there is a non-zero chance that your kid will go to hell forever, so why gamble with that ?(even if you hardcore indoctrinate your kid, its not guaranteed that he/she wont change their view later). The other is that if you do have children , then there is an argument to be made that you are morally obligated or at the very least, it would be considered virtuous for you to kill your loved ones (given the assumption that they at that particular moment meet all the necessary requirements to go to heaven). Basically you sacrifice your ability to go to heaven in order to guarantee all your loved ones to go there. Also to directly respond to the short, WLC sounds very psychopathic when he frames an unnecessary mass slaughter as a charitable thing . God has the ability to teleport all those people out of existence or to instantly kill them in a way where they don't experience any pain or suffering at all, but WLC's God didn't do any of that. There are ways to reconcile these objections, but for that his view would need to change or he can go ahead and bite all the heavy bullets and maintain his view. There can be more said about the problem of evil and about all the different pathways how it can be cashed out , but I already overshoot on length, no more rambling.

I dont think character limit is the main issue. You dont need to ramble a book amount to give some specifics about your reasoning and to show your deduction.

A straightforward way to prove this (even in a context, where AI gives you a correct answer) , is by asking it to walk you through step by step on its reasoning. I think this forum downplays how bad we are when it comes to deduction. I wouldn't label that "simple", but I might be strawmanning you there.

This is to the folks who for some reason thought Trump will handle the I/P conflict differently.

Yes, but the consideration of all possibilities can be done in an honest and rigorous and clear and meaningful way. For example, even when it comes to terms like "possibility" , its often times unclear what is meant by it. Generally philosophers use it in a way, where they talk about possible worlds, where possible means logical possibility (worlds that abide by the law of non-contradiction). There is an infinite number of worlds like that (we are talking about multiple infinities nested within each other). An endless variety of worlds, each with different laws of physics and each with different metaphysical principles. You have worlds where materialism is true, others where idealism is true. You could even include Leo’s “Infinity of Gods” video within this possibility set. There are also worlds without any conscious agents in them—and much more. But you can go even further and propose the existence of "impossible worlds." These are worlds that violate the classical laws of logic—most notably, the law of non-contradiction. In such worlds, you might find objects that are fully round and fully square at the same time, worlds where materialism and idealism are both true simultaneously, or worlds where solipsism is both true and false at the same time (not in the way how Razard plays with his words, but in an actual sense). I think impossible worlds are mostly nonsensical and lead us down the road of gibberish really fast, but they are still interesting and useful in edge cases .

"Oh noo, the democrats have lost the ability to persuade people who believe all the democrats are satan worshippig , blood drinking criminals. If this pardon wouldn't have happened, all of these people could have been persuaded and saved! "

As if that changes anything - it doesnt. None of the people who voted for Trump gave any fuck about what Trump did, even when he pardoned all the people he did. There is literally 0 point in playing by different standard compared to the other side - it game theoretically sets you up for failure. "I can use a rocket launcher in our next MMA match, you can only use your hands" "Fuck you, you did an illegal move by hitting me in the back of my head , you should be disqualified" - proceeds to use his rocket launcher. I have no clue why people on this forum think that people who voted for Trump give any fuck about any standard. If they would, they wouldn't have voted for Trump.

Its not a matter of being logical, its a matter of being aware of and being honest about limitations and its a matter of substantiating one's claims. There are genuine and complex arguments that can be made about why and how inferences are limited. Thats fine, but on the other hand, there are genuine arguments can be made how and why exclusively relying on seemings (intuitions) is also limited and problematic. But the issue is that we are not having any of those substantial conversations. What some people do here is, they assume that their seemings are true (in an infallible way) and they go on from there. Its also about saying something meaningful vs just gibberating. Not using language in a consistent and clear way is not about being intuitive, it is just obfuscation. Its easy to obfuscate the fuck out of everything and make it seem like there is something profound there, just because its impossible to understand or make sense of what is said there. There is a reason why there is such a big resistance to clarification. Sometimes when one is pressed on a given term's meaning, it sometimes turns out that one haven't said anything profound at all, but either its something completely trivial that everyone with different positions can agree with or it turns out that its something incoherent. For example, once you define the term Absolute as 'all encompassing', and relative as 'not all encompassing' from that on if you are consistent with it, you won't be able to say stuff like "the relative is the Absolute" and from that on, you can be further pressed on your positions (for example on Solipsism). But if you can engage in an endless amount of obfuscation and gibberation, there won't be any attack surface on your position, not because your position is so good and infallible, but because there isn't really any real position to attack in the firstplace, since you have an amorphis position thats labeled as "Solipsism" that you yourself don't even know what it means or you constantly change what it means and you flip-flop between different postions.

I don't think, that line of reasoning establishes that Solipsism is likely. First, I can just deny some of those premises (that dream characters are not conscious or that a dream cannot exist seperately from the dreamer or that reality is a dream in the firstplace) and that will destroy this whole line, unless there is an argument that can establish each of the questioned premises. Usually on this forum all of those premises are taken for granted and almost never challenged. But even in the context where I accept all those premises - That line of reasoning is still compatible with a lot of different kind of metaphysics that are not Solipsism . This will include atheistic and theistic views as well, and when it comes to theism the number of possible views you would need to deal with is still incredibly vast. The dreamworld not existing seperately from the dreamer - is compatible with a God that is not you. It is also compatible with making dreamcharacters that are actually conscious. And we can go down more on the list that are all taken for granted by the Solipsism bros/sisters here.

No, I didnt say that you cant use any presupposition to establish that Solipsism is true. The claim that some people on this forum make is not just that Solipsism is true, but that Solipsism is necessarily true and cant be false (in an infallible way, where there is no room for error). Which is a claim that has never been substantiated ever and that requires an argument that we will never get. Making a claim like "Solipsism can be true" is not an interesting claim and thats not what people here make. People here wouldn't ever bite the bullet that "Solipsism can be true" or that "Solipsism is likely (probabilistically) true" - They want to say that Solipsism is necessarily true. But its not just that we wont get an argument for the strong claim (that it is necessarily true), we won't even get a non-question begging argument for the weaker claim (that Solipsism is likely true). That doesnt make any sense. Question begging is a property of arguments, not questions. You can make an argument where none of the premises assume the conclusion to be true (non-question begging); and you can make one where at least one of the premises assumes the conclusion to be true (question begging).

Here is the claim that Leo or Leo copycats should justify in a non-questionbegging way: All possible (including all types of materialistic and non-materialistic metaphysics) pressupose the validity of Solipsism. Go ahead justify that, im sure we will see a lot of non-question begging arguments here and we will have big brainblasts. Until then - I will take Solipsism to be fallible.

Can you justify this in a non-questionbegging way? (without pressuposing the validity of the metaphysics that you try to justify)

Its all a hallucination except the set of things that you pressupose with that statement and some other things that you usually dont spell out. For example, some things that you wouldn't consider to be hallucinations are (things that you would consider to be necessary and consistent elements of all dreams ; in other words, things that are true for all dreams) - You are God; There are levels of consciousness; ....