Martin Ball says he's not solipsistic

[Salvijus]

3 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

I'd move this thread to the Intellectual subforum, surprisingly.

This thread should go to mental asylum maybe, lol. 

[zurew]

6 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

I'd move this thread to the Intellectual subforum, surprisingly.

You would need to move the whole "spirituality ,Consciousness" subforum there.

Even your threads because people intellectualized them 

Edited Saturday at 06:46 PM by zurew

[Nemra]

Just now, Salvijus said:

But you have no counter argument against my will example. So as long as that stands, it is a yes. 

Not so fast. Your counterarguments were false from the start. And I have responded to you a lot. So, no.

[Salvijus]

6 minutes ago, Nemra said:

Not so fast. Your counterarguments were false from the start. And I have responded to you a lot. So, no.

You made not a single counter argument against the will argument. As long as it stands, solipsism is debunked as it directly disables any notion of you being a sole maker of the show which is the definition of solipsism. Everything else is irrelevant. 

Edited Saturday at 06:53 PM by Salvijus

[Nemra]

5 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

You made not a single counter argument against the will argument. As long as it stands, solipsism is debunked as it directly disables any notion of you being a maker of the show. Everything else is irrelevant. 

You used the will argument without really countering what I said. Check your memory sometimes.

I even said I don't really know about it; however, if inner experience is imaginary, then there isn't the will of others. So, your "argument" was irrelevant.

Edited Saturday at 06:56 PM by Nemra

[Salvijus]

1 minute ago, Nemra said:

You used the will argument without really countering what I said. Check your memory sometimes.

I don't need to counter what is irrelevant. 

[Salvijus]

8 minutes ago, Nemra said:

I even said I don't really know about it; however, if inner experience is imaginary, then there isn't the will of others. So, your "argument" was irrelevant.

It's a big if. Whereas my position is undeniable. It automatically implies the will of god is manifesting through many more forms than just you. And that is a valid argument against solipsism. 

Edited Saturday at 07:05 PM by Salvijus

[Nemra]

Just now, Salvijus said:

I don't need to counter what is irrelevant. 

That's your mistake of not understanding that it is relevant.

Instead of responding to me to appear that you are right, I would recommend that you understand how understanding your experience would imply what I said.

[Nemra]

4 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

It's a big if.

No, it's not. I have told you in various ways.

[Salvijus]

Okay I give up. I'm tired of this. 

[Salvijus]

6 minutes ago, Nemra said:

That's your mistake of not understanding that it is relevant

Okay one more. 

How is it relevant when despite you being right or wrong my argument still invalidates solipsism? 

[Nemra]

Just now, Salvijus said:

Okay one more. 

How is it relevant when despite you being right or wrong my argument still invalidates solipsism? 

Again, it doesn't.

It appears that we are unlikely to reach an agreement. It's pointless to continue.

[Salvijus]

1 minute ago, Nemra said:

Again, it doesn't.

 

But you made not a single counter argument to my argument. So you can't say that. 

[Salvijus]

Everything that expresses the will of god also contains the spark of God's conciousness because those two things always go together. Because your will is not ultimate, it proves God's will is manifesting through other forms aswell. It automatically proves that they have a spark of conciousness aswell. That proves that experience exists outside of yours. 

There. Mic drop. 

[Nemra]

1 minute ago, Salvijus said:

But you made not a single counter argument to my argument. So you can't say that. 

Read carefully my posts again.

34 minutes ago, Nemra said:

Not so fast. Your counterarguments were false from the start. And I have responded to you a lot. So, no.

And

25 minutes ago, Nemra said:

You used the will argument without really countering what I said. Check your memory sometimes.

I even said I don't really know about it; however, if inner experience is imaginary, then there isn't the will of others. So, your "argument" was irrelevant.

 

[Salvijus]

@Nemra 

5 minutes ago, Nemra said:

if inner experience is imaginary, then there isn't the will of others. 

Is this the counter argument of yours? 

Whether or not experience is imaginary, it's a fact that your will is not ultimate. Therefor, the implications remain the same - you're not the sole maker of the show. See? You being right or wrong is irrelevant

Edited Saturday at 07:27 PM by Salvijus

[Nemra]

1 minute ago, Salvijus said:

There. Mic drop. 

[Salvijus]

2 minutes ago, Nemra said:

❤️ Was nice talking to you. 

[Nemra]

2 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

 Whether or not experience is imaginary, it's a fact that your will is not ultimate. Therefore, the implications remain the same - you're not the sole maker of the show. See? You being right or wrong is irrelevant

It's relevant because when we think of others, we think that they are experiencing stuff like we are experiencing, be it whatever.

And I said that you are projecting your sense of experience onto them and forgot about it.

If you go back a few pages, you would see that I have explained to @Breakingthewall how it's imaginary.

[Salvijus]

2 minutes ago, Nemra said:

It's relevant because when we think of others, we think that they are experiencing stuff like we are experiencing, be it whatever.

And I said that you are projecting your sense of experience onto them and forgot about it.

If you go back a few pages, you would see that I have explained to @Breakingthewall how it's imaginary.

If you're right, it still doesn't disprove that your will is not ultimate and implications remain the same.