Quote Originally Posted by TomOfSweden View Post
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here but Descartes was not a proponent of Solipsism. It was just a thought experiment about validity of proof. To date there's no philosopher, (or scientist or psychologist) who has seriously floated the idea that the Solipsism is even worth considering. I'd say it's a gross simplification of what Descartes was trying to say and is purely in the realm of science fiction. Schrödinger wasn't a proponent of Solipsism either in spite of his cat.
Not sure where you are going with this. I was just pointing out a part of my journey that I thought pretty enjoyable. Multiperson solipsism is a bit different than solipsism in that everyone has an equal chance to be god.

So how do you know god is omnipotent? It's a pretty basic part of Christianity isn't it?
It is, but does that make it part of my personal belief? I happen to believe in free will, which negates omnipotence. If God knows what I am going to do then there is no free will. This debate has actually raged in Christendom for centuries, and is based on only a few Scriptures that ignore a lot of Scriptures that counter it.

erm...but with this insight then you know you can't know if god had a reason for creating us, can you? Seriously, god does not want us to know jack shit. If god wanted us to know anything about anything it would make an effort. Right now it feels more like it's trying it's damndest to make it as confusing as possible. A little bit like it would be if god never said or did anything and all we're doing is guessing. Sometimes when things are mysterious, they're mysterious because there's nothing to find. You know, like a cigar might just be a cigar.
Maybe we are the effort. Being that He is inherently beyond my understanding I accept that I cannot understand Him or His motives.

You're not exactly putting up a fight here. It's as if you've accepted that your faith is arbitrary. I'd have expected a little bit more here.
I think that what I accept is that my faith appears to be arbitrary to an outside observer. Going back to your experience with your grandmothers voice, if she started giving you advice on what would be happening in the future, and you started following it, it might appear to me that your actions were arbitrary. That does not make them so.

Some of the process I used to arrive at my reasoning has to be internal and cultural. I do not deny this. Does this make it arbitrary?

But isn't the fact that you are Christian in spite of your insights, proof that your aren't willing to look at arguments and learn?
How? My insights have evolved my faith from believing what is taught in the pulpits of American churches to what I now believe. If I have more insights, then I will revise my beliefs. If someone ever manages to prove to me that I am wrong I will listen to them also.

Again. You agree that we can't know but still make a leap of faith. But you deny it is a blind leap of faith. Ermmm.... does this make sense to anybody or am I just a bit slow.

edit: My problem with Christianity is that it is four distinct faiths.

1) The belief in the supernatural.
2) The belief in a personal omnipotent god which judges you when you die.
3) The stories in the Bible and the claims they make.
4) The moral and ethical guidelines and rules.

None of these are in any way connected and there's no reason to believe in one just because you believe in the other. If you believe in the omnipotent being, there's no way of knowing what it wants, is there? I mean, besides making baseless assumptions
I agree, at least in principle. In fact, I would challenge anyone to prove to me that number 2 is supported in the Bible.

One of the things that I have found to be unique about the Bible as a history is that it records the foibles and defeats of the kings as well as their triumphs. Never were the kings of Israel portrayed as being godlike in power and ability, and they lost battles and wars more than once.

Can you point out the problem with the moral and ethical guidelines and rules? It is the basis of most western laws after all. I prefer it to the strict Islamic interpretation of the Koran myself.