If you don't make it clear what your views are you can't complain about them being misinterpreted. What you say sounds like solipsism which, as a philosophy, has considerable overlap with "subjective idealism". And neither of them is very impressive except as a flight of fancy.Much of what I'm describing is subjective idealism, not solipsism...
Longer than your post deserved, I'm sure. And it wasn't hysterical, it was indifferent....which means that your long, hysterical counter-argument from incredulity is aimed at the wrong position.
You failed.My objective was also explicitly to show problems with an approach based so strongly on empirical experience
Uh-huh. Unconvinced so far.so aside from engaging in an alarming amount of fallacious reasoning, you ultimately seem to have missed the point entirely.
I wouldn't want to encourage you, but knock yourself out if you like.I'm out of town at the moment, but if you'd like an explanation of all of the logical fallacies you've committed here, I would be happy to comply once I get home.
No, the most important problem is the way you are coming on to a thread about "arguments for the existence of God" and going off on tangents about quaint but irrelevant philosophical absurdities. It would be nice if you would stick to the topic.For the purposes of this thread, however, the most important problem is the way you are attempting to monopolize definitions.
Sorry to disillusion you, but no, it isn't. If you wish to start making up your own definitions of words, expect to be corrected.If I give you a definition of theism, you do not get to tell me that I am making things up and insist on your own definition. You can ask for clarification on what precisely I mean, but if a theist is using language in a way you are unfamiliar with, it is up to you to adjust to it.
Of course I do, if your position is incorrect. I'm just setting you straight on what the word "theism" means.You do not get to define my position.
Upvote
0