I know the perfect Being (God) exists from the fact that I have the idea of God in my mind, and my mind, being imperfect, would never have been capable of fabricating this idea from its own resources. The idea of a perfect God in my imperfect mind MUST have come from God.

I need not 'follow' any particular organized faith as the one true path, but I can and do see blessed, humble, self-aware passages in EVERY faith.

I see how each and every human being on Earth is connected to God.

I practise and encourage in all a revelation of self-understanding that we are all beings with free thought, where POSITIONS on truth comes from logic, reason and empiricism - gifts to us from God - and not authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma - tools of human power and control over free thought.

I am connected to each and every human being on Earth by virtue of being a creation of God.

I decide for myself, I am free from outside opinion.

I decide for myself, I am objective in my conclusions.

I decide for myself, I am true in my own beliefs.

I decide for myself, I am open to following the facts.

I decide for myself, I am strong in defending my beliefs.

I decide for myself, I am resistant to blindly accepting fact-less statements.

I decide for myself, I am free.

Those who attack me.

Those who mock me.

Those who cull me.

Those who control me.

Those who label me.

They do not represent me.

They represent themselves.

They do not mentally enslave me.

They are projecting their own mental enslavement.

I am awake.

I am not afraid.

———————

>>7514862

Whereas solipsism, on the one hand, denies that there is anything real “outside” of my consciousness, it also, on the other hand, affirms that I have knowledge. Put bluntly: This is a contradiction. Let me explain.

Firstly, knowledge is comprised of true propositions. What we know to be the case is what is actually the case. Oftentimes, someone will object by saying: “But I know several false propositions.” This objection hinges on a misunderstanding of the first assertion, viz. “Knowledge is comprised of true propositions.” When I say that knowledge is comprised of true propositions, I am stating that what we know is what is the case (e.g. A is A, A is not ~A, etc). When the objector hears this, he thinks I am saying that we do not have knowledge of the existence of a class of propositions whose logical value is false. That is not the case.

I know of the existence of two classes of propositions, (a.)true propositions and (b.)false propositions. It follows, then, that I know (a.)propositions state what is the case. I also know that (b.)propositions state what is not the case. When I say that our knowledge is comprised of true propositions, therefore, I mean that we know only what is the case. When it comes to propositions, it is the case that they are either (a.)stating what is the case or (b.)stating what is not the case.

So if I have any knowledge, I have knowledge of what is the case, what is true. And this is the problem for the solipsist, for if I can deduce what is the case of what I have not experienced, then what I have deduced already exists apart from my consciousness of it. This means that assertions which I have deduced from my present knowledge are not produced by my consciousness but apprehended by my consciousness. What may be validly deduced from my present knowledge, moreover, remains in existence even if I fail to deduce it, or even if I invalidly deduce some other conclusion. The proposition is present already outside of my own consciousness of it.

Yet if this is the case, then we have to ask: Where? Propositions are possessed by minds, not objects. Minds state what is or is not the case, not objects. Yet these propositions necessarily exist, for in order for me to be able to deduce them from my present knowledge, they must already be the possession of some mind other than my own. And if this is the case, then solipsism cannot be true. For if I experience coming to know the truth, then I am experiencing my acquisition of what has already existed prior to, and which will continue to exist despite my ignorance of, the truth.

So if I have any knowledge, I cannot be a solipsist.

What is striking about this is that it only get us as far as an implied mind outside of ourselves. The implication is a necessary one; however, since I do not experience that mind immediately, I am kept from saying that it exists solely within my consciousness. For if I fail to deduce that this mind exists outside of myself, it nevertheless follows necessarily that this mind does exist outside of myself. So my ignorance of the truth that “there is mind other than my own whose truth I have come to acquire” does not negate its reality.

So, again, if I have any knowledge, I cannot be a solipsist.

Knowledge is comprised of true propositions, and propositions are the possession of minds. But if I come to know a certain proposition is true by means of logical deduction, then I have found out what has already been true apart from my discovering it via deductive reasoning. And if I fail to come to know a validly deduced conclusion from my present, instead invalidly deducing a false conclusion from my present knowledge, I can only do so because there already exist validly deducible conclusions from my present knowledge, despite my not having consciousness of them.

Therefore, solipsism is false.