I agree.

Strange that you would destroy what could be trillions of millions of possible life forms based on what little you know about the earth. — Sir2u

I would not be destroying anything. I would be preventing. For something to be destroyed, it must first exist. You can't destroy something nonexistent.

But doing so after possibly killing off a lot of beings just like that without even knowing. — Sir2u

Again, I am preventing the existence of those who suffer and die and instead creating those who are all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful so that they will never suffer and die. No one is being killed. By your logic, every sperm and every egg that does not become a baby is the same as a baby being killed. Should I arrest all the sperm producers and egg producers for preventing the existence of babies by not having sex without contraception constantly? Of course not.

I didn't ask to be born. I wish I never existed.

Misery loves its own company.
It is easy now to see why your imagination creates the scenes you describe above. You appear to be suffering from "The world fucked poor lil'ol me" syndrome. With a side of "Only I know what I am suffering" complex thrown in. — Sir2u

It is completely true that only I know what it is like to be me. No one else lives in my body. No one else has my genes, my environments from conception to the present, my nutrients from conception to the present, my experiences from the womb to the present. The same goes for all living things. Only you know what it is like to be you.

I have no idea about your life nor what you are suffering from, but I am willing to bet that I know people with even worse luck in the lottery of life. And some of them will never have the opportunity to go online to complain in a philosophy forum. — Sir2u

I have been suffering from CPTSD since 17 December 1982, Bipolar Disorder since 29 September 1997 and chronic nerve pain since 21 August 2008. I am on various medications but they are not very effective. I was kidnapped when I was 4 years and 5 months old. I almost died by drowning when I was 4 years and 9 months old. I was raped when I was 5 years and 9 months old. I watched people murder each other when I was 8 years old. I was beaten regularly by my Mum from my earliest memories (age 4) to 15 years old. I was beaten regularly at school by my teachers. Six of my relatives were murdered. My best friend was also murdered. When I was 9 years and 7 months old my younger brother died at the age of only 8 days due to doctor's errors. When I was 13 years and 8 months old my favourite uncle died due to an anaesthetist's error. My uncle was only 28 years old and had just gotten married. When I was 12 years and 10 months old, I experienced a cyclone that killed 138,866 people.

How would you calculate who has worse luck? I didn't claim to have had the worst luck. I have reviewed Earth's history. It is full of suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths. 99.9% of all the species to evolve on Earth so far are already extinct and the remaining 0.1% will likely go extinct within the next 5 billion years. I think the luckiest are those who never existed.

Most of us I believe spend some of our time here on earth wondering "what if". It is a wicked waste of time and torture to our brains. All it does is make us feel miserable about things we did wrong but cannot change. — Sir2u

I am not torturing my brain wondering about What If scenarios. I like exercising my imagination. I have saved and improved many lives by volunteering, donating blood, food, water, money, clothes, etc. and working in the health and social care sector. I have also saved and improved lives by going vegan 18 years ago. I am profoundly sad about the fact that all the lives I have saved and improved are temporary. Sooner or later, they are all going to suffer and die. I long to make all living things (including the dead ones and the never-born ones) forever happy but I can't. Making an infinite number of all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful beings and giving each of them an exclusive omniverse containing an infinite number of universes for free is my ideal world where there is no suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths. It's a pity that I can't take it out of my imagination and make it real.

What does your ideal world look like? How would you prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths?

Thank you for sharing your experience with us. So, are you a deist or a polytheist or a pantheist or a panentheist? I am an agnostic about the existence and nature of all Gods.

I don't agree with you. Their truth is not philosophical or empirical truth. — Corvus

That's fine. I have not asked anyone to agree with me about anything.

It doesn't matter what Buddha taught. We notice how the historical buddhism has been, and is now in reality. — Corvus

It matters to me what Buddha taught. I agree with the concept of Anatta which is the doctrine of "non-self" – that no unchanging, permanent self or essence can be found in any phenomenon.

I am not convinced that God or Gods exist. Are you convinced that God or Gods exist? If so, which God or Gods exist? How do you know this?

The bottom line is I pretty much like life as it is — Athena

You would not say that if you had my genes, my environments from conception to the present, my nutrients from conception to the present, and my experiences from the womb to the present. I hate life the way it has been and is. The world has been and continues to be full of suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths.

You are talking about totally different kind of truth which is in the Bible, i.e. the religious truth. It is not the factual or rational or even empirical truth. — Corvus

Truth is truth. There is no separate religious truth and factual truth or rational truth or empirical truth. Religions claim a lot of things are true e.g. the Biblical God created the world in six days.

There are so many different schools of Buddhism. — Corvus

I am talking about what Buddha taught. Not what different schools of Buddhism teach.

How do you know that all of the universe is like our little shit hole corner of it? — Sir2u

I don't know. I didn't claim to be all-knowing. I am going by what I have observed on Earth.

Your god syndrome and alpha macho ego are definitely on show hare. — Sir2u

I am merely exercising my imagination, nothing more.

In that case, truth or falsity don't belong to religious domain. Rejecting religions solely on the basis of lack of truth is not reasonable. — Corvus

On the contrary, religions claim to be true. "Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." - John 14:6, The Bible (New International Version).

Most religions including Buddhism have been for the believers' wishing good fortune, prosperity, good health, good luck and better afterlife and rebirth after their deaths, rather than academic or philosophical debates on the universe or self. — Corvus

No, Buddha taught the Four Noble Truths and they are based on empirical observations. Please see: https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/beliefs/fournobletruths_1.shtml The original Buddhism did not have any Gods. Also, Buddha was agnostic about the existence of souls. He said, ""Don't blindly believe what I say. Don't believe me because others convince you of my words. Don't believe anything you see, read, or hear from others, whether of authority, religious teachers or texts. Don't rely on logic alone, nor speculation. Don't infer or be deceived by appearances. Find out for yourself what is true and virtuous." This is the total opposite of other religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam where skeptical enquiry is prohibited and adherents are required to have blind faith in the religious books.

Also, Buddhism teaches the concept of Anatta which is the doctrine of "non-self" – that no unchanging, permanent self or essence can be found in any phenomenon. While Judaism, Christianity and Islam teach that we are immortal souls which are resurrected by God after we die and Hinduism teaches that we are immortal souls which reincarnate according to karma after we die. So, religions are unavoidable in a discussion of the true nature of the self.

You could be right. I don't know lots of things.

Hope you win. Good luck!

You said that you have been reading much and all the religious books. I am sure you would understand my points. — Corvus

Most religions rely on faith instead of evidence. Buddhism is an exception in that Buddha's original teachings are based on what is empirical.

The time-wasting part would be thinking about something that is unknowable in the hope of getting to the truth about it. — Janus

I agree. It is futile.

I am glad you love the idea. It's a pity that this can happen only in our imagination.

But if there were two all-powerful beings, wouldn’t the power of one be a limit on the power of the other, so that there were no all-powerful beings? — Fire Ologist

I could give each all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful being a unique omniverse with an infinite number of universes. I imagine this would prevent any conflicts between them.

And if a being could only make the perfect choice, would there ever be any option or choice to make? Wouldn’t that mean such beings had no reason to ever choose, as each “choice” was really just a seeking of the knowing the one way to act? — Fire Ologist

I don't know. I am not all-knowing so it is impossible for me to know what that is like in practice.

And if you didn’t already know the right way to act, knowing the perfect choice (as when you pause to consider options), how can you say you are all-knowing? — Fire Ologist

I imagine an all-knowing being does not need to ponder which choice to make.

But that said, people are so damn intolerant, willing to act unreasonably, self-centered, and just plain hurtful, it’s worth thinking about how to change this without losing the real circumstances that beg us to tolerate differences, to be patient enough to find reasonableness, to consider others before ourselves and seek to help others instead of hurt them. — Fire Ologist

Why are people the way they are? I think it is because of their genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. Our choices arise out of the dynamic interactions of our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. We are not free from these determinants.

I wouldn’t change the world. If I could change myself, and we all could, this world could be good enough. — Fire Ologist

You can change yourself. We all change as we age. We learn new skills, we learn from mistakes, etc.

I agree.

Hey, should we start a thread for that? Everyone can pick his/her time in history and place and say what should be changed, why, and how? — Athena

Thank you for the proposal. I have created such a thread: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15185/changing-the-past-in-our-imagination

I loved Genghis Khan, the early Nintendo game. I loved that we could save the game and repeat a part of it if things went really wrong. I also liked how it expanded my ideas of what is important and how to balance everything. — Athena

If you loved that game you are likely to love Civilization VI.

Surely, if I am the only entity in existence, my memories would go as far back as I want them to go?
— Truth Seeker

Surely not. — Lionino

I don't understand your reply. Please explain. Thank you.

It seems to be sure that one thing common in religions is that it is beyond the rational thinking system. You kept brining in religions into your threads, so I was expecting that you might be saying something more significant than religions are fiction. Claiming that religions are fiction without solid arguments has no significance in philosophical discussions. — Corvus

How could religions be true when they contradict themselves and contradict each other and contradict what we know from evidence-based research? Please see https://www.evilbible.com and https://skepticsannotatedbible.com

Solipsism will most likely never be defeated, perhaps only become obsolete. — Lionino

If solipsism is true, why do I have memories starting from age four to the present? Surely, if I am the only entity in existence, my memories would go as far back as I want them to go?

Thank you for the link. The article reminded me of laboratory experiments where mice stimulate the pleasure centres in their brains until they die. What I want to do is different from both what the article says and what the lab mice did. I want to make all living things all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful because such beings would not harm others and would not be harmed by others. Such beings can will themselves to be forever happy. Of course, the scenario is impossible in the real world. It's nothing but wishful thinking.

I agree with you.

If all the religions are fiction as you claim, then why do they keep believing in them for thousands of years? — Corvus

The believers of a particular religion believe their religion is true. They also spread their beliefs to their children. There is often a steep penalty against leaving the religion one is born in. For example, leaving Islam is punishable by death. This is how religions survive for thousands of years.

But if you just label all the religions are fictions, then people might wonder what was the point of you even mentioning them in your posts. — Corvus

Whether or not I believe in them, religions exist and billions of people believe in them and live their lives according to them and happily kill others for them.

Here are some new core beliefs for me:

1. Live and help live, live and love.
2. Help all, harm none.
3. Life is worth living despite the negative aspects.
4. We work together to save and improve all lives.
5. We can't change the past, but we can learn from the past and change the future for the better by making wiser choices in the present.

There are many hypotheses that can't be tested e.g. simulation hypothesis, illusion hypothesis, dream hypothesis, hallucination hypothesis, solipsism hypothesis, philosophical zombie hypothesis, panpsychism hypothesis, deism hypothesis, theism hypothesis, pantheism hypothesis, panentheism hypothesis, etc. Just because a hypothesis can't be tested it does not mean it is true or false. It just means that it is currently untestable.

If these "hypotheses" are untestable then not only can they not be proven, but even their likelihood cannot be established, so of what possible significance could they be to our lives? Even if they were true what would that change? On what basis are they even interesting? Why should we waste any time or energy concerning ourselves with them? — Janus

They have no significance. Even if they were true, we wouldn't know it. I found it interesting to think about these unlikely scenarios but that doesn't mean everyone will find it interesting. We shouldn't waste time and energy concerning ourselves with them.

I think there is a world independent of my mind. There are also other human bodies and minds. We can form very accurate models of our environment using our sensory perceptions.

I agree with you. There is no reasonable ground for solipsism.

My position has changed totally from what I said in my original post in this thread. By reading the replies I have become convinced that we can know some things objectively.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

I agree that the movie is a work of fiction.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. My primary desire is to make all organisms forever happy (including the dead ones and the never-born ones) but this is impossible for me to do. I can't do any of the things I really want to do e.g. prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths and make all living things all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful. I suffer constantly from chronic pains. I also suffer from CPTSD and Bipolar Disorder. If I could cure myself of all my illnesses that would be the preferred outcome, but I can't cure myself. My death would be a relief from my constant suffering. However, I am not going to self-terminate because I have a duty of care to others.

Here's why we cannot be brains in a vat; https://iep.utm.edu/brain-in-a-vat-argument/ — jkop

Thank you for the link. What a fascinating article!

I agree.

1. If it is a fiction, then why people have been deceived by it for so long time? 5000 years? Surely it takes 5 minutes for ordinary folks to know it is a fiction.

2. If it is a fiction, then what is a philosophical point of it? — Corvus

Hindus believe their holy books are true. Just as Christians, Muslims and Jews believe their holy books to be true. Only the nonbelievers disbelieve the holy books of all religions. The holy books of all religions are self-contradictory and mutually contradictory. I have studied most religions.

Isn't there a whole branch of philosophy called the Philosophy of Religion?

Some "core beliefs" which I try to live by:

Do no harm as in: What I find harmful, I try not to do to anyone'.

Have courage as in: I expect the best, prepare  for the worst and try to  accept whatever comes.

Trust evidence as in this motto: In Nature We Trust. — 180 Proof

I love your core beliefs. They are much more helpful than mine. I am working on replacing my core beliefs with helpful ones. Thank you for sharing.

Thank you for your kind wishes and understanding.

I agree. Ever since I watched the movie "The Matrix" I have been troubled by how to tell what is real and what is not.

I agree.

I agree.

I agree that there are no reasonable grounds to think that I am in the Matrix. I also agree that there are no reasonable grounds to think that solipsism is correct. I also agree that there are no reasonable grounds to think that we live in a simulation. I am currently going through a depressive episode which affects my concentration and comprehension so I didn't understand everything you said and everything in the links you shared. I don't know if I will ever get better but if I do, I will re-read everything to see if I understand them.

We don't know anything objectively. We may believe that we do but this is a delusion. Everything we know is subjective. There are two kinds of subjective truths:
— Truth Seeker

You open by claiming that believing objective knowledge is a delusion. If all knowledge is subjective, how can you assert that objectivity is delusional? Maybe that's just your particular problem, not shared by other people.

As a rule of thumb, sweeping generalities ("we don't know anything objectively") should be viewed with suspicion. — BC

I am happy to view it with suspicion. I am almost 100% certain that solipsism is incorrect. However, in the one-in-infinity case that solipsism is correct, then only I exist and everyone and everything else is part of a hallucination or dream or illusion or simulation I am experiencing.