Cidat — Cidat

It looks like you are confusing how things work when we try to explain nature by logic. When we are able to predict the behaviour of an object, or an animal, this does not mean that the object, or the animal, is behaving according to our human extremely limited, I would even say stupid, logic. It is the opposite: we have built a logic that we adapted to what we observe in phenomenons, in order to gain some understanding and some mastering on those phenomenons. Logic has been built on events, not events on logic. Logic obeys to events, not events to logic. The fact that events seem to obey to some logic is just a human hypothesis, a mental frame, to try to understand nature.
That’s the reason why we haven’t been able to build a complete, comprehensive logic, able to explain everything so far. Think about this: why should nature obey to the ridiculous logic, miserable mental frames, poor schemes, petty rational systems, created by humans?

Any argument in this world, including theistic and non theistic arguments, can be easily demolished with some criticism.
For example, no argument is able to give proof that tomorrow nobody will be able to discover flaws and mistakes in it. No argument is able to be independent from the person who thinks of it. No argument is able to avoid leading to an infinite chain of explanations if we ask “why?” to it and to the answers given to “why?”.

According to Lewis’ argument

- the planet earth is flat, because those who believed it was flat weren’t lunatics, nor liars;
- the ancient Egyptian Pharaoh was truly a God, because he wasn’t lunatic, nor liar;
- Hitler was right in all his thoughts and actions, because he wasn’t lunatic, nor liar;
- it is true that God does and does not exist at the same time, because both atheists and believers are not lunatic, nor liars;
- everything is true, no matter if it conflicts with anything else, provided that at least somebody not lunatic nor liar sometime believed it was true;
- we don’t need to make any scientific research in this world: what we need is just being persuaded that something is true, provided that we are not lunatic, nor liars. It doesn’t matter if our ideas conflict with each other, nor with reality: what is important is just not being lunatic, nor liar;

We need just some creativity to realize the funniest consequences of Lewis’ argument.

I would like to understand what you are arguing about.

I think that Descartes failed in finding something able to resist the attack of doubting. His reasoning is exposed to a lot of criticism, it can be easily demolished.
If an objective reality belongs to a group, then it's not objective. In order for something to be really philosophically objective, it must be universal, absolute, independent from any opinion, otherwise it is relative, subjective. If I say "I think that this thing is objective", the sentence is a contradiction, because, if that objectivity depends from "I think", then it's not objective, it's just my opinion, it is subjective. This applies also to groups.

I think that any agreement or disagreement from other people can’t set any ultimate support abot reality, because, ultimately, whatever they say is interpreted and filtered by our brain. In practical life a few elements are fine to accept some ideas about reality, but philosophy wants the ultimate, the universal, and for this purpose anything we say cannot grant anything, because it is human, subjective. My conclusion is that we, as humans, cannot claim any absolute certainty about the existence of reality, of any reality, even of ourselves, although Descartes thought that he was able to.