You are God, and I do not exist.

You said, "The fact of the matter is that there is no philosophical counter argument that totally refutes Skepticism." That sounds like you are AGREEING with my primary argument for which I've asked a dispute. Still I will go on to respond to your other arguments. First of all, your quotes and your knowledge of history and philosophy are no good here, for they have all been created by your mind. Albert Einstein, Skepticism, Ancient Greece, Ralph Barton Perry, Rene Descartes, Kant and Locke, C.S. Lewis, James Gordon Clapp, Leo Strauss, the concept of an external and omniscient God, the Bible, even the movie The Matrix, are all figments of your own mind. However, I will humor your arguments. >>"If we doubted everything we come across, we wouldn't be able to live." You are assuming that you, 'your own mini-God' as you stated, KNOW that you are just that. Obviously, you don't know this any more than you KNOW that an omniscient God is real. You don't doubt everything you come across, because you don't know that you are the creator of your reality. >>"...why does my mind create a world that actually damages my own mind?" Is this not the nature of the 'humans' in the world you have created anyway? People do things to hurt themselves all the time. They do drugs, they get angry, they hurt others, some inflict pain on themselves, others end their own lives. The reason for this is likely because this is too, the nature of your own mind which created them. As a parallel to your argument of an omniscient God, you create them in your own image. The mind isn't perfect, therefore neither is your world. Because you don't know WHY something is, doesn't mean it isn't. How many "Why"'s could you place against the concept of an omniscient God? Countless. Why did HE create the world? Why would HE create a world containing pain, anger, suffering? You don't know why, so why are you favoring that side of the argument? >>"Logically, if my mind was the creator of everything, wouldn't it want to preserve itself?" Again, you are assuming that your mind is aware of this. >>"Descartes argues that the one thing we know for sure, that no skeptic or evil demon can take away, is the fact that we are a thinking thing, or substance." Yes, you know that YOU are a thinking thing, or substance. But you cannot know that I am a thinking thing, or anyone/anything else for that matter. You do not KNOW anything beyond your own comprehension, so how does that prove anything. How can you make these 'separations', unless you want to claim to share consciousness with others. >>"I think at this point I have shown that the skeptic ridicules human existence into a pit of meaninglessness." You say that to be the creator of your world, you are the only meaningful being in it. Would you say, in regards to the concept of an external omniscient God, that type of God also carries out a meaningless existence. The Christian God for example? Is his existence meaningless? You can not say this about one idea without it also applying it to the other. >>"Keep in mind that philosophy cannot prove the existence of God." ...Right...no more than it can prove that you are not the God of your own reality. >>"God should be held to high regard, that is, a God beyond human comprehension." Is the concept of being the God of your own world not beyond human comprehension as you know it? >>"Ultimately, to believe in something beyond our human comprehension is to have faith, and not wisdom, of his existence." Is it not possible to have faith in the belief that you are the creator of your reality? -------------- Your remarks are intelligent and logical, and I appreciate the discussion. I still, however, don't believe that anything said can prove against the possibilty. I don't even think anything can be said that allows your concept of an external God carry's more weight.