Found it now. You introduce the concept God into your argument. I see no need for God for your argument to still hold. Therefore I must conclude you see a relationship between God and existence. Which suggests to me you are saying Humans had to invent God to justify and belief in existence?
An interesting topic.
Actually Satyr, despite his typical bluntness, brought on some interesting points here.
It was not clear to me whether you are a skeptic or a metaphysician. As you express extreme doubt- how can we really know anything, yet mention metaphysics as a valid attempt at understanding the fundamental reality of things- establishing the ultimate truths guiding existence and human life in the process.
Since you gave up on the discussion, here’s my two cents.
Existence is pointless because there is no life in existence.
Descartes philosophy never gave individuals hope.
A lifeless binary processing biological machine bot. exists because it needs to exist to claim that it doesn’t exist.
The Cartesian doubt was actually a method for doubting anything one believs untill one could come to a foundational, fundamental, unquestionable truth, to the unquestionable reality of the ultimate Being, which Descartes, as a Catholic, would label God.
In this process, Descartes came to a complete questioning of reality and the facticity of the conclusions we reach through our senses, because, as you say, the senses can be deceptive. BUT he didn’t mean that the senses (sight, smell, hearing, etc.) are completely useless in perceiving the truth, only that we must rely on something else to reach it. Since Descartes believed in truth, and absolute truth, he couldn’t simply rely on the five senses, which have nothing to say that doesn’t refer to the material world in which we live—they can’t prove anything to us about the ultimate truth of things, BUT they can certainly prove that we have a body that experiences the sensations reflected by the senses. From “I think, therefore I am” it follows not only that the thinking subject is a reality, but that thought itself is a reality, and since thought is always the thought of something, that what comes to fruition as an idea in thought can only be a reflection of something. What people in general, or rather, thinkers, cannot reach a consensus on is what the ultimate nature of this “something” might be. But such a thing exists. You don’t need to blindly trust your senses; you can assume they can be mistaken. Yet, you already do this by assuming the senses exist in the first place—you see, but you may not be seeing things as well as you’d like. The very example you gave, about not seeing colors, is somewhat flawed. Your other senses seem to work well, you seem to read well enough, and besides, you know colors exist because your ears hear others talking about them.
Your central question in this thread (Why bother?) seems to revolve around the fact that absolute certainty is impossible. This is where I see the central flaw in skepticism, and it’s also where Satyr seems to be right. Does the fact that we can’t have absolute, 100% unquestionable certainty about something mean we can’t have any degree of certainty? So, can’t we be certain that we’re here and that the world is here, even if “I think, therefore I am” implies that I must exist somewhere? Or can I simply exist in a vacuum? No, man, we can be almost absolutely certain that we’re here, that we’re real, that the world is real, because our senses point to this when they’re functioning perfectly well (you state that they can be deceptive—I remind you that they can reach a level of perfection such that what they perceive cannot be questioned without incurring a reductio ad absurdum). My senses can be mistaken—therefore they’re always mistaken.
Skepticism fails because the human mind does not, and cannot, function when immersed in doubt. Humans are animals, with a biological imperative to follow—to continue living and reproducing. The human mind adapts to this; in fact, it is a product of this process. Humans are always believing in something from the moment they are born; they are programmed to care, so the question “Why bother?” only arises when the subject stops whatever they are doing in life and engages in musings—you bother, you always have, you always will, until the moment you die or decide to kill yourself. You can always find a cause, an answer to this question, which is not THE answer, but is enough to appease your metaphysical restlessness.
Nonsense Max…you are processing data like a lifeless biological machine.
Separate yourself from that machine which is operated with binary software.
Descartes was a philosopher, bot. A philosopher’s mission is to question things and to build systems that reflect more or less successfully human reality, not offer hope to others. That’s the job of abstractionists, idealists, religious people of all colors. Your gang.
Just a quick answer bc I feel like it’s fair: at the psych ward rn so don’t expect an actual reply:,)
Lol your non-reply came faster than Trump trying to kick out undesirable Mexicans. 
The topic is interesting nonetheless, so good luck in the psych ward, just hope extreme skepticism doesn’t end up putting you there permanently.
Nah Dog it was meth
You are one sad individual Max. because you only see yourself as a lifeless binary processing biological machine bot. that can only compute that it exists and doesn’t exist.It exists because it needs to exist to compute that it doesn’t exist (doesn’t have life) and it doesn’t exist (doesn’t have life) because it computes that it’s a misrepresentation of reality (an illusion).
Lol, so worried about your diagnosis.
I think I’ll end up in a psych ward too.
What do you have to add to this discussion, bot, besides your inane circumlocutions?
I am separate from this lifeless binary processing biological machine bot. Max because I interpret the binary data that it processes for me.
“The day that science begins to study non physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence”….Nikola Tesla.
Keep going Max…and keep being humbled….lol
Descartes hadn’t got a clue about anything.
First of all, RD did not say we question even the self-evident, and he also relied on math.
Maybe you could quote something that led to your misunderstanding?
I can quote some stuff countering your (mis)interpretation.
“…never … accept anything is true when I did not recognize it clearly to be so, that is to say, … carefully avoid precipitation and prejudice, … include in my opinions nothing beyond that which should present itself so clearly and so distinctly to my mind that I might have no occasion to doubt it.” — Descartes
In other words, it is self-evident, so you can include it as immediate knowledge, and not doubt it.
“…considering…it is the mathematicians alone who have been able to find demonstrations, that is to say, clear and certain reasons, I do not doubt that I must start with the same things that they have considered…” — also Descartes
I’m sorry… can you please clarify what exactly is outrunning the collapse (Psalm 15, consenting citizen)? And can you clarify if we are fueling each other‘s existence [even though you just acknowledged ONE can at least be certain that ONE (as an individual) exists]? Are you saying ONE (as an individual) is fueling one’s OWN existence (never began to exist, because if ONE begins, ONE does not exist “before” the beginning in order to exist itself)? Do you kind of feel like that ONE, or do you kind of feel like that ONE might not be you…but the source of you (that ONE not beginning to exist, but itself existing ontologically prior to the “beginning” because in simultaneous causation, or mutual production, with the whole timeline). See also: On the impossibility of knowing a true tenseless fact without omnitemporality.
Finally… If dreams are representations of reality, then reality is not itself a dream, just like the original is not a knockoff. This indubitable fact doesn’t make the original any less creative, though. (that is the point… co-creativity)
After they detox you, do NOT look back at the meth. EVER.
Surely you must have said that in jest. But I think that about practically everything I read these days.
Why did you ask that?
Is that a serious question being asked in bizarro world, Max? Or is that a bizarre question being asked in a real world?
Lol you answer a question with another question?
Are you the sky calling the water blue…or the water calling the sky blue?
Max. You missed a great opportunity. You could have responded with this:
Is reality… serious?
Why so missing great opportunities, Max?
Back to the topic, fish girl,
how to contradict Satyr here?