Reality vs Non-Reality

[Non sequitur]

I posted this question, but it received no response, so I'm hoping it can be answered here...

Prelude:
If we are stating that a god "exists", it must either:

a) Exist completely inside our reality.
b) Exist completely outside of our reality.
c) Exist in both inside and outside our reality.

If something is posited as "existing", one must first be able to tell the difference between what is real and not-real, within the confines of our ability to do so, before making such truth claims.

(Otherwise, anything and everything could exist. If any one thing is possible, then everything must be accepted equally as possible.)

Problems will arise when we claim knowledge outside of what we can possibly know. i.e. can't be done.

Or: We don't know, what we don't know.

Example:
Zeus hated cheese on his omelettes.

1. Are leprechauns real?
2a. If they are, how did you determine this?
2b. If they are not, how do you determine this?

Leprechaun​

 

[elman]

If your question was about Leprechuns, I don't think they are real, but am not able to determine it for certain, one way or the other. I think an intelligent Creator exists, but I am also unable to determine that for sure. It seems more reasonable to me to assume we exist on purpose than to assume we simply happen to come into existence by random coincidence. I see nothing that would support the assumption of Leprechauns being real.

 

[Non sequitur]

If your question was about Leprechuns, I don't think they are real, but am not able to determine it for certain, one way or the other. I think an intelligent Creator exists, but I am also unable to determine that for sure. It seems more reasonable to me to assume we exist on purpose than to assume we simply happen to come into existence by random coincidence. I see nothing that would support the assumption of Leprechauns being real.

So, you think an intelligent Creator exists, based on reality-based logic and reality-based reason, but can not say you know one does exist?

 

[razeontherock]

I posted this question, but it received no response, so I'm hoping it can be answered here...

Prelude:
If we are stating that a god "exists", it must either:

a) Exist completely inside our reality.
b) Exist completely outside of our reality.
c) Exist in both inside and outside our reality.

G-d is Spirit. Our 5 senses are all designed to pick up the physical, not the Spiritual. Further, some people seem to have 0 capacity to perceive the Spiritual, and many of these are Christians! Other people are highly "gifted," with some of them even perceiving the (s)Spiritual as readily as they do the physical. And in rare cases, moreso.

Humanity is the only intersection of the physical and Spiritual, that I am aware of. "Spiritual strength" might be thought of as understanding the related principles, so as to be able at least exist at this juncture, if not having any control:

"I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever." (Psalm 23:6) Usually this is misunderstood as "heaven," and in the sense of only applying to something after physical death. No idea could be more un-Biblical!

Consider:

"but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do [exploits]." (Daniel 11:32)

Also note that Daniel is a Prophetic book.

 

[pgp_protector]

G-d is Spirit. Our 5 senses are all designed to pick up the physical, not the Spiritual. Further, some people seem to have 0 capacity to perceive the Spiritual, and many of these are Christians! Other people are highly "gifted," with some of them even perceiving the (s)Spiritual as readily as they do the physical. And in rare cases, moreso.

Humanity is the only intersection of the physical and Spiritual, that I am aware of. "Spiritual strength" might be thought of as understanding the related principles, so as to be able at least exist at this juncture, if not having any control:

"I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever." (Psalm 23:6) Usually this is misunderstood as "heaven," and in the sense of only applying to something after physical death. No idea could be more un-Biblical!

Consider:

"but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do [exploits]." (Daniel 11:32)

Also note that Daniel is a Prophetic book.

We've got a bit more than 5 senses
TLC Family "How many senses does a human being have?"
Sense - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
How Many Senses Does a Human Have?

 

[Non sequitur]

G-d is Spirit. Our 5 senses are all designed to pick up the physical, not the Spiritual. Further, some people seem to have 0 capacity to perceive the Spiritual, and many of these are Christians! Other people are highly "gifted," with some of them even perceiving the (s)Spiritual as readily as they do the physical. And in rare cases, moreso.

Humanity is the only intersection of the physical and Spiritual, that I am aware of. "Spiritual strength" might be thought of as understanding the related principles, so as to be able at least exist at this juncture, if not having any control:

"I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever." (Psalm 23:6) Usually this is misunderstood as "heaven," and in the sense of only applying to something after physical death. No idea could be more un-Biblical!

Consider:

"but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do [exploits]." (Daniel 11:32)

Also note that Daniel is a Prophetic book.

You have to first address the question of determining reality vs non-reality, before you can even begin to assert "Spiritual senses" as real.

These things you are spewing are not answering what I am asking; saying by virtue they get to circle around it and are not applicable, come on.

If everything you are going to say stars with, "God walked into a bar...", then go away.

Please.

 

[day time]

I personally believe in the "supernatural" ... and I define that as things which can be known and experienced (in both a classical setting and I assume a quantum one, i.e. the known universe) however their origin remains unexplained or are not easily explained definitively without having to introduce concepts which cannot be proven, only theorized: an example would be information manifesting somehow within our known causality, but originating outside of our known causality. Since we cannot currently *prove* something outside our own causality without violating our own causality and thus making the proof "moot" .... it would take a leap in faith, so to speak, or belief in a theory that attributes something as having originated outside causality but then manifested within our known universe somehow. Again, something we couldn't "prove" but at this point in time only believe in as a possibility.

In some ways, this opens the door for "anything goes" (outside causality it's turtles all the way down fighting with Cthulu), however if you take certain experiences or events and analyze them perhaps as they are within what we currently agree we know, bare bones, and then look for the *deus ex machina option* as a last resort, I believe that at the very least, one might come to the conclusion that there is an agency of will, or intent, involved in aspects of that "deus ex machina". I.e. an agency, agencies, or "god" that has a will or intent. Or perhaps a pattern emerges which might allude to *something*. Whether that God resembles the turtles, or leprechauns .... I don't know. I'm looking at "bare bones". Unicorns don't exist, but the okapi does, and the two were confused. Flat earth, round earth ... taking the bare basics, a pattern might emerge from which a useful conclusion could be drawn which cannot currently be proven apart from theory, but later could produce "fact".

For example, the need to introduce something as originating outside of known causality might not be necessary, yet still yield a theory as to explain phenomena in either a mundane and Occam's Razor type of way, or perhaps something more startling and unexpected ... akin to what some of the ramifications of quantum mechanics yielded. What was spooky to Einstein is now taken for granted by us.

And I have an example from my own personal life which illustrates these points quite well I think, but I'll save the tl/dr post for later if someone wants it on the table for analysis.

ETA: So in other words, to summarize what I just said as it relates to the OP lol ... what exists within our reality is obviously real ... what exists outside of our reality has no relevance to our reality lol .... option C is closer to the "unknown". Perhaps a phenomena remains unknown or unsolved at this time, and so unrealistic as well as realistic explanations arise to explain it. i.e. Kim Jong Il caused the sun to rise verses the orbit of the earth around the sun and the spin on it's axis gives the impression the sun is rising and falling through the sky. This is why this area of "option C" can be "grey" ... because it involves knowledge on varying levels and it's application. Some of that knowledge will become accepted, some will be tossed out as nonsense. I think what many do is try to fit God/supernatural/etc into that gap and jump in with it .... instead of letting that gap reflect what is already surrounding it when you are viewing the universe from both within it and outside of it.

 

[Faulty]

If something is posited as "existing", one must first be able to tell the difference between what is real and not-real, within the confines of our ability to do so, before making such truth claims.

Seems to me you don't exist then, according to your definition.

From my point of view, I cannot tell if what I'm reading is randomly generated code, or perhaps a monkey banging away at the keyboard, and the words claim to be you. So, for me, since I cannot tell the real and non-real concerning you, whatever you might be (or not be), I could never rightly claim you exist.

From your point of view, in order to tell the difference between the real and non-real, you must pre-exist your condition yourself. You may have claim to have memories of pre-existing before now, but are those memories themselves real or non-real, because if you are non-real, then the memories are non-real as well, and if you are indeed non-real, then by your definition, you could never have standing to claim that you indeed exist at all.

Interesting.

 

[day time]

Seems to me you don't exist then, according to your definition.

From my point of view, I cannot tell if what I'm reading is randomly generated code, or perhaps a monkey banging away at the keyboard, and the words claim to be you. So, for me, since I cannot tell the real and non-real concerning you, whatever you might be (or not be), I could never rightly claim you exist.

From your point of view, in order to tell the difference between the real and non-real, you must pre-exist your condition yourself. You may have claim to have memories of pre-existing before now, but are those memories themselves real or non-real, because if you are non-real, then the memories are non-real as well, and if you are indeed non-real, then by your definition, you could never have standing to claim that you indeed exist at all.

Interesting.

On a practical level, this type of "how do I know you even exist" leads to solipsistic heads in jars, which even if we were all just heads in jars ... it's not practical. You will still go feed yourself at dinner time in other words, even if you believe that you and the food don't exist, so to speak.

 

[Non sequitur]

Seems to me you don't exist then, according to your definition.

From my point of view, I cannot tell if what I'm reading is randomly generated code, or perhaps a monkey banging away at the keyboard, and the words claim to be you. So, for me, since I cannot tell the real and non-real concerning you, whatever you might be (or not be), I could never rightly claim you exist.

Surely, your level or perception is greater than a rock...

I was talking about your ability to discern the difference between reality and non-reality, not your unreasonable and lacking of ability to do so.

(How do you function in society if you cannot tell if you are reading randomly generated code, or a monkey banging away at the keyboard? Do you require many helpers? Do you take advantage of any government assistance?)

Either way, I am either a real me or a real monkey to you...sill being real. So thanks for establishing that I do exist.

From your point of view, in order to tell the difference between the real and non-real, you must pre-exist your condition yourself. You may have claim to have memories of pre-existing before now, but are those memories themselves real or non-real, because if you are non-real, then the memories are non-real as well, and if you are indeed non-real, then by your definition, you could never have standing to claim that you indeed exist at all.

Interesting.

I can test my memory. So can you.

It is falsifiable and can be demonstrated.

If I was non-real, then I couldn't even test its existence.


So, back to my questions...

 

[Non sequitur]

I personally believe in the "supernatural" ... and I define that as things which can be known and experienced (in both a classical setting and I assume a quantum one, i.e. the known universe) however their origin remains unexplained or are not easily explained definitively without having to introduce concepts which cannot be proven, only theorized: an example would be information manifesting somehow within our known causality, but originating outside of our known causality. Since we cannot currently *prove* something outside our own causality without violating our own causality and thus making the proof "moot" .... it would take a leap in faith, so to speak, or belief in a theory that attributes something as having originated outside causality but then manifested within our known universe somehow. Again, something we couldn't "prove" but at this point in time only believe in as a possibility.

In some ways, this opens the door for "anything goes" (outside causality it's turtles all the way down fighting with Cthulu), however if you take certain experiences or events and analyze them perhaps as they are within what we currently agree we know, bare bones, and then look for the *deus ex machina option* as a last resort, I believe that at the very least, one might come to the conclusion that there is an agency of will, or intent, involved in aspects of that "deus ex machina". I.e. an agency, agencies, or "god" that has a will or intent. Or perhaps a pattern emerges which might allude to *something*. Whether that God resembles the turtles, or leprechauns .... I don't know. I'm looking at "bare bones". Unicorns don't exist, but the okapi does, and the two were confused. Flat earth, round earth ... taking the bare basics, a pattern might emerge from which a useful conclusion could be drawn which cannot currently be proven apart from theory, but later could produce "fact".

For example, the need to introduce something as originating outside of known causality might not be necessary, yet still yield a theory as to explain phenomena in either a mundane and Occam's Razor type of way, or perhaps something more startling and unexpected ... akin to what some of the ramifications of quantum mechanics yielded. What was spooky to Einstein is now taken for granted by us.

And I have an example from my own personal life which illustrates these points quite well I think, but I'll save the tl/dr post for later if someone wants it on the table for analysis.

ETA: So in other words, to summarize what I just said as it relates to the OP lol ... what exists within our reality is obviously real ... what exists outside of our reality has no relevance to our reality lol .... option C is closer to the "unknown". Perhaps a phenomena remains unknown or unsolved at this time, and so unrealistic as well as realistic explanations arise to explain it. i.e. Kim Jong Il caused the sun to rise verses the orbit of the earth around the sun and the spin on it's axis gives the impression the sun is rising and falling through the sky. This is why this area of "option C" can be "grey" ... because it involves knowledge on varying levels and it's application. Some of that knowledge will become accepted, some will be tossed out as nonsense. I think what many do is try to fit God/supernatural/etc into that gap and jump in with it .... instead of letting that gap reflect what is already surrounding it when you are viewing the universe from both within it and outside of it.

If anything goes (can be), but you use a methodology to try and determine what is most likely, you still run into the problem of not knowing about the billions of ways that you could be wrong.

Kinda makes it moot and pointless to make any conjectures, if you could never prove or dis-prove them or even know you were wrong?

 

[day time]

If anything goes (can be), but you use a methodology to try and determine what is most likely, you still run into the problem of not knowing about the billions of ways that you could be wrong.

Kinda makes it moot and pointless to make any conjectures, if you could never prove or dis-prove them or even know you were wrong?

Not necessarily ... you will never know if you could prove or disprove any conjectures if you don't *try* lol. It's basically making an hypothesis, and testing it.

But when I mention "the universe as we know it", for example, I'm basically also alluding to things that are practical, relevant, useful. In other words, if I say, "I hypothesize that Cthulu is playing poker with God and that the next hand is going to be a full house, now I'm going to go test my hypothesis" that's not something *I personally would consider practical* lol. But if I am already experiencing something, and trying to find a reasoning for it ... that is something I would consider practical, as existing in reality (since I'm experiencing it), and therefore either has an explanation I can know and understand, or it doesn't. But there no doubt comes a "trial and error" time ... when you are experiencing something, perhaps continually, but you have no definitive explanation as of yet, and so if you *want* to have that definitive explanation, perhaps one conjecture after another is all you will have for awhile. The problem comes, when you accept a conjecture as fact ... you have stopped looking, and settled for a "maybe this is real" as being, "yep .. this is it !" You then arrive in North America, thinking it's India ... because you assumed that "whatever I find, backs up my claim !". No ... whatever you find, speaks for itself, and you adjust the claim to fit the facts.

And of course you could be wrong lol .... but again, if the experience is happening and taking place, your place in the "right or wrong conjecture" chain is perhaps irrelevant. Whether the sun is rising because of Kim Jong Il, Ra, the Lord, or the earth's spin .... it's still going to rise. So there is seeking to prove a conjecture based on nothing ... verses seeking to prove a conjecture based on phenomena that is actually being experienced or alluded to existing. But again ... if you don't go look for the okapi, you won't find it. But it is still there, as others have attested to. Knowledge and our limits play a role in there somewhere ...

 

[Non sequitur]

Not necessarily ... you will never know if you could prove or disprove any conjectures if you don't *try* lol. It's basically making an hypothesis, and testing it.

In science, hypotheses are individual empirically testable conjectures.

Also, for a hypothesis to be put forward, the scientific method requires that one can test it.

How do I test for any version of a leprechaun, unicorn or a god?

But when I mention "the universe as we know it", for example, I'm basically also alluding to things that are practical, relevant, useful. In other words, if I say, "I hypothesize that Cthulu is playing poker with God and that the next hand is going to be a full house, now I'm going to go test my hypothesis" that's not something *I personally would consider practical* lol. But if I am already experiencing something, and trying to find a reasoning for it ... that is something I would consider practical, as existing in reality (since I'm experiencing it), and therefore either has an explanation I can know and understand, or it doesn't.

Agree, with the last part.

But there no doubt comes a "trial and error" time ... when you are experiencing something, perhaps continually, but you have no definitive explanation as of yet, and so if you *want* to have that definitive explanation, perhaps one conjecture after another is all you will have for awhile. The problem comes, when you accept a conjecture as fact ... you have stopped looking, and settled for a "maybe this is real" as being, "yep .. this is it !"

This supports not accepting the conjecture that a Christian God is real, based on continual experiences.

You then arrive in North America, thinking it's India ... because you assumed that "whatever I find, backs up my claim !". No ... whatever you find, speaks for itself, and you adjust the claim to fit the facts.

A good case for a god.

And of course you could be wrong lol

Good one.

.... but again, if the experience is happening and taking place, your place in the "right or wrong conjecture" chain is perhaps irrelevant. Whether the sun is rising because of Kim Jong Il, Ra, the Lord, or the earth's spin .... it's still going to rise. So there is seeking to prove a conjecture based on nothing ... verses seeking to prove a conjecture based on phenomena that is actually being experienced or alluded to existing.

You are speaking about a Mr. Right-Now God, not a Mr. Right God

Plus, you will never be able to prove it, anyway.

But again ... if you don't go look for the okapi, you won't find it. But it is still there, as others have attested to. Knowledge and our limits play a role in there somewhere ...

This ended with a cosmic shrug.

 

[day time]

In science, hypotheses are individual empirically testable conjectures. Also, for a hypothesis to be put forward, the scientific method requires that one can test it.

Dude I'm sorry ... I need to switch "languages" and watch my words more carefully :~). I was using the word hypothesis in terms of a solution for something *that is already being experienced/witnessed/etc* yet lacks a definitive explanation. So when I said "test it" ... I meant more along the lines of testing what is already happening, so to speak. I'm not trying to restrict the terms (in other words re-define what is already defined), just explain the terms I was using it in. That's why I started going into what I personally would perceive as practical verses non-practical ... specifically as it relates to leprechauns/gods/supernatural/ ..... we could say "woo" if you like lol :~)

I'm afraid if we don't use a concrete example concerning reality verses non-reality and "woo" ... this will stay a semantics issue. I really like concrete examples.

How do I test for any version of a leprechaun, unicorn or a god?

Exactly, and this is perhaps the crux.

This part will possibly be preaching to the choir: you could test for it by taking other's accounts and definitions, and going and looking for them yourself as they are defining it and see what you find. Or let them do it for you, since they are making the claim. In other words, investigate and/or attempt to debunk and see what you conclude. I'm not sure that investigating and debunking would be considered "testing", but definitions aside hopefully you get my drift.

The problem with that, is that you are taking people at their word. If the criminal justice system worked on that, we would be in sorry shape lol :~). And obviously all you have to do is look at the state of the world, this forum for example, or any group of people who are all claiming to know the "truth" about woo and the like.

Or ... you could let things speak for themselves, investigating or no .... and take them at face value. If you get enough "evidence" ... you form a conclusion based on that, and see if a pattern emerges that fits any "profiles" already out there for leprechauns/gods/Johnfrum's/etc. This would make for a stronger case, perhaps.

The key, is that you adjust your definition and conclusions based on the evidence that you accept. Again, this is probably preaching to the choir.

However .... when you have two opposing conclusions, then what ? That's where again .... why don't we let the evidence speak for itself, and go from there, instead of trying to make it fit into a box. Let the box speak for itself. Generally: classical physics says one thing, for example, but those same laws break down at the quantum level. This doesn't mean only one can be correct, or that they are mutually exclusive. Rather they are both correct. Letting things speak for themselves and trying to find what links the two ... gives rise to a loooooooooot of theories.

I have my own ideas of course ... but I do try to separate out "faith" from "fact".

This supports not accepting the conjecture that a Christian God is real, based on continual experiences.

Of course it does lol :~) Perhaps I should clarify lol .... I have little interest in "proving the existence of God", I'm more interested in understanding aspects of life and the universe. But I have no issue exploring, trying, taking "steps of faith". What I'm most interested in, is trying to understand why some people experience certain things that others seem to never experience .... and obviously there are bogus claims and such, but I happen to be one of those people who has experienced a large does of "woo", often times without trying ... and I'm fascinated. I also don't have a problem letting what appear to be two mutually exclusive arguments "work themselves out". I'm not that interested in being "right" .... I like the ride lol.

A good case for a god.

Good one.

You are speaking about a Mr. Right-Now God, not a Mr. Right God

Plus, you will never be able to prove it, anyway.

This ended with a cosmic shrug.

Well this convo is somewhat ending with a cosmic shrug .... shall we look at a "practical" example as it relates back to the OP and some of our posts ? I have several in mind from personal experience of course ... but it will go into tl/dr territory. I'm actually really into it, looking at a few practical examples of things we might have actually experienced ... but if you're not then don't humor me ... I won't take it personally and it would save wasted posts.

 

[drich0150]

I posted this question, but it received no response, so I'm hoping it can be answered here...

Probably because this question like your name sake is a nonsequitor.

Prelude:
If we are stating that a god "exists", it must either:

a) Exist completely inside our reality.
b) Exist completely outside of our reality.
c) Exist in both inside and outside our reality.

To be limited to Only these three option places all three "options" with in the grasp of "our/Your" limited understanding of reality. Because IF God can only exist in the these three tangible options you have listed. This would make absolute or complete knowledge of God obtainable to someone who has shown little to no effort in seeking God. Not to mention having a complete knowledge of infinite God, is well outside the realm of a finite being...

If something is posited as "existing", one must first be able to tell the difference between what is real and not-real, within the confines of our ability to do so, before making such truth claims.

(Otherwise, anything and everything could exist. If any one thing is possible, then everything must be accepted equally as possible.)

Problems will arise when we claim knowledge outside of what we can possibly know. i.e. can't be done.

Or: We don't know, what we don't know.

Kinda like black holes, oh no wait.. How about Pluto's planetary status, Oh again.. umm what about global warming? Or Global cooling and or the mini ice ages that were predicted to cover 2/3s of the earth by 2012 back in the 1970s?

Or maybe what you are saying is that only faith in God requires absolute proof before one is allowed to believe in the popular culture, because as we have witnessed here in my examples "scientific truth" Faith in Science is not bound by the same rule of logic.. or so it would seem.

Or do you indeed have absolute proof/Truth for what I have listed that has indeed been presented to the general population as absolute "truth?"

Example:
Zeus hated cheese on his omelette's.

1. Are leprechauns real?

Define leprechauns.
From where did this definition originate?
Was it based in truth or myth?

2a. If they are, how did you determine this?
2b. If they are not, how do you determine this?

See the follow up questions above.

 

[Xpistis sopheiaX]

You can't disprove something you can't experience with your 5 senses isn't real; so there is basically no way to "prove" they don't exist.

That is one of the biggest problems with examining any religion. The level of proof required in proving or disproving the existence of something completely intangible is impossible to produce, so you are basically at a never-ending stalemate.

I can sort of see your point, but I'm not 100% clear what your question is...

Is it possible to determine reality from everything that isn't real? Again the level of proof required for something like that is impossible to come up with.

I'm not really concerned with "proof" since that is something we'll never have. We're human and imperfect; we have to do our best with what we have and accept our own limitations when it comes to understanding our reality.

 

[Non sequitur]

To be limited to Only these three option places all three "options" with in the grasp of "our/Your" limited understanding of reality. Because IF God can only exist in the these three tangible options you have listed. This would make absolute or complete knowledge of God obtainable to someone who has shown little to no effort in seeking God. Not to mention having a complete knowledge of infinite God, is well outside the realm of a finite being...

Call "reality" whatever you want.

You are suggesting that we may not be able to detect with our feeble and human senses or conceive some unreal non-existing existence... well, you're just playing word games.

There is either light (doesn't matter if we can perceive it or not) or no light. Not "kinda" light.

There are things either in my house, outside my house or both; no other way around that.

What are the other options?

Kinda like black holes, oh no wait.. How about Pluto's planetary status, Oh again.. umm what about global warming? Or Global cooling and or the mini ice ages that were predicted to cover 2/3s of the earth by 2012 back in the 1970s?

Did Pluto disappear for you, when it lost it's planet status? When you close your eyes, do you get scared because the world disappeared?


I can attempt to detect global warming, by sticking my finger outside and comparing the last few years.

Where is this god-finger-detection method?

Come one now. I expected better...

Or maybe what you are saying is that only faith in God requires absolute proof before one is allowed to believe in the popular culture, because as we have witnessed here in my examples "scientific truth" Faith in Science is not bound by the same rule of logic.. or so it would seem.

Or do you indeed have absolute proof/Truth for what I have listed that has indeed been presented to the general population as absolute "truth?"

You seem to be saying a lot of stuff.

Define leprechauns.

Previously defined.

From where did this definition originate?

Me

Was it based in truth or myth?

Equal parts Flat Earth and Germ Theory.

Who cares?

Shouldn't matter, when determining how you know what is real and not real.

See the follow up questions above.

See my previous answers.

 

[Non sequitur]

You can't disprove something you can't experience with your 5 senses isn't real; so there is basically no way to "prove" they don't exist.

Or exist.

That is one of the biggest problems with examining any religion. The level of proof required in proving or disproving the existence of something completely intangible is impossible to produce, so you are basically at a never-ending stalemate.

So, how can one profess such absolute knowledge, if it can't even be proven?

I can sort of see your point, but I'm not 100% clear what your question is...

Is it possible to determine reality from everything that isn't real? Again the level of proof required for something like that is impossible to come up with.

I'm not really concerned with "proof" since that is something we'll never have. We're human and imperfect; we have to do our best with what we have and accept our own limitations when it comes to understanding our reality.

Again, I'm curious.

If people can't prove it or disprove it, they should not speak on their assuredness of it, because they wouldn't even know if they were right or wrong about it.

When they say, "it falls outside the realm of our knowledge and capabilities", are they not being hypocritical and ironic, by not including themselves?

 

[Xpistis sopheiaX]

I'm not a person who claims to have answers or proof for anything. When I make decisions I have to trust my senses, my intuition, and logic as best I can.

I don't have proof; I just have a lot of opinions. I don't expect people to agree with me or see the world I do.

I suppose if one were to say they have answers that you should have to adhere to they should be able to have something better than circular reasoning to back it up with.

I'm not that person though so I'm not a good person to argue with about this sort of thing.

 

[Non sequitur]

I suppose if one were to say they have answers that you should have to adhere to they should be able to have something better than circular reasoning to back it up with.

Totally not finding that here.

Take a breeze through the previous comments about, "not being able to detect it, because it is undetectable to me", special pleading, blah, blah, blah...