Can you prove Reality, exists (without refering to reality)?

[Eudaimonist]

No one has really taken on the challenge, for some reason. Just prove reality, without referring to reality.

That's because, with respect, the challenge is silly and pointless.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gottservant]

Perhaps the proof of God, then, is finally: that you all accept "reality" so wholeheartedly - would that be fair?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Perhaps the proof of God, then, is finally: that you all accept "reality" so wholeheartedly - would that be fair?

I'm not sure what your point is. Please explain.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[The Engineer]

Your memory is only your ... yes, memory. It is not even anything you can find by any means. To everyone else, it does not exist at all. If you call that as existence, then God certainly exists.

And, you only live at the very moment, not a minute earlier and not a minute later. That is your "existence".

For me, I call it mirage.

Whether your memory is real or not is irrelevant to the topic. The fact that you can experience memories means that you must exist, at the very least. This proves reality, even though reality means little more than you, in this case.

Perhaps the proof of God, then, is finally: that you all accept "reality" so wholeheartedly - would that be fair?

Non sequitur. So far, we all have proven reality pretty easily. We didn't take the existence of reality on faith.

 

[Gracchus]

"I think, therefore I am." I exist. Even if I am all there is, I am real. Whatever I might be, I am real. If I am the figment of someone's imagination, then that someone is real.

If you wish to maintain that you are not real, then I am not calling any real person a damned fool.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Perhaps the proof of God, then, is finally: that you all accept "reality" so wholeheartedly - would that be fair?

If you can make this definition of God without further strings attached popular and widely accepted then that would be fair.

 

[Gracchus]

Perhaps the proof of God, then, is finally: that you all accept "reality" so wholeheartedly - would that be fair?

Hmmm! I think, therefore God exists?

 

[juvenissun]

No one has really taken on the challenge, for some reason. Just prove reality, without referring to reality.

Reality is something that exists to itself.

It can be done, just not with legalistic attributions of reality, from one part of reality to another.

I'm not even setting out to make things unduly hard, think about the fact that until now, you have always thought reality was real "because its real" (as people have abundantly tried to point out)... now, keep believing, but don't say that. Simple!

Sorry. But I don't understand the question. Why is not real? What is real?

 

[juvenissun]

I have no evidence to support God's "certain" existence. I do have evidence of my own memory, and other people show external evidence of remembering their past.



For me, I call that existence (without any scare quotes). That is all existence has to be in order to be fully existence. I fail to see how reality is lacking if past, present, and future don't exist simultaneously (if that even makes sense).


eudaimonia,

Mark

If you are satisfied with that kind of existence, then I guess it would be OK.

And if so, I guess becomes high by drug, or indulge yourself on anything would be perfectly fine, or even desirable. When you started to feel the consequence, then simply kill yourself. That would be perfectly fine too.

 

[juvenissun]

Hmmm! I think, therefore God exists?

How about

I think about God, therefore God exists

 

[The Engineer]

If you are satisfied with that kind of existence, then I guess it would be OK.

And if so, I guess becomes high by drug, or indulge yourself on anything would be perfectly fine, or even desirable. When you started to feel the consequence, then simply kill yourself. That would be perfectly fine too.

We have proven that reality exists, we did not infer that it's limited to our mind.

 

[Eudaimonist]

If you are satisfied with that kind of existence, then I guess it would be OK.

"Time is nature's way of preventing everything from happening all at once."

Yes, I'm perfectly happy existing only in the present moment. I don't see how this is lacking in any way.

And if so, I guess becomes high by drug, or indulge yourself on anything would be perfectly fine, or even desirable. When you started to feel the consequence, then simply kill yourself. That would be perfectly fine too.

By "yourself", are you referring hypothetically to myself? I have never been "high" in my life, am not an indulgent person (preferring to live in moderation), and have never been suicidal (even as a teenager).

I value my life and I take care of myself. None of what you mention would be fine with me, nor does believing that existence in the present moment is satisfactory imply any sort of justification for hedonistic or self-destructive tendencies. I can only imagine that you are talking hypothetically about yourself.

I think about God, therefore God exists

No, it would be: "I think about God, therefore the idea of God exists."


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

"Time is nature's way of preventing everything from happening all at once."

Yes, I'm perfectly happy existing only in the present moment. I don't see how this is lacking in any way.



By "yourself", are you referring hypothetically to myself? I have never been "high" in my life, am not an indulgent person (preferring to live in moderation), and have never been suicidal (even as a teenager).

I value my life and I take care of myself. None of what you mention would be fine with me, nor does believing that existence in the present moment is satisfactory imply any sort of justification for hedonistic or self-destructive tendencies. I can only imagine that you are talking hypothetically about yourself.



No, it would be: "I think about God, therefore the idea of God exists."


eudaimonia,

Mark

You only exist at this very moment. You which existed one moment earlier is no longer, and you do not exist yet at one moment later. All you have is NOW.

So, why don't you indulge yourself and make yourself happy at this moment? Yesterday is already gone and tomorrow is too far away.

That is why when one looks back to his life, nothing really existed, nothing is real.

Yes, it is all about the time. It is the biggest mystery in philosophy as well as in science. For you, eternity is something you can't even think about.

 

[Gottservant]

How about

I think about God, therefore God exists

We could debate that for some time!

...

But I digress, what I think people are failing to grasp, is that

a) a good test of something is to see if you can do without it

b) reality is a fairly significant assumption that can be tested

So, taking the definition of reality as that which refers to itself (which for some legitimate reason, people keep doing), can you still make the assumption of reality, not doing that (referring to it)?

That's the same problem I posed from the beginning.

The one major objection has been that by questioning reality with that term you do in a sense imply that the word reality has no other use and can therefore only point to the possibility that something is real. To this I make two points:

1- the mere possibility of something is not final, without motivating circumstances (a key in the ignition is no guarantee the car will move)

2- you are pointing to something which counts as reality (the word "reality"), and are not therefore really making an attempt at the question

I am not going to say, you should have known you were not real, or some ridiculous thing, but as I said, standards of evidence for faith should exist uniformly as possible, so as to create a consistent answer... if you cannot point to reality by faith, perhaps it is not within your power to point to God by faith, either, that being the case, you are not the judge of whether God exists at all, are you????

 

[Gottservant]

If you do not like my test: perhaps you can suggest one?

 

[Eudaimonist]

You only exist at this very moment. You which existed one moment earlier is no longer, and you do not exist yet at one moment later. All you have is NOW.

Yes, and NOW is amazing!

So, why don't you indulge yourself and make yourself happy at this moment? Yesterday is already gone and tomorrow is too far away.

Tomorrow! Tomorrow! I love you, tomorrow! You're always a day away!

In my experience, "tomorrow" arrives very quickly. It was only as a child that it seemed far away, but that was an illusion. It always arrived in no more than a day. So, it isn't "too far away" at all. You are going to have to live tomorrow with the consequences of today. Consequences can follow you all the rest of your "todays". There is no escape from causality.

That said, I don't see any reason why I shouldn't be happy at this moment. What is wrong with being happy?

But the method you prescribe, "indulging" oneself, which I take to mean a fetish for physical pleasure, is foolish in the long run. It is like arguing that one should gorge oneself on cake without any care for having a tummy ache in the next few hours, or the pounds one may add for the rest of one's lifetime, or the heart attack that will end one's life sooner than necessary.

Also, why focus on physical or unintellectual pleasures? Even Epicurus, who was technically a philosophical hedonist, advocated intellectual pleasures over physical pleasures. Reading an interesting book is preferable to eating that sugar-filled cake, and physical pleasures are only good to the extent that they relieve pain (such as of hunger) and bring one to mental tranquility.

But I am not a philosophical hedonist at all. While I'm not anti-physical pleasure and can agree with Epicurus on some of his advice, I prefer to focus my effort on self-actualization. Developing one's talents and putting them to good use is one of the most satisfying things in life, and one of the noblest. It is a far cry from simple-minded "indulgence".

That is why when one looks back to his life, nothing really existed, nothing is real.

Of course it really existed. It just doesn't exist now. That's no loss. For the rest of eternity, you still will have lived your life. Nothing can change that.

Yes, it is all about the time. It is the biggest mystery in philosophy as well as in science. For you, eternity is something you can't even think about.

"Eternity" is no concern of mine. We are finite beings, and that is enough.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

If you do not like my test: perhaps you can suggest one?

Yes, cross a busy street. Did you keep your eyes on the cars so you weren't run over?

The truth is, you've already learned and accepted that you are a human being living on Earth, and that all this is real. You've known this since you were a little child. You have all the evidence you actually need in life experience, and have amassed a multitude of reasons to have an extremely high degree of confidence in that conclusion. Don't get caught up in demanding unreachable standards of "proof" and then miss out on the weight of your life experience and the lack of any significant evidence to a contrary conclusion.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

Yes, and NOW is amazing!



Tomorrow! Tomorrow! I love you, tomorrow! You're always a day away!

In my experience, "tomorrow" arrives very quickly. It was only as a child that it seemed far away, but that was an illusion. It always arrived in no more than a day. So, it isn't "too far away" at all. You are going to have to live tomorrow with the consequences of today. Consequences can follow you all the rest of your "todays". There is no escape from causality.

That said, I don't see any reason why I shouldn't be happy at this moment. What is wrong with being happy?

But the method you prescribe, "indulging" oneself, which I take to mean a fetish for physical pleasure, is foolish in the long run. It is like arguing that one should gorge oneself on cake without any care for having a tummy ache in the next few hours, or the pounds one may add for the rest of one's lifetime, or the heart attack that will end one's life sooner than necessary.

Also, why focus on physical or unintellectual pleasures? Even Epicurus, who was technically a philosophical hedonist, advocated intellectual pleasures over physical pleasures. Reading an interesting book is preferable to eating that sugar-filled cake, and physical pleasures are only good to the extent that they relieve pain (such as of hunger) and bring one to mental tranquility.

But I am not a philosophical hedonist at all. While I'm not anti-physical pleasure and can agree with Epicurus on some of his advice, I prefer to focus my effort on self-actualization. Developing one's talents and putting them to good use is one of the most satisfying things in life, and one of the noblest. It is a far cry from simple-minded "indulgence".



Of course it really existed. It just doesn't exist now. That's no loss. For the rest of eternity, you still will have lived your life. Nothing can change that.



"Eternity" is no concern of mine. We are finite beings, and that is enough.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I was like you. But thanks to God that He gives me a break through.

Do you know what does a "break through" mean? It is absolutely not the same as gradual improvement.

Good luck. (unfortunately, for you, "luck" seems to be the best blessing you can get)

 

[Eudaimonist]

I was like you.

This is almost certainly not true, and you have no way to make that judgment from my post.

But thanks to God that He gives me a break through.

Thankfully, I have been undamaged by religious "break throughs".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[variant]

No one has really taken on the challenge, for some reason. Just prove reality, without referring to reality.

Reality is something that exists to itself.

It can be done, just not with legalistic attributions of reality, from one part of reality to another.

I'm not even setting out to make things unduly hard, think about the fact that until now, you have always thought reality was real "because its real" (as people have abundantly tried to point out)... now, keep believing, but don't say that. Simple!

Reality is evidenced by experience.