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

[variant]

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

When God becomes a persistent, consistent and undeniable experience I will.

 

[Gottservant]

Total double standard, but it's Sunday so I will just say "you are obviously a high achiever, to be able to multitask such different points of view so easily"

 

[variant]

Total double standard, but it's Sunday so I will just say "you are obviously a high achiever, to be able to multitask such different points of view so easily"

The standard is undeniable consistent evidence. There are actually very few things that I accept deductive logical proof for and usually those involve math and philosophy. Generally consistent evidence is how I come to accept almost everything in my life.

It's simple, when it comes to evidence God doesn't fit the bill but reality does.

It is not that I can't prove that God exists without referring to God, it is that I don't have evidence that God exists.

What you have is a severely problematic analogy that doesn't even pretend to work.

It's as if you don't have the slightest clue how to think.

 

[Gottservant]

You want experience of reality "now", and you think you get it.

But then instead of experience of God "later", you demand "evidence" "now".

You can't have experience of reality "now" and experience of God "now" (simultaneously), so you demand "evidence" for God, when actually you continue to ask for "experience of reality" as if experience is more important not evidence.

But if there was a God, why would He reveal anything to you, that was of lesser value, by your own standard, when all He wants is the best for you.

You don't see that you are asking the impossible? And I'm supposed to "think" for you? I can think for you, but I can't give you the impossible. So you will have to choose.

God is not able to want anything less than the best for you, if that is what you want. Evidence is not the best, if all you ask for is experience.

 

[Eudaimonist]

You want experience of reality "now", and you think you get it.

I want many things, and experience is only the foundation.

But if there was a God, why would He reveal anything to you, that was of lesser value, by your own standard, when all He wants is the best for you.

Experience and evidence aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, they are tightly related.

You don't see that you are asking the impossible?

I'm quite certain that it's not impossible.

And I'm supposed to "think" for you?

No, you are supposed to justify your claims if you expect us to take them seriously.

God is not able to want anything less than the best for you, if that is what you want. Evidence is not the best, if all you ask for is experience.

Evidence (which obviously is experienced) is best if God exists and wants us to take his existence seriously. If he doesn't care about that, he doesn't have to provide any.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gottservant]

Yes, but I just explained to you, that the same faith you are asking for evidence of God with, is the faith by which you are saying experience is the only thing necessary to justify belief in reality.

You honestly cannot see the double standard?

You say evidence and experience are closely related? How?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Yes, but I just explained to you, that the same faith you are asking for evidence of God with, is the faith by which you are saying experience is the only thing necessary to justify belief in reality.

That is apparently your view, not mine. It takes zero faith to use experience as a means to justify belief in reality.

You say evidence and experience are closely related? How?

Experience is evidence of the world around us, and evidence is something that is experienced.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gottservant]

Woah. So not only do you ask the opposite of God, from what you accept, you see them as the same thing?

I would rather say "no, the reason I ask the opposite of God, is that He has done something wrong, to deserve it" or "I see the two things I expect from the world as the same thing, because God is part of the world"... that way you are either pointing to an assertion or making one: as it stands, it looks as if you don't really understand what you are asking... #justsaying

But I don't want to steer the conversation down the road of needless oppositions... is there something you can tell about God from evidence, that you can't tell from experience? And if you can tell from experience, why would you ask for evidence as well?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

 

[Eudaimonist]

But I don't want to steer the conversation down the road of needless oppositions... is there something you can tell about God from evidence, that you can't tell from experience?

I'm not certain any longer that I know what you mean by "experience". It sounds like you may mean internal, subjective experience.

But, yes, with (external, objective) evidence, I can tell if God exists or not. I can't do that with (internal, subjective) experience alone.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[TScott]

Proof of reality, just as proof of God, is relevant only to the observer. When we say we must prove anything, we are the final test of that proof, as individual minds. We don't necessarily have to observe a phenom, to accept it as fact. If a billion people observe a total eclipse of the sun, a blind person can accept that it happened based on the accounts of others. Or he can say, no-I believe you were all deluded, what you claimed to have seen did not happen.

 

[Danyc]

I always find it fascinating how many backroads and pseudo-philosophical trails must be trounced down to attempt to justify a belief in something which, often admitted by the those who believe, is not evidenced in reality. Somehow they try their darndest to get past needing 'evidence' by challenging the very basis of the way in which we view evidence.

Can't we just go back to the past, like in the bible? There was plenty of evidence. God had no care in the world for these silly word games. If people wanted to know if he existed, boom, giant fire tornado. There, now you've got no excuses.

But now we have to deal with these people.

 

[Gadarene]

I always find it fascinating how many backroads and pseudo-philosophical trails must be trounced down to attempt to justify a belief in something which, often admitted by the those who believe, is not evidenced in reality. Somehow they try their darndest to get past needing 'evidence' by challenging the very basis of the way in which we view evidence.

Can't we just go back to the past, like in the bible? There was plenty of evidence. God had no care in the world for these silly word games. If people wanted to know if he existed, boom, giant fire tornado. There, now you've got no excuses.

But now we have to deal with these people.

Right.

If this was any other belief, resorting to such solipsistic twaddle to justify your idea when all else failed would get you laughed out of the house, but because religion is still sufficiently normative, we still get subjected to this nonsense.

 

[Illuminaughty]

Very simple. Look at a chair in your room. Does it really exist? Or is it just a temporary illusion like that in one of your dreams?

The concept "chair" might not correspond to reality in the way we think it does but the illusion itself would have to exist in order for us to experience it. The illusion would be evidence of existence.

 

[variant]

You want experience of reality "now", and you think you get it.

But then instead of experience of God "later", you demand "evidence" "now".

You can't have experience of reality "now" and experience of God "now" (simultaneously), so you demand "evidence" for God, when actually you continue to ask for "experience of reality" as if experience is more important not evidence.

This is incomprehensible.

You accused me of a double standard and now you want me to accept one?

No, I do not accept the lack of evidence for God as the same as overwhelming evidence for reality.

I have not asked for different evidence for God and of the universe and you can not show I did, so you are babbling.

But if there was a God, why would He reveal anything to you, that was of lesser value, by your own standard, when all He wants is the best for you.

I am rationally convinced God doesn't exist.

If there Is a God how is that what is best for me?

You don't see that you are asking the impossible? And I'm supposed to "think" for you? I can think for you, but I can't give you the impossible. So you will have to choose.

Back to the topic at hand, I do not have double standards for Reality and God.

Reality is in fact well evidenced and nothing but word games makes evidence for God "impossible".

You would have to first show that your God existed before showing that evidence for God was impossible (which of course is a contradiction), so you are just begging the question in a rather contradictory manner.

Truth can not come from contradiction in logic so your argument is completely invalid.

Which means there is no case in which your argument can be convincing to a rational person.

Which means that I am probably right that you just lack the ability to be rational and logical.

God is not able to want anything less than the best for you, if that is what you want. Evidence is not the best, if all you ask for is experience.

I am rationally convinced God doesn't exist.

If there Is a God how is that what is best for me?

 

[variant]

That was more words than I really needed.

To put it more succinctly Gottservant has asked us to believe that he knows that evidence for God is impossible.

The question then needs to be asked, how does one know the qualities of something you are asserting is beyond knowledge and evidence?

Where does this contradictory assertion of knowledge of that which can not be evidenced spring?

 

[TScott]

I always find it fascinating how many backroads and pseudo-philosophical trails must be trounced down to attempt to justify a belief in something which, often admitted by the those who believe, is not evidenced in reality. Somehow they try their darndest to get past needing 'evidence' by challenging the very basis of the way in which we view evidence.

There are many things that we all believe that are not "evidenced in reality." (Although I may not really know what you mean by that phrase.)

 

[Eudaimonist]

There are many things that we all believe that are not "evidenced in reality."

Such as?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Danyc]

There are many things that we all believe that are not "evidenced in reality." (Although I may not really know what you mean by that phrase.)

No, there are not.

 

[Gottservant]

You make it out as if its really complicated (and I somehow "don't understand it")

when you ask for evidence of God, but you accept experience for reality.



wherefore do you not understand that if the test of reality is experience, then your relationship to God is also experience?

 

[Danyc]

You make it out as if its really complicated (and I somehow "don't understand it")

when you ask for evidence of God, but you accept experience for reality.



wherefore do you not understand that if the test of reality is experience, then your relationship to God is also experience?

Experience is evidence. Experience of evidence. If God showed up to me, that would be evidence, which I experienced. If I could somehow test for God indirectly, though he may still be invisible, and therein lied some indication of his existence, that would be evidence, which I would have experienced.