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

[Eudaimonist]

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

I accept experience for reality as evidence for reality because I don't need to interpret reality correctly in order to know that reality exists. That reality exists is a minimalistic conclusion that is confirmed every moment of my waking life. It is one of the safest conclusions that there is.

God, however, requires an interpretation of reality that employs some big leaps of logic. No matter what the Bible says, reality is not self-evidently God or created by God. The interpretation can easily be doubted. It's not at all on the same level as believing that reality exists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gottservant]

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.

they are opposites

you are asking for oppositional possibilities and calling them the same thing, which if you forced God to give them to you, simultaneously, you would die, in the attempt to understand them, simultaneously

if I were you I would say "I feel like having contradictory standards because I'm smart enough not to confuse how I've set them up" or something like that, although granted that sounds like a lack of imagination...

 

[Gottservant]

I accept experience for reality as evidence for reality because I don't need to interpret reality correctly in order to know that reality exists.

You can know reality exists, even if you fail to interpret it correctly, because you know that failing to interpret it correctly in terms of experience does not invalidate failing to interpret it correctly in terms of evidence???

I would say at this point, that you don't know anything, but you are interpreting not knowing something as "more of reality", "reality" that doesn't need to be interpreted.

Not to wake you up too much, but not knowing something is "not reality", only knowing something is reality.

But you could easily say "I know I think I exist, even when I don't know anything" and it would sound like you know something, though undoubtedly if you were questioned as to what you really know, you would struggle.

I think the point is people are finding answering this test quite frustrating (you can look for the appropriate simplifications, I have repeated them a number of times) and the fact that they are not really dealing with that frustration somehow has nothing to do with God or believing or religion, but actually all of those things give answers... which if someone were willing to raise the bar of belief, say from "reality is given" to "reality is given by determination" (introducing cause) then a lot more progress would be made...

 

[Your Friend Jacob]

Hmmm...maybe I am over-thinking things but God is of the spiritual, so providing factual evidence from the physical is nearly impossible because to most (un-believers,) Personal experiences are irrelevant and miracles are just coincidences, fact of the matter is that nothing is by accident. When you speak to a storm, and it calms there is no denying. When you pray or God proboscises something to you, also undeniable........so how can this be done ? To most, the reality of God, and Christ being real will not play any part in their mind until either judgement or the return of Christ. So to most (un-believers) reality and God's existence do not mix well. So it comes down to relativity, these things must be relative to the person. I.e. personal experiences and faith.

Grace and peace unto you from the Most High, our Heavenly Father

 

[Eudaimonist]

You can know reality exists, even if you fail to interpret it correctly, because you know that failing to interpret it correctly in terms of experience does not invalidate failing to interpret it correctly in terms of evidence???

I would say at this point, that you don't know anything, but you are interpreting not knowing something as "more of reality", "reality" that doesn't need to be interpreted.

Not to wake you up too much, but not knowing something is "not reality", only knowing something is reality.

I am having a great deal of difficulty understanding what you are saying here. Perhaps you could rephrase this.

But you could easily say "I know I think I exist, even when I don't know anything" and it would sound like you know something, though undoubtedly if you were questioned as to what you really know, you would struggle.

I do know that I exist. I don't take the position that I don't know anything, and I would not "struggle" with such a question.

I think the point is people are finding answering this test quite frustrating

No, not frustrating. I would only find the requirement that one prove reality without referring to reality frustrating if I thought it was actually necessary to take that approach.

Rather, I find the test needless and pointless. A wrong turn in philosophy.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Danyc]

they are opposites

you are asking for oppositional possibilities and calling them the same thing, which if you forced God to give them to you, simultaneously, you would die, in the attempt to understand them, simultaneously

if I were you I would say "I feel like having contradictory standards because I'm smart enough not to confuse how I've set them up" or something like that, although granted that sounds like a lack of imagination...

You are talking nonsense.

Give me one good reason God can't just show up to me and say "Yo, what's up? Check it. I'm God."

He did it plenty of times in the past, apparently.

Get over yourself- you are saying nothing of value. You're being nonsensical. And everyone here knows it.

 

[quatona]

One thing I´m wondering when I read the OP and its defenses:
When reading the bible I sure get the impression that your god is asking you to take reality very seriously, right down to the very details.

 

[Gottservant]

[...] When you pray or God proboscises something to you, also undeniable........so how can this be done ? To most, the reality of God, and Christ being real will not play any part in their mind until either judgement or the return of Christ. [...]

Hmmm... interesting, an argument for God therefore, is that if He didn't exist... no one would be able to believe in Him at all...

...very interesting.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Hmmm... interesting, an argument for God therefore, is that if He didn't exist... no one would be able to believe in Him at all...

...very interesting.

That must mean all folktale creatures exist. There are Icelanders, and even some of the older generation of Swedes, who still believe in gnomes and trolls. I guess they must exist too, or how else would anyone be able to believe in them?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gottservant]

One thing I´m wondering when I read the OP and its defenses:
When reading the bible I sure get the impression that your god is asking you to take reality very seriously, right down to the very details.

IFF there is a reason. (IFF - If and Only If)

I'm not going so far as to say people should give up believing in reality if they have no reason, what I am asking is "are you prepared for such a possibility?"

So far the consensus is, reality is so undeniable that considering the possibility that faith in it is misplaced is permanently irrelevant.

I can only interpret this as wilful denial, since the inevitability of Death, which is contingent on "reality" (can you die if there is no reality?), absolutely makes the nature of the substantiation of any faith in reality questionable, if not pertinent.

Thanks for your question, answering it has helped.

 

[Gottservant]

That must mean all folktale creatures exist. There are Icelanders, and even some of the older generation of Swedes, who still believe in gnomes and trolls. I guess they must exist too, or how else would anyone be able to believe in them?


eudaimonia,

Mark

I made no remark as to the quality of the belief in God that results; nor did I cast judgment on belief in anything not obviously God, but nevertheless taking the position of God, as your contention implies is relevant.

I think what is spurious here is that you are more than willing to remember alternatives to the nature of God, but you will not actually seriously choose one - much less heed the Wisdom that the best choice is the one who actually answers back, which I would venture is the test of whether something is indeed God.

There's plenty of time, choose one and keep choosing until you get a response.

 

[Eudaimonist]

choose [a method for testing God] and keep choosing until you get a response.

Why?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gottservant]

You are talking nonsense.

Give me one good reason God can't just show up to me and say "Yo, what's up? Check it. I'm God."

He did it plenty of times in the past, apparently.

Get over yourself- you are saying nothing of value. You're being nonsensical. And everyone here knows it.

Why would He say what you can say yourself?

Anyway, it doesn't matter how cool you make it sound, asking for experience "What's up?" then evidence "Check it" is contradictory.

Where in your statement are you giving God the opportunity to actually be God???

Also, don't feel too bad about calling me nonsensical, a certain degree of confusion is inevitable when calling into question the nature of reality... I'm glad even to have stated that, myself.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I think what is spurious here is that you are more than willing to remember alternatives to the nature of God, but you will not actually seriously choose one - much less heed the Wisdom that the best choice is the one who actually answers back, which I would venture is the test of whether something is indeed God.

My method is science. God fails that test.

If you are suggesting a far more subjective and psychological method, I would never be able to trust the results, since what "answers back" may simply be my own subconscious. There is no point in entertaining such methods.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gottservant]

Why?


eudaimonia,

Mark

[W]hich [H]appily [Y]es?

Actually there is a reason: you will meet God.

If you are smart, you will do it in a way that means you don't die (secret: hide spiritually in Jesus). #justsaying

It seems girly I know, but if you just try to do it as a man, you will just die.

 

[Eudaimonist]

[W]hich [H]appily [Y]es?

Huh?

Actually there is a reason: you will meet God.

No, I won't. I'll meet what everyone else has met, which is an aspect of their own minds.

It seems girly I know, but if you just try to do it as a man, you will just die.

Everyone just dies.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gottservant]

My method is science. God fails that test.

If you are suggesting a far more subjective and psychological method, I would never be able to trust the results, since what "answers back" may simply be my own subconscious. There is no point in entertaining such methods.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Wait... so you have a way... to get your subconscious to answer back on queue, without delay, and always for a good reason... and you don't want to use it???

To me, that is a waste.

Anyway, you can't ask your subconscious if it is just your subconscious?

I think you have way more choices than you are making out.

EDIT: I am taking a break now, take some time to think about what God is saying as we are already a little off topic (my fault as much as anyone, I know)

 

[joep222]

If reality did not exist, then the question could not even be asked.

 

[quatona]

IFF there is a reason. (IFF - If and Only If)

IFF there is a reason for what?
And where do I find that disclaimer in the bible?

I'm not going so far as to say people should give up believing in reality if they have no reason, what I am asking is "are you prepared for such a possibility?"

I´m still not sure what you mean by "giving up believing in reality". Do you mean something like not responding to your posts because they are but an illusion?

So far the consensus is, reality is so undeniable that considering the possibility that faith in it is misplaced is permanently irrelevant.

I don´t understand the structure of this sentence.

I can only interpret this as wilful denial, since the inevitability of Death, which is contingent on "reality" (can you die if there is no reality?), absolutely makes the nature of the substantiation of any faith in reality questionable, if not pertinent.

I have asked you in my very first response to define what you mean when saying "reality" because your statements don´t make any sense whatsoever to me when applying any definition of "reality" that I am aware of. If I haven´t missed anything you still haven´t given this clarifying definition, so I am still clueless as to what it is you are trying to communicate.

Thanks for your question, answering it has helped.

Helped whom with what?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Wait... so you have a way... to get your subconscious to answer back on queue, without delay, and always for a good reason... and you don't want to use it???

Correct. It is epistemologically useless, and perhaps even dangerous to my mental health.

Consider someone who offers: "Just try my cult for a little while. What have you got to lose?"

Or: "Just try LSD. You'll see God. I promise!"

While I'm choosing some extreme examples, the principle is the same. Such "tests" are not risk-free.

Anyway, you can't ask your subconscious if it is just your subconscious?

Once I had a dream in which the dream told me I wasn't dreaming. But after I had woken up, I realized that I was dreaming. The dream lied.

I think you have way more choices than you are making out.

Such as?


eudaimonia,

Mark