In response to my "There are many things that we all believe that are not 'evidenced in reality.'"
Really?
Do you love your mother? Your father? Anyone?
Do you believe anyone loves you?
What evidence can you give me for any of that?
Do you believe that you will be alive tommorow? Made any plans?
What evidence do you have that you will be alive tommorow?
Isaac Newtons third law of thermodynamics states that EVERYTHING has an equal but opposite reaction.
[FONT=trebuchet ms,helvetica,sans-serif]First you must look outside your closed system and look beyond the blinders of how you see the World.
In the first place you are the one who is supplying evidence in lieu of proof.I continue to be intrigued by the pattern that people who rely on a loving relationship with a supernatural incorporeal god also imply that they have no evidence of love in their lives from actual real people. I don't know if this is just a cute saying they've picked up at church and mindlessly repeat or if there's a deeper pathology at work.
Observations that the human lifespan is higher than my current age.
I think the playbook says you're supposed to be asking about proof, not evidence, so that you can equivocate between lack of 100% airtight absolute proof and having faith based on no evidence at all. But you asked the leading questions incorrectly so the jump you're trying to make will be a lot less convincing now.
(emphasis added)But there is the question of whether or not reality exists. How do we prove it? It's been suggested that if everyone witnesses an event that can be considered proof, but then that will drag us back to the god thing because you could theoretically come up with a situation where everyone says they believe god exists except for you. Would that mean god exists? Not necessarily.
Yes, modern physics has found it out. Amazing, isn´t it?Reality itself is very slippery. Modern physics has found that at the quantum level physics does not always behave as expected, sometime suggesting that there could be multiple realities.
why do you insist on continuing a stupid, pointless, circular argument? Aren't you better than that?(emphasis added)
Double standard. The fact that people believe in god(s) is undisputed, anyways.
Is there a point of discussion there? Or is it just rhetorical posturing?Yes, modern physics has found it out. Amazing, isn´t it?
Actually, I fail to see how the fact that there´s still a lot of things to be found out (and old findings are to be modified or even corrected) makes a case for the non-existence of that which these findings deal with.
Feel free to point out what about my argument was stupid, circular and pointless.why do you insist on continuing a stupid, pointless, circular argument?
Well, once you stop repeating the same argument and replace it by better ones, you naturally will raise the standards for the objections I need to come up with.Aren't you better than that?
I don´t know. If you agree with what I said there isn´t.Is there a point of discussion there?
Abstain from projecting. I made an (as I see it) valid point, and asked for clarification of your logical process - you are free to address it, explain yourself, refute my point, concede that it´s valid or just be silent.Or is it just rhetorical posturing?
I see no ad homs.Feel free to point out what about my argument was stupid, circular and pointless.
Well, once you stop repeating the same argument and replace it by better ones, you naturally will raise the standards for the objections I need to come up with.
At this point and at the level of logic you are employing excellence is surely not required to refute them.
I don´t know. If you agree with what I said there isn´t.
Abstain from projecting. I made an (as I see it) valid point, and asked for clarification of your logical process - you are free to address it, explain yourself, refute my point, concede that it´s valid or just be silent.
Simply handwaving it away as "rhethorical posturing" doesn´t cut it.
The ad hominems are noticed, though.
I saw them here:I see no ad homs.
Yes, that´s not an ad hominem. However, you didn´t point out the stupidity - you simply asserted it (and that´s not an ad hominem, either, but simply not the way to go about a discussion, and it was not an argument).Arguing over the proof of deity is a stupid pointless argument. If you want to engage in that be my guest. My pointing out the stupidity of the argument is certainly not ad homenim.
No biggie.Ok as to the second part of your post I see that you were posing a question.. I apologize.
And we do. That´s, however, not the topic discussed (neither in the OP nor in your repeated attempts to tell us that we all believe without evidence).Yes, if we discover through the use of the scientific method that reality does not behave in the way we would expect, then I would say that we should question our basic assumptions about reality.
What´s that supposed to even mean?If a good test of something is that you can imagine reality without it, what happens when you imagine reality without reality?
These things are true of reality too: you can't interpret reality the same way you interpret God, without making yourself a permanent part of that reality AND that God. Love has to be relevant to you, force has to be equal to the outcome you are seeking, observing reality has to be consistent with the type of God you want to observe in it...
But how can God manifest if you will not observe?
If a good test of something is that you can imagine reality without it, what happens when you imagine reality without reality? (you don't want to do that? even for a moment?)
Ok but you are saying you don't want to give reality up... that means you're stuck, right?
You need someone to come and prove God to you, without forcing you to give up reality...
Do you think maybe Jesus, is the answer here?
Ok so did he provide a way to believe in reality without referring to reality? Yes.
He said we could believe in Him, instead of reality.
In the first place you are the one who is supplying evidence in lieu of proof.
But there is the question of whether or not reality exists. How do we prove it? It's been suggested that if everyone witnesses an event that can be considered proof, but then that will drag us back to the god thing because you could theoretically come up with a situation where everyone says they believe god exists except for you.
Reality itself is very slippery. Modern physics has found that at the quantum level physics does not always behave as expected, sometime suggesting that there could be multiple realities.
What´s that supposed to even mean?
But how can God manifest if you will not observe? And how will you remember, if you will not believe?
Questions are hardly attacks, but if you saw them as such I apologize.I saw them here:
Aren't you better than that?
and here:
Or is it just rhetorical posturing?
Completely unnecessary addressing of the person instead of the argument.
Just for clarification.
Well that was where the thread had taken us at that point, but regardless, my point holds true, IMO, whether we are comparing in belief of gods or reality; there are certain subjective aspects of human thought that we believe to be true that can be ascertained through rational thought alone without empirical evidence.Yes, that´s not an ad hominem. However, you didn´t point out the stupidity - you simply asserted it (and that´s not an ad hominem, either, but simply not the way to go about a discussion, and it was not an argument).
Anyway, since I completely agree that arguing over the existence of deities is pointless (particular since believers make sure their definition includes unfalsifiability) we seem to be in agreement there.
I´m just not sure why you are telling me this. The topic is "reality", and not until you or someone else starts comparing "reality" and the evidence for its existence to that for the existence of a "god", I won´t even mention gods.
But as soon as you start making this comparison (as you repeatedly did) I will look at this comparison and point out the fundamental differences - and they are huge.
I believe the argument we are having is the same argument that has been going on in epistemology for centuries, and that is the rationalist vs empiricist. It's my belief that empiricism is a requirement for problems in objectivity, such as science, however our minds also deal heavily in subjectivity and in that we use rational thought. Don't misunderstand, I know people who do not accept the subjectiveness of daily situations and will use empiricism for all their daily decisions. Ms. Scott is such a person. When we were first dating she kept a spreadsheet of emails she had sent me showing the time between my opening the emails to the time I responded to determine my interest in her rather than rely on instinct.Now, maybe your and my frustration is owed to the possibility that I am just not understanding what your point is - in which case I kindly invite you to spell it out for me so that I know what your arguments are meant to make a case for or against and can look at them from that angle.
No big deal and already forgotten. Just for an explanation: I happen to think that intentionally doing worse than one could and engaging in rhethorical posturing are disingenious tactics in a conversation - and that´s why I don´t like to be insinuated in employing them.Questions are hardly attacks, but if you saw them as such I apologize.
No disagreement there. IO´m not sure, though, how rational thought amounts to "belief without evidence" (which was your original keyterm - well, actually it was "...without proof", but I think proof is just for mathematics and alcohol, anyway).Well that was where the thread had taken us at that point, but regardless, my point holds true, IMO, whether we are comparing in belief of gods or reality; there are certain subjective aspects of human thought that we believe to be true that can be ascertained through rational thought alone without empirical evidence.
No, sorry, I don´t think that this is the discussion we are having. Just FYI: if I were hard pressed to label my philosophy the closest would be "Radical Constructivism". Which basically means that the reality as we see it is a product of our needs, preconceptions and thought patterns.I believe the argument we are having is the same argument that has been going on in epistemology for centuries, and that is the rationalist vs empiricist. It's my belief that empiricism is a requirement for problems in objectivity, such as science, however our minds also deal heavily in subjectivity and in that we use rational thought. Don't misunderstand, I know people who do not accept the subjectiveness of daily situations and will use empiricism for all their daily decisions. Ms. Scott is such a person. When we were first dating she kept a spreadsheet of emails she had sent me showing the time between my opening the emails to the time I responded to determine my interest in her rather than rely on instinct.
That´s not even an "if" for me. In my view that´s a given.But where this ties in to reality is that obviously empirical evidence shows us that what we sense as reality exists, we see it and we feel, smell it, taste it and hear it. But what if we discovered that reality itself was somehow dependent on our observations.
No, I don´t think it goes that far. While it certainly puts a great question mark behind the idea that our understanding of reality is accurate, it doesn´t seem to question the fact that there is a reality.This is known as the Anthropic Principle and IMO gives a much different meaning to the question, how do we know that reality exists.
Again: no disagreement from me. Yet, concluding from "we know very little (or even nothing) about reality" on "there is no reality at all" simply doesn´t follow.It really cuts to the question of existence itself. If consciousness in some way controls reality then we really know very little about reality because we know so little about consciousness.
No need to be sorry; I said it was my belief, not anyone else's. This thread seems to be asking the question "how do you prove reality exists?" Then Gottservant added the caveat "without referring to reality." Which I'm not sure what he means by that. Regardless, my point is simply that reality can be perceived differently, and possibly reality can alter itself to, as you say, "our needs, preconceptions and thought patterns." I think we can say that an event can be proven empirically, and also it would follow that our objective perception of that event following the empirical evidence-the evidence that we see, hear, smell etc.-is also provable. However our subjective perception is not provable, but I'd argue-so what, why would it need to be.No, sorry, I don´t think that this is the discussion we are having. Just FYI: if I were hard pressed to label my philosophy the closest would be "Radical Constructivism". Which basically means that the reality as we see it is a product of our needs, preconceptions and thought patterns.
So trying to convince me that reality is not necessarily as we understand it to be means carrying coals to Newcastle.
The point of discussion, however, is whether there´s a reality at all - and I am maintaining that the contrary assertion flies flat in the face of both empiricism and rationalism.
This is where it gets a little fuzzy, and that is probably because intuitively we believe that reality is set, frozen somehow, like "right this instant", however there is no "this instant" in the space time continuum. All existence is in constant motion, time never stops because nothing ever truly stops. So reality is a fluid thing constantly changing, changing in ways we have not even discovered yet. Yes we can prove events in reality in an objective way-and we can say that in that sense we know there is a reality-we know the sunlight reflects off the moon, we know that cesium133 resonates at an exact rate and therefore we can use it to keep accurate time. We know billions of things about reality, yet IMO a comprehensive understanding of reality may require a TOE, which we may never achieve, although I believe we will.No, I don´t think it goes that far. While it certainly puts a great question mark behind the idea that our understanding of reality is accurate, it doesn´t seem to question the fact that there is a reality.