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

[Eudaimonist]

A good test of something, is to see if you can do without it.

God can go without reality.

Whatever are you talking about? I can't make any sense of this.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Whereof we cannot speak thereof we must remain silent - Wittgenstein iirc.

 

[Ken-1122]

This is just a simple twist on the "prove God exists" argument.

Can you prove that Reality exists? Can you prove it, without referring to reality, as this would be considered cheating...

Theoretically, you should be able to prove there is such a thing as Reality, that people live in it, that it has meaning, all without depending on the thing you are talking about ("Reality") to justify what you believe, right?

It's just a simple twist, on the old idea, but I think you'll find it is quite hard.

Animals recognize that which is real.

K

 

[Gottservant]

Animals recognize that which is real.

K

You assume so.

An interesting approach, but animals are definitely _in_ the reality I asked people to question - without refering to reality.

Am I redefining reality? Or am I simply reminding you that at the point you think you know reality, you must also be prepared to believe?

On second thoughts, your post may in fact be a cunning suggestion that animals indeed live in reality without refering to reality, and indeed, how would I know? Cunning, very cunning.

What do others think? Is this fair?

I think I would rather believe that animals are slave to reality as that which refers to itself, than free from it. The evidence that points to that is simply that they never attempt to do anything that does not in some way relate to reality. If I said this with authority, most of you would no doubt believe it.

On the other hand, I could point out that an ant infected with a fluke (type of germ), will spontaneously start climbing a piece of grass while the fluke works its way into the ants brain... at task with seemingly no relation to reality. But then I could just say the same thing back to you, the ant is responding to the reality of the fluke.

Do you see what I am doing here? The trend has basically been to say there is no denying reality, but in fact, I can, over and over again. I'm not trying even to be rude, it's just a nuance of interpretation.


EDIT: For all concerned you may wish to read the recent edits to the start of this thread, for clarification.

 

[Ken-1122]

You assume so.

An interesting approach, but animals are definitely _in_ the reality I asked people to question - without refering to reality.

Am I redefining reality? Or am I simply reminding you that at the point you think you know reality, you must also be prepared to believe?

On second thoughts, your post may in fact be a cunning suggestion that animals indeed live in reality without refering to reality, and indeed, how would I know? Cunning, very cunning.

What do others think? Is this fair?

I think I would rather believe that animals are slave to reality as that which refers to itself, than free from it. The evidence that points to that is simply that they never attempt to do anything that does not in some way relate to reality. If I said this with authority, most of you would no doubt believe it.

On the other hand, I could point out that an ant infected with a fluke (type of germ), will spontaneously start climbing a piece of grass while the fluke works its way into the ants brain... at task with seemingly no relation to reality. But then I could just say the same thing back to you, the ant is responding to the reality of the fluke.

Do you see what I am doing here? The trend has basically been to say there is no denying reality, but in fact, I can, over and over again. I'm not trying even to be rude, it's just a nuance of interpretation.


EDIT: For all concerned you may wish to read the recent edits to the start of this thread, for clarification.

If animals were not a part of reality, then somnething as simple as a rattlesnake bite would have no effect on you right? So try it out! Allow an animal to harm you; if you feel pain, get sick, or even come close to death you know that is real.
BTW don't ask; I've already been harmed by an animal; I know they are real.

Ken

 

[Eudaimonist]

When this darling wakes me up at 1:30am out of a sound sleep because she wants something, I find myself very certain that she exists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ken-1122]

This is just a simple twist on the "prove God exists" argument.

Can you prove that Reality exists? Can you prove it, without referring to reality, as this would be considered cheating...

Reality and that which exists is the same thing. Unless God is defined as “all that exists” your question is not the same. It would be the same to ask “prove God exists without referring to God” which nobody does, because they attempt to prove God exists by referring to the bible; or whatever ancient text associated with said God.

Ken

 

[Gottservant]

Wow! That is brilliant. Great, great question: can you prove God exists without referring to God?

The answer to that is of course "yes", love can be proved many ways - but what are people's thoughts?

 

[The Engineer]

Wow! That is brilliant. Great, great question: can you prove God exists without referring to God?

The answer to that is of course "yes", love can be proved many ways - but what are people's thoughts?

Your argument doesn't work. Proving that love exists doesn't mean that God must exist. That would be a non sequitur.

 

[Danyc]

Wow! That is brilliant. Great, great question: can you prove God exists without referring to God?

The answer to that is of course "yes", love can be proved many ways - but what are people's thoughts?

So you're defining god as "love" now.

Be right back guys, gotta go drive to the store in my toilet.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Wow! That is brilliant. Great, great question: can you prove God exists without referring to God?

The answer to that is of course "yes", love can be proved many ways - but what are people's thoughts?

I have no problem with seeing love as we know it in the natural world in a symbolic sense as "God". Religious symbolism is fine -- it's a way of integrating a wide variety of ideas that makes them easier to digest. For example, a discussion of "justice" could be very dry and philosophical and difficult to absorb, but might be made easier to relate to by discussing myth about a personal god of justice.

So, it's when "God" is no longer taken as a religious symbol, but is instead considered to be an actually existing conscious, intelligent, personal deity, that the problem occurs.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gottservant]

Your argument doesn't work. Proving that love exists doesn't mean that God must exist. That would be a non sequitur.

I think you're argumentative for no reason, and I can prove it "that's a non sequitur"

 

[Gottservant]

I have no problem with seeing love as we know it in the natural world in a symbolic sense as "God". Religious symbolism is fine -- it's a way of integrating a wide variety of ideas that makes them easier to digest. For example, a discussion of "justice" could be very dry and philosophical and difficult to absorb, but might be made easier to relate to by discussing myth about a personal god of justice.

So, it's when "God" is no longer taken as a religious symbol, but is instead considered to be an actually existing conscious, intelligent, personal deity, that the problem occurs.


eudaimonia,

Mark

God does not want to be less than symbolic, to anyone who relates to the world, as merely a point of reference.

So yes, you see my point exactly!

If I gave it a term, I might confuse you with my choice of words, but in layman's terms you are now calling apples "apples".

If you wanted to say fear can be defined as "impulse", therefore God can be defined as entity - that would be a similar thing.

I am not actually trying to set a hard problem, maybe I came across as too arrogant.

 

[The Engineer]

I think you're argumentative for no reason, and I can prove it "that's a non sequitur"

If you can prove that it's a non sequitur, then why don't you do it instead of just claiming you can do it?

Tell me, how does the existence of love prove the existence of God?

 

[Gottservant]

If you can prove that it's a non sequitur, then why don't you do it instead of just claiming you can do it?

Because I am quoting you. You don't see the point of me quoting you, therefore you what... me? And that means I... which... you? So in conclusion, we... what... when... where... *********?

Tell me, how does the existence of love prove the existence of God?

The existence of Love does not refer to reality, ergo there is something more than reality, ergo someone needs to take responsiblity, con ergo there is a God who takes responsibilty, even when it is uncertain how, because He has an attribute that makes that possible, meaning not only does God exist, He has attributes...

PS. Love accepts anything as proof

 

[Eudaimonist]

The existence of Love does not refer to reality, ergo there is something more than reality

Of course love exists in reality.

ergo someone needs to take responsiblity

Non-sequitur. The existence of Love says nothing about what someone needs to do without further argumentation.

con ergo there is a God who takes responsibilty

Non-sequitur. The existence of a need does not imply the existence of someone who satisfies that need, and even if there is someone who does satisfy that need, it doesn't have to be "God".

PS. Love accepts anything as proof

Love is gullible?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[The Engineer]

Because I am quoting you. You don't see the point of me quoting you, therefore you what... me? And that means I... which... you? So in conclusion, we... what... when... where... *********?

Sorry, I didn't realize you don't know how to use quotes.

I think I understand you less than I did before.

The existence of Love does not refer to reality,

It does. To say that love exists is the same as to say that love is a part of reality.

ergo there is something more than reality,

Your premise is false.

ergo someone needs to take responsiblity,

No.

con ergo there is a God who takes responsibilty,

Non sequitur.

even when it is uncertain how, because He has an attribute that makes that possible, meaning not only does God exist, He has attributes...

This doesn't make sense on so many levels...

PS. Love accepts anything as proof

Does that mean I can prove love by showing you a stone?

None of this made sense! You know what? You failed the Turing Test!

 

[Gottservant]

Woohoo.

You are comparing me to a computer, now when a computer is considered more advanced than human, I will be considered more human than you... oh but you knew that?

I think you're collective understanding of non-sequitur is misguided, allow me to demonstrate: .

Frustrating huh? But what? You still think I'm going to give you proof... ok now turn the mirror around, what did you just do to me??? Frustrating huh???

Now I've shown you a picture of yourself, return to reality without looking for it... where is it?

Ergo reality exists without proof.

 

[Gottservant]

Sorry, back for second. Realized I am not helping you understand the concept "make reference indirectly"

If every way you turn, leads in the same direction, you are headed... where?

See, indirect.

Let me know if this is new to you.

 

[Danyc]

What the...