• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

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

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by Gottservant, Aug 22, 2012.

  1. Eudaimonist

    Eudaimonist I believe in life before death!

    +2,598
    Atheist
    Private
    US-Libertarian
    Whatever are you talking about? I can't make any sense of this.


    eudaimonia,

    Mark
     
  2. GrowingSmaller

    GrowingSmaller Muslm Humanist

    +339
    United Kingdom
    Humanist
    Private
    Whereof we cannot speak thereof we must remain silent - Wittgenstein iirc.
     
  3. Ken-1122

    Ken-1122 Newbie

    +1,422
    Atheist
    Private
    Animals recognize that which is real.

    K
     
  4. Gottservant

    Gottservant God loves your words, may men love them also Supporter

    +548
    Messianic

    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.
     
  5. Ken-1122

    Ken-1122 Newbie

    +1,422
    Atheist
    Private
    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
     
  6. Eudaimonist

    Eudaimonist I believe in life before death!

    +2,598
    Atheist
    Private
    US-Libertarian
    [​IMG]

    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
     
  7. Ken-1122

    Ken-1122 Newbie

    +1,422
    Atheist
    Private
    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
     
  8. Gottservant

    Gottservant God loves your words, may men love them also Supporter

    +548
    Messianic
    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?
     
  9. The Engineer

    The Engineer I defeated Dr Goetz

    629
    +23
    Atheist
    Private
    Your argument doesn't work. Proving that love exists doesn't mean that God must exist. That would be a non sequitur.
     
  10. Danyc

    Danyc Senior Member

    +94
    Humanist
    Single
    So you're defining god as "love" now.

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

    Eudaimonist I believe in life before death!

    +2,598
    Atheist
    Private
    US-Libertarian
    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
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2012
  12. Gottservant

    Gottservant God loves your words, may men love them also Supporter

    +548
    Messianic
    I think you're argumentative for no reason, and I can prove it "that's a non sequitur"
     
  13. Gottservant

    Gottservant God loves your words, may men love them also Supporter

    +548
    Messianic
    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.
     
  14. The Engineer

    The Engineer I defeated Dr Goetz

    629
    +23
    Atheist
    Private
    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?
     
  15. Gottservant

    Gottservant God loves your words, may men love them also Supporter

    +548
    Messianic
    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... *********?

    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
     
  16. Eudaimonist

    Eudaimonist I believe in life before death!

    +2,598
    Atheist
    Private
    US-Libertarian
    Of course love exists in reality.

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

    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".

    Love is gullible?


    eudaimonia,

    Mark
     
  17. The Engineer

    The Engineer I defeated Dr Goetz

    629
    +23
    Atheist
    Private
    Sorry, I didn't realize you don't know how to use quotes. :doh:

    I think I understand you less than I did before.

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

    Your premise is false.

    No.

    Non sequitur.

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

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

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

    Gottservant God loves your words, may men love them also Supporter

    +548
    Messianic
    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.
     
  19. Gottservant

    Gottservant God loves your words, may men love them also Supporter

    +548
    Messianic
    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.
     
  20. Danyc

    Danyc Senior Member

    +94
    Humanist
    Single
    What the...
     
Loading...