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

[KCfromNC]

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

Who Do You Mean We Kemo Sabe

 

[Danyc]

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.

You mean, some confusion is inevitable when you speak nonsense.

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

What on earth are you talking about? Really?

I am giving him the same opportunity everyone on this planet apparently did thousands of years ago. He showed themselves to him. Apparently, this didn't contradict his nature, it didn't contradict reality, it was reality. He was really there (or so people tell us).

There is nothing stopping him from doing the same now. Nothing. At all.

There is no reason why he cannot show himself, besides these vague convoluted cop-outs and rabbit-trails that the religious give as some sort of weird attempt at philosophy.

 

[Gadarene]

There is nothing stopping him from doing the same now. Nothing. At all.

There is no reason why he cannot show himself, besides these vague convoluted cop-outs and rabbit-trails that the religious give as some sort of weird attempt at philosophy.

To say nothing of downright inconsistent. No reason why a behaviour is acceptable then and not now.

 

[TScott]

In response to my "There are many things that we all believe that are not 'evidenced in reality.'"

No, there are not.

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?

 

[Gadarene]

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?

Prior experience and experience of the behaviour of others. It gives a pretty good estimation.

 

[quatona]

In response to my "There are many things that we all believe that are not 'evidenced in reality.'"

Do you love your mother? Your father? Anyone?

No. No. Yes.
What´s that got to do with me believing in things that aren´t evidenced in reality?

Do you believe anyone loves you?

Not unless it´s evidenced in their behaviour.

What evidence can you give me for any of that?

Did you want to show that you believe in stuff that isn´t evidenced, or did you want to show that I believe in stuff that isn´t evidenced?

Do you believe that you will be alive tommorow?

I believe there´s a good chance I will be alive tomorrow, and there´s good evidence for this chance.

Made any plans?

Yes. Your point?

What evidence do you have that you will be alive tommorow?

You mean evidence for having a good chance to survive until tomorrow that I regard sufficient to make plans for the case I will live tomorrow?
Well, I´m in very good shape say the doctors. I don´t know that I have any enemies. I am living in rural area of a country that has a low rate of violence crimes etc. etc.

 

[TScott]

Prior experience and experience of the behaviour of others. It gives a pretty good estimation.

A pretty good estimation.
I agree, an estimation however is not good evidence because you cannot know what is really going on in someone elses head. They can say they love you, they can buy you stuff, they can snuggle and cuddle and they can be smoochy and goochy, but inside they could just be tolerating you. If that were the case, you may be able to sense it, to feel it.

Usually you believe somone loves you even though there is no real, tangible proof.

 

[TScott]

No. No. Yes.

OK, so you claim that you love someone. How would be able to prove that? What is your evidence?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Usually you believe somone loves you even though there is no real, tangible proof.

There proof is in the pudding. If she loves me, she will treat me with love. That is reason to think someone loves you, even if one can imagine some deception.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Danyc]

A pretty good estimation.
I agree, an estimation however is not good evidence because you cannot know what is really going on in someone elses head. They can say they love you, they can buy you stuff, they can snuggle and cuddle and they can be smoochy and goochy, but inside they could just be tolerating you. If that were the case, you may be able to sense it, to feel it.

Usually you believe somone loves you even though there is no real, tangible proof.

You're being quite silly right now. Really.

I 'believe' that my girlfriend loves me because, in addition to her saying so and her being a truthful person, we have shared much together, we have both helped each other through very hard times, even mental illness, and we have both shed tears over the luck we both have had in finding one another.

All of this is 'evidence in reality'. And now you're going to tell me that it doesn't matter because I can't know 'for sure', that she might be lying to me. And I would ask, what on earth is your point?

All you're spouting is what everyone already knows and accepts- that our senses are not perfect. That even if God showed up to me, maybe I'd be having a hallucination. I don't care. It would still be evidence.

Why doesn't God just do it already?

Oh, wait. I think we all know the answer to that.

 

[quatona]

OK, so you claim that you love someone. How would be able to prove that? What is your evidence?

Again: Why would I have to prove this to you? I didn´t ask you to believe it, and I don´t expect you to believe it without evidence.
You claimed that we all believe things without evidence, and when various posters contradicted you, you asked them if they loved someone in your attempt to demonstrate that they were believing things without evidence.
So what do I believe without evidence when I love someone?
Don´t change the horses midstream, please.

 

[Gadarene]

A pretty good estimation.
I agree, an estimation however is not good evidence because you cannot know what is really going on in someone elses head. They can say they love you, they can buy you stuff, they can snuggle and cuddle and they can be smoochy and goochy, but inside they could just be tolerating you. If that were the case, you may be able to sense it, to feel it.

Usually you believe somone loves you even though there is no real, tangible proof.

Yes, there is. Your prior experience of them, and your behaviour. It is much more likely that they are being truthful than lying. And if they are tolerating you, yes, you usually can pick up on it, because it will affect their behaviour.

Basically, the only way your scenario would be correct would be if you'd hooked up with someone who is the greatest actress and is willing for some reason to stay with you even though they dislike you. And now you're just being ridiculous - and I maintain that if we were discussing some other topic, such feeble objections would not even have come up, but some religious are just desperate to be right.

And all knowledge is estimation to some degree. Claims of absolute certainty (regarding claims themselves) are for fools. Estimation is the only knowledge we have.

 

[TScott]

You're being quite silly right now. Really.

Why? My posts seem to be in line with what we are discussing here.

The point is, and I alluded to this in my earlier post, that in many cases the proof for reality is only relevant to the observer. The proof of your love for your friend is only relevant to her, and the proof of her love for you is only relevant to you. It has no relevance for me or anyone else. But in many ways the same can be said for reality itself, because in the final analysis that is all that really matters to us as individuals. We only experience the universe through the lens of our senses, and with the reason in our own minds. Others can influence the way we think, no doubt, your friend because of what you share with her can convince you of her love. In the end, reality is going to take on the the attributes of our perception.

If you say you believe your friend loves you, how would I know otherwise?
If Gottservant says he is in communion with his God, who am I to say otherwise? If a Bodhisattva claims to be completely free of all delusion, why should I doubt it?

 

[Gadarene]

Why? My posts seem to be in line with what we are discussing here.

The point is, and I alluded to this in my earlier post, that in many cases the proof for reality is only relevant to the observer. The proof of your love for your friend is only relevant to her, and the proof of her love for you is only relevant to you. It has no relevance for me or anyone else. But in many ways the same can be said for reality itself, because in the final analysis that is all that really matters to us as individuals. We only experience the universe through the lens of our senses, and with the reason in our own minds. Others can influence the way we think, no doubt, your friend because of what you share with her can convince you of her love. In the end, reality is going to take on the the attributes of our perception.

Not quite. Reality is apparently commonly perceived, religious experience is usually all in one mind.

If you say you believe your friend loves you, how would I know otherwise?
If Gottservant says he is in communion with his God, who am I to say otherwise?

One can reasonably conclude that the friend exists (as it can be observed), not so for the deity.

Edit: And I repeat, this level of pedantry would not be necessary if there was actually indisputable evidence for God. But we have to be subjected to this tedious solipsistic rubbish because for all intents and purposes, there is no evidence for God.

 

[TScott]

...

I hate it when that happens. You know I just spent about 15 minutes of my time (valuable to me) answering your post in what seemed like a fairly reasoned discussion untill I saw your little droppings at the end.

 

[Gadarene]

I hate it when that happens. You know I just spent about 15 minutes of my time (valuable to me) answering your post in what seemed like a fairly reasoned discussion untill I saw your little droppings at the end.

And your ellipsis where you discarded my response is what, exactly? Three droppings in a line?

It's not my fault you spent 15 minutes writing a phrase that is easily countered. Try composing more concise arguments, or even just better ones.

Now, are you going to stop sulking and actually respond to the points I raised, or not?

 

[TScott]

Now, are you going to stop sulking and actually respond to the points I raised, or not?

No thanks. I always try hard not to be insulting to people here on this board. It's a Philosophy board on a Christian website. Now a may not be the best Christian, and by many of the standards set by Christians here I'm probably not a christian at all, but I respect that it is their site, and I respect their beliefs and assume in most cases that they are genuine. I believe your edit was immature, insulting and patronizing, and not condusive to philosophical discussion.
It's a Philosophy board. Not a politics or apologetics board. Free thinking should be encouraged, not discouraged. Your little edit discouraged any further discussion from me.

 

[Your Friend Jacob]

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

Hmmm...nice try at mockery, but try, try again. When explaining an watermelon, do you depict an orange? If you say no then your in agreance with me that your comparing just that, two things that have no relevance to one another. First and foremost they do not worship these things, they are rather a folktale, "urban legend" that is passed down to keep their kids from wondering off. The biggest difference in your argument is that no-one (sane) can claim that they have seen one. Many believers have seen, talk and have a relationship with God. (My self included)

 

[Your Friend Jacob]

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

Your trying to box God into one state of mind, your thinking which cannot be done. Thus it baffles you that it is beyond your comprehension, so anything that is beyond comprehension you toss to the side. If you were an open minded individual you would know that Christianity is the only religion that talks and supports the first and second law of thermodynamics, all the truth and pieces are there. It comes down to if your willing to try and understand. We get tid bits of knowledge of God, if your looking for everything at once your going to fall on your face like Isaac did. You must put forth the same effort that your wanting to get out....you reep what you sew.

God bless

 

[Your Friend Jacob]

Huh?



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



Everyone just dies.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I have a question for you and something to ponder.... I noticed your an atheist therefore you understand simple science/s. Isaac Newtons third law of thermodynamics states that EVERYTHING has an equal but opposite reaction. Science is based upon this principle so denying what I am about to say will violate everything you stand for, thus self defeating so bear with me. If Isaac Newtons law stands true then we can conclude that the physical has an opposite, and what is the opposite of the physical ? The spiritual ! Therefore it must exist !!

God bless you