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

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,106.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
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?

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.

Do you believe that you will be alive tommorow? Made any plans?

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

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.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,106.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
[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.

Yes, if we ignore reality then what you're saying might have some validity. But doing that would be insane, quite literally.[/FONT]
 
Upvote 0

TScott

Curmudgeon
Apr 19, 2002
3,353
161
76
Arizona
Visit site
✟11,974.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Politics
US-Democrat
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.
In the first place you are the one who is supplying evidence in lieu of proof.

But more importantly I believe this conversation would be best served by concentrating on reality itself first and foremost. It has been determined that there clearly is no universally accepted proof that any particular deity exists. It is pointless and circular to argue that.

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.

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.
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
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.
(emphasis added)
Double standard. The fact that people believe in god(s) is undisputed, anyways.

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.
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.
 
Upvote 0

TScott

Curmudgeon
Apr 19, 2002
3,353
161
76
Arizona
Visit site
✟11,974.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Politics
US-Democrat
(emphasis added)
Double standard. The fact that people believe in god(s) is undisputed, anyways.
why do you insist on continuing a stupid, pointless, circular argument? Aren't you better than that?
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.
Is there a point of discussion there? Or is it just rhetorical posturing?
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
why do you insist on continuing a stupid, pointless, circular argument?
Feel free to point out what about my argument was stupid, circular and pointless.
Aren't you better than that?
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.
Is there a point of discussion there?
I don´t know. If you agree with what I said there isn´t.
Or is it just rhetorical posturing?
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.
 
Upvote 0

TScott

Curmudgeon
Apr 19, 2002
3,353
161
76
Arizona
Visit site
✟11,974.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Politics
US-Democrat
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 see no ad homs.

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.

Ok as to the second part of your post I see that you were posing a question.. I apologize.

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.
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
I see no ad homs.
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.

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.
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.



Ok as to the second part of your post I see that you were posing a question.. I apologize.
No biggie.

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.
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).
The question discussed (and the one I asked you in my previous post) was: Do new scientific findings about "reality" make a good case for declaring "reality" non-existent or even only doubt its existence?

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.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,380
704
45
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
Wow... I just read over everything (quickly).

The idea that you can't prove love, is relevant. Definitely.
The idea that you don't correlate relevance with irrelevance or force with inaction, is relevant. Completely.

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...

You might want to read the first half of that again, since it is the crux of the argument I initially made from a spiritual point of view. In terms of arguments against, what I am saying is "You are saying you want God to manifest, but you don't want to become an observer in the reality where He will manifest and you are saying you want what God does to be memorable, but you don't want to be a believer in the Person in whom He will manifest"
But how can God manifest if you will not observe? And how will you remember, if you will not believe?

That said, I still think the test you are using is more important than the denial you support by confusing it:
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...

Jesus?

Do you think maybe Jesus, is the answer here?
Let's see, He was _in_ reality: check. He said what _God_ would say in reality: check. He said stuff about reality that was consistent with _reality_: check.

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. What is more, we could enter through Him, beyond reality, because He is the Door to reality, and beyond it.

So you see, I am not offering you the impossible, with God.
 
Upvote 0

Eudaimonist

I believe in life before death!
Jan 1, 2003
27,482
2,733
57
American resident of Sweden
Visit site
✟119,206.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
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...

This sounds too much like: "If you wear rose colored glasses, you will come to the realization that the world is pink."

If you want to observe something, I have no doubts that you'll interpret something as conforming to your desire. But are you seeing (interpreting) something that is actually there, or are you seeing what you want to see?

But how can God manifest if you will not observe?

I'm happy to observe, but I'm not going to believe in order to justify belief. This is just playing a mind-game with oneself.

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?)

I don't see how imagination is a good test of anything.

Ok but you are saying you don't want to give reality up... that means you're stuck, right?

Stuck with reality? That sounds like a good deal.

You need someone to come and prove God to you, without forcing you to give up reality...

Yes, I would very much like to not give up reality, which is the equivalent to giving up reason and sanity.

Do you think maybe Jesus, is the answer here?

Not particularly, because I'm not convinced that Jesus is even an historical person, and even if he was historical, he isn't around today.

Ok so did he provide a way to believe in reality without referring to reality? Yes.

No. The whole idea of believing in reality without reality is silly and pointless.

He said we could believe in Him, instead of reality.

That's like believing in insanity, instead of sanity.


eudaimonia,

Mark
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,106.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
In the first place you are the one who is supplying evidence in lieu of proof.

Which isn't a problem, since you specifically asked for evidence in post 104.

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.

If you're going to focus on reality, let's stick to it rather than bringing up hypothetical situations which are the opposite of what really happens.

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.

This doesn't even parse. If there are multiple realities, then that is reality. Sounds like some sort of equivocation going on here.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,632
15,950
✟484,106.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
But how can God manifest if you will not observe? And how will you remember, if you will not believe?

This is disingenuous at best. Atheists believe in lots of stuff, just not gods. So the question shouldn't be "why don't atheists believe in anything?", because that's not a situation which actually happens. The question should be "why are the steps for belief in god so different from those needed to believe in the rest of reality?". Or more simply "why does god act differently than things we agree are real?"
 
Upvote 0

TScott

Curmudgeon
Apr 19, 2002
3,353
161
76
Arizona
Visit site
✟11,974.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Politics
US-Democrat
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.
Questions are hardly attacks, but if you saw them as such I apologize.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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. This is known as the Anthropic Principle and IMO gives a much different meaning to the question, how do we know that reality exists. 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.

Rambling, I know, but I'll try to do better in this discussion when I get home...been traveling the past week and not able to give this the time it deserves.
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
Scott, thanks for your thoughtful and explanatory reply!
Questions are hardly attacks, but if you saw them as such I apologize.
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.

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 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).

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.
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.

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.
That´s not even an "if" for me. In my view that´s a given.
This is known as the Anthropic Principle and IMO gives a much different meaning to the question, how do we know that reality exists.
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.
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.
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.
 
Upvote 0

TScott

Curmudgeon
Apr 19, 2002
3,353
161
76
Arizona
Visit site
✟11,974.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Politics
US-Democrat
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.
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, 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 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.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums