[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] A problem at the bottom of reason

[Davian]

I think the "earth is flat" analogy is old and tired. <snip straw-man>

It is as old and tired as your "the Bible makes perfect sense to me" rhetoric.

 

[Davian]

Have you read the Bible?

Bits of it. Have you read Moby Dick?

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Your reasoning is based on one of the two statements below:

1. I assume reality is real, therefore I accept the truth of reality.

2. I accept the truth that reality is real.

Many will say that our reasoning is based on the assumption that reality is real. To this I pose the question: Were the first self aware humans capable of basing their reasoning on an assumption about reality? Do you think they were even intellectually capable of even considering reality to not be real?

Or is it more reasonable to think that they based their reasoning on the belief or acceptance of truth that reality is in fact real? If this is the case then our human reasoning as a whole is not based on an assumption, but rather based on the belief that reality is real.

Or do you think making an assumption about reality is the same as accepting the truth about reality?

What?

Reality is real. Real is the base word in reality. Whether I accept it as "true" or "false" or "believe" it or not that fact will not change.

And we humans (animals too) have no reason to believe that reality will change in its mechanics, that's innate.

 

[bhsmte]

Honestly, I don't think you'd be on this forum if God didn't want you here.

Does he choose everyone or not, that is the question?

 

[Chriliman]

Does he choose everyone or not, that is the question?

He chooses those who are worthy of being chosen. Those who are not worthy of being chosen are not worthy because they never valued truth, but only chose deception and fully submitted to wickedness and evil instead of righteousness and truth.

 

[Chriliman]

What?

Reality is real. Real is the base word in reality. Whether I accept it as "true" or "false" or "believe" it or not that fact will not change.

And we humans (animals too) have no reason to believe that reality will change in its mechanics, that's innate.

I agree, but since we can't prove that reality is in fact real, it then becomes most reasonable to believe its real, rather than to assume its real because we constantly get evidence through our senses that reality is real, so it then becomes unreasonable to assume reality is real, when we can clearly sense its realness and thus believing its real is most reasonable.

I'm saying someday you may receive evidence that God is real and it would then become very unreasonable for you to not believe God is real, especially when your belief in God is constantly confirmed by new evidence of His realness.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

I agree, but since we can't prove that reality is in fact real,

I could. By just existing. There's no way to falsify reality because everything is inside reality. You need reality for "proof" to exist. So in turn the "proof" for reality is reality itself.

it then becomes most reasonable to believe its real, rather than to assume its real because we constantly get evidence through our senses that reality is real, so it then becomes unreasonable to assume reality is [not] real, when we can clearly sense its realness and thus believing its real is most reasonable.

Belief not needed.

I'm saying someday you may receive evidence that God is real and it would then become very unreasonable for you to not believe God is real,

I'm not opposed to that happening. But it doesn't change my stance on the matter preemptively. Until I get solid objective evidence of said being existing, I have no reason to assume that it exists and there's anything more to reality than what I'm getting.

especially when your belief in God is constantly confirmed by new evidence of His realness.

The evidence people try to present is 110% of the time subjective and relative to their or someone else's situation. And often is incredibly easy to clip with rational thought.

 

[dlamberth]

I could. By just existing. There's no way to falsify reality because everything is inside reality. You need reality for "proof" to exist. So in turn the "proof" for reality is reality itself.

Would that include the unseen world like what the Shamans know and experience?

.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Would that include the unseen world like what the Shamans know and experience?

.

I could say that's probably just mental.

 

[Chriliman]

I could. By just existing. There's no way to falsify reality because everything is inside reality. You need reality for "proof" to exist. So in turn the "proof" for reality is reality itself.

This proof only proves it to you, you can't use the proof you receive to prove anything to me, vise versa, my proof only proves it to me, I can't use my proof to prove anything about reality to you.

Belief not needed.

By "believe" I mean acceptance of truth and it is needed because we humans cannot be absolutely objective when it comes to the reality we perceive, therefore, we must accept true reality as true since we can't be absolutely objective in regards to true reality.

The evidence people try to present is 110% of the time subjective and relative to their or someone else's situation. And often is incredibly easy to clip with rational thought.

Isn't the evidence you present to prove reality just 110% of the time subjective and relative to your perceptions? Your reality is different from my reality and neither of our realities perfectly represent the true reality.

 

[dlamberth]

I could say that's probably just mental.

They would say it's their reality and is an aspect of their consciousness.

.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

This proof only proves it to you, you can't use the proof you receive to prove anything to me, vise versa, my proof only proves it to me, I can't use my proof to prove anything about reality to you.

Objective proof isn't subjective proof. If I showed you a rock, unless you're a complete loon, you and I can both agree it's a rock.

If I showed you a magenta sweater and you said, "no, it's a mauve sweater" our ideas of what may be magenta and mauve are the only guidelines of proof that we'll accept. But objectively we can agree it's a sweater at least.

By "believe" I mean acceptance of truth and it is needed because we humans cannot be absolutely objective when it comes to the reality we perceive, therefore, we must accept true reality as true since we can't be absolutely objective in regards to true reality.

We can be objective on the existence of those that provide the basis for reasonable thinking, otherwise infinite regression would be the norm.

Isn't the evidence you present to prove reality just 110% of the time subjective and relative to your perceptions?

Nope. You and I can both perceive rocks as rocks. What type of rock they are is mauve/magenta but our thinking allows us to understand at a basic level that a rock is a rock.

Your reality is different from my reality

So are rocks not rocks?

and neither of our realities perfectly represent the true reality.

The true reality exists with or without your perception. If there is a rock in the desert without anyone to witness it, is it still a rock? Or is it not because you don't know it's there?

Whether you know that rock is there or not is irrelevant, because the rock is what it is. That's the "true" reality.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

They would say it's their reality.

.

Mauve/Magenta Read my above post.

 

[Davian]

He chooses those who are worthy of being chosen. Those who are not worthy of being chosen are not worthy because they never valued truth, but only chose deception and fully submitted to wickedness and evil instead of righteousness and truth.

Sounds like you

• Davian
• Nov 4, 2014

 

[Freodin]

He chooses those who are worthy of being chosen. Those who are not worthy of being chosen are not worthy because they never valued truth, but only chose deception and fully submitted to wickedness and evil instead of righteousness and truth.

Why, thank you!

Talking about truth, talking about reason... sooner or later the true face will show: all those who disagree with you are simply evil. They don't deserve good.

Feel the christian love, folks, feel the love!

 

[Chriliman]

Nope. You and I can both perceive rocks as rocks. What type of rock they are is mauve/magenta but our thinking allows us to understand at a basic level that a rock is a rock.

When you observed this rock were you able to take yourself out of your brain in order to be absolutely objective regarding the rock? If not then you are confined to your subjective mind when observing the rock, therefore, you can only be subjectively objective 100% of the time while you're confined to your subjective mind.

So are rocks not rocks?

Rocks are rocks, because its reasonable to believe this based on the knowledge we have gained about rocks, but show me a rock before I knew what a rock is and I'd be like what's that?

The true reality exists with or without your perception. If there is a rock in the desert without anyone to witness it, is it still a rock? Or is it not because you don't know it's there?

I believe a rock is a rock even if I'm not there to perceive it.

Whether you know that rock is there or not is irrelevant, because the rock is what it is. That's the "true" reality.

Right, so if it makes sense for my subjective mind to be required to realize a degree of objective "true" reality, it would also makes sense for an infinite timeless mind to be required to "realize" absolute truth about "true" reality. I put realize in quotes because this infinite timeless mind does not actually realize anything because it would know everything at all times in one moment of timelessness. This infinite timeless mind is God.

 

[dlamberth]

Objective proof isn't subjective proof. If I showed you a rock, unless you're a complete loon, you and I can both agree it's a rock.

Your example is incomplete. At the physical level when we beat on the rock with a hammer, you and I will see the same results. But there are other levels that need to be considered. Some see rock flowing like water. It's a very slow type of flow, but it's still flowing. Others see rocks in terms of energy and frequency. Some find a bit of awareness in rocks and even a bit of spiritual presence in them. So yes, you and I will would agree that a rock is a rock, but what do we "see" when we look at the rock? I suspect we would not be seeing the same thing.

.

 

[Chriliman]

Why, thank you!

Talking about truth, talking about reason... sooner or later the true face will show: all those who disagree with you are simply evil. They don't deserve good.

Feel the christian love, folks, feel the love!

Don't ignore the true evil in this world. The fact that you're here seeking truth, gives me hope that you'll find the Truth or rather the truth will find you.

 

[dlamberth]

Mauve/Magenta Read my above post.

I just want to make sure that I'm understanding what you wrote above. This is a question...So when a Shaman see's and works with a spirit animal, it is a spirit animal and is true reality for the Shaman because it's there for the Shaman to see, experience and use?

.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

I just want to make sure that I'm understanding what you wrote above. This is a question...So when a Shaman see's and works with a spirit animal, it is a spirit animal and is true reality for the Shaman because it's there for the Shaman to see, experience and use?

.

Subjective yes. But it's mostly mental. I could go on a very bad trip and start hearing my keyboard talk to me. Doesn't make that real either.