Can you prove the external world exists?

[All Else Failed]

You're a clever one. ;^)


Thats actually the point of this thread, dt3. You can't empirically prove anything exists. :^D

 

[GraceAbounds]

LOL@Donnie

 

[dt3]

You're a clever one. ;^)


Thats actually the point of this thread, dt3. You can't empirically prove anything exists. :^D

This thread may not exist :ninja

 

[All Else Failed]

My point is.....is that theoretically, nothing could potentially exist outside of your own mind. Our brain works off of perception...one of the most unreliable, trick-able systems ever, and everything around you could be just one big illusion of your brain.

 

[dt3]

My point is.....is that theoretically, nothing could potentially exist outside of your own mind. Our brain works off of perception...one of the most unreliable, trick-able systems ever, and everything around you could be just one big illusion of your brain.

Which begs the question, how can you knock other people's belief in god, when you can't even prove the world around you exists?

 

[All Else Failed]

Which begs the question, how can you knock other people's belief in god, when you can't even prove the world around you exists?

because even though it is possible that we are being tricked, there is no evidence, empirically, that says this world is one big illusion. So, until we swallow the red pill, there's no reason to think that the natural world is some "matrix".

 

[dt3]

because even though it is possible that we are being tricked, there is no evidence, empirically, that says this world is one big illusion. So, until we swallow the red pill, there's no reason to think that the natural world is some "matrix".

There's also no evidence, empirically, that says this world isn't one big illusion.

How do you decide which to believe?

 

[All Else Failed]

There's also no evidence, empirically, that says this world isn't one big illusion.

How do you decide which to believe?

Pure and utter indifference.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

My point is.....is that theoretically, nothing could potentially exist outside of your own mind. Our brain works off of perception...one of the most unreliable, trick-able systems ever, and everything around you could be just one big illusion of your brain.

Again. Which brings me back to the matrix.

What is the matrix?

Now can I get a high five, thank you.

 

[IntruderLS1]

There's also no evidence, empirically, that says this world isn't one big illusion.

How do you decide which to believe?

Faith.

Spiritual and secular views on the universe are equally religious. They require equal faith and have equal evidence. (Which is why this question is such a surprise to be coming from AEF, as it undermines nine tenths of his arguments against religion.)

Somehow it tends to work out that the believers in one group tend to feel that the other group must somehow be totally daft to not see the "obvious" truth. :shrug

 

[All Else Failed]

Faith.

Spiritual and secular views on the universe are equally religious. They require equal faith and have equal evidence. (Which is why this question is such a surprise to be coming from AEF, as it undermines nine tenths of his arguments against religion.)

Somehow it tends to work out that the believers in one group tend to feel that the other group must somehow be totally daft to not see the "obvious" truth. :shrug

No they're not. "Faith" doesn't constitute religion. If you're one of those people that think atheism is somehow a religion....I don't know what to tell you then.

I would like to hear how this undermines anything I say about religion. My point of view is total indifference towards whether or not reality truly exists, and I accept the world how it is.

The evidence is not equal.

 

[NightWarrior]

This reality exists because I said it does. Since only 35% of what you read on the internet is truth, I could be right or I could be wrong. :dunno

 

[Breath]

If I can use a tool to measure a physical characteristic about an object, and another person (or another billion people) can use that same defined tool to duplicate the measurement of a physical characteristic about that same object...does that prove its existence?

 

[NightWarrior]

But does that tool exist?

 

[Breath]

...that same defined tool...

We'd hand it to one another.

*gives it to you*

 

[HouseOvaries]

We can't prove anythign without any evidence. Find that first...

 

[All Else Failed]

If I can use a tool to measure a physical characteristic about an object, and another person (or another billion people) can use that same defined tool to duplicate the measurement of a physical characteristic about that same object...does that prove its existence?

Personal observation is never reliable since, theoretically, your senses can always be tricked. Even if a million other people did the same experiment, that "fact" would still just be your observation and could possibly still not even exist.

 

[Breath]

Personal observation is never reliable since, theoretically, your senses can always be tricked. Even if a million other people did the same experiment, that "fact" would still just be your observation and could possibly still not even exist.

But if a "fact" or other measurable observation is observed consistently by millions of people, I still don't see how that negates the possibility of its existence. Standing by itself, yes, it is merely an observation. But if duplicated by millions of others, those duplicate observations define existence.

 

[GraceAbounds]

Originally Posted by IntruderLS1
Faith.

Spiritual and secular views on the universe are equally religious. They require equal faith and have equal evidence. (Which is why this question is such a surprise to be coming from AEF, as it undermines nine tenths of his arguments against religion.)

Somehow it tends to work out that the believers in one group tend to feel that the other group must somehow be totally daft to not see the "obvious" truth. :shrug

No they're not. "Faith" doesn't constitute religion. If you're one of those people that think atheism is somehow a religion....I don't know what to tell you then.

I would like to hear how this undermines anything I say about religion. My point of view is total indifference towards whether or not reality truly exists, and I accept the world how it is.

The evidence is not equal.

I don't think you are understanding what Scott is saying.

The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference.
The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference.
The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference.
And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference.

For one who is indifferent, life itself is a prison. Any sense of community is external or, even worse, nonexistent. Thus, indifference means solitude. Those who are indifferent do not see others. They feel nothing for others and are unconcerned with what might happen to them. They are surrounded by a great emptiness. Filled by it, in fact. They are devoid of all hope as well as imagination. In other words, devoid of any future.
~Elie Wiesel~

You can't feel indifference if you believe in something - in anything (secular or religion). You have to have faith in something in order to believe (even what one considers factual as that is perception as well) in anything with our perception being what it is or isn't. - Which is what both you and Scott are saying.

Hope that explains a bit better the point Scott was making.

 

[groundpounder]

excellently, gracie :clap

But I'm sure he'll have some relativist, coffehouse philosophy bullshit to counter it with