Can you prove the external world exists?

[HouseOvaries]

Weird...but I'm not 100% sure that's all true. I've heard about your debating strategies, so don't think you're gonna change my religious views for any reason. >_>

 

[Tim]

I think that I may have a strong case for proving that the external world does exist....

Now the argument is suggesting that the real world may not exist, as if this were all a "dream" in my own mind... right?
That my hands are not real, that I am only imagining that I typing this. That my vision is not real and what I am seeing is nothing more than creations from my own mind/consciousness.

Now I thought about this and I come to the conclusion that this CANNOT be proven to be true or false within the confines of science. That leads me to think more along the lines of the metaphysical.

Now lets look at this from the standpoint that there is NO physical world and everything that I experience is a created in my own mind. That would mean that my thoughts are all that I am. If this were true and there was no physical "vessel" containing my essence, then if I were to ever stop thinking I would cease to exist. But that's not the case. This would lend to the fact that there is some sort of physical "vessel" that encompasses my being. Some sort of physical world around me, even if it is not as my reality dictates to me.

I would also like to point out that if my existence were not real and this is ALL a creation of my mind, then I suck at this game... since there are too many "Laws" that I have hindered my existence with... example, it was painful to have to type all of this, whereas I could have just imagined it and it should have appeared on the screen if I was any good at controlling my perceptual existence.....

That's my story and I'm sticking to it... since none of you really exist anyway.

 

[All Else Failed]

Weird...but I'm not 100% sure that's all true. I've heard about your debating strategies, so don't think you're gonna change my religious views for any reason. >_>

Um I never tried to de-convert someone. :confused

 

[TheOriginalJames]

No it doesn't.

come on people I had this question asked to me in 11th grade philosophy courses.

Where you were getting a philosophical education, I didn't take that course so all I could offer is an opinion.

 

[Tim]

Where you were getting a philosophical education, I didn't take that course so all I could offer is an opinion.

That's the whole point of philosophical discussions... that's all they are, opinions, a way to look at things differently. A way to expand your mind and view things in a way you would have never thought of before.

 

[Peter Parka]

Sorry if its too low in intelligence but my theory is thing happened what the hell?

 

[TheOriginalJames]

That's the whole point of philosophical discussions... that's all they are, opinions, a way to look at things differently. A way to expand your mind and view things in a way you would have never thought of before.

But opinions are made by observations, which he said aren't 100% provable, so in keeping with the spirit of the question in this thread, opinions are worthless.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

If I'm dreaming when I'm awake then what am I doing when I'm dreaming?

 

[All Else Failed]

If I'm dreaming when I'm awake then what am I doing when I'm dreaming?

Its just part of the illusion I guess.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

Gotta tell you tho. That dinner and cheesecake tonight was a damn tasty illusion.

 

[Tim]

Well Ron, was my explanation good enough for you?

 

[All Else Failed]

Well Ron, was my explanation good enough for you?

I did like it. Thank you for answering the thread quesiton.

 

[IntruderLS1]

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 know where the conversation is as of now, but I'll respond to this as I just read it...

1. I would agree with you that "Faith" alone does not constitute a religion. However, with all of the scientific evidence you have to support your ideas, a leap of faith is still required to accept that somewhere, somehow, a singularity formed and was able to light the fires of the universe. You can't see it, test it, or prove it. It is in fact a logical impossibility, and yet you will defend it to your last breath. ... This my friend is what I was talking about.

2. Atheism my not be commonly viewed as a religion by its practicing members, but there are in fact very few differences. You have a core set of beliefs based on observation and conjecture. There is no room in your mind that you could be wrong (faith). You activly attempt to spread your views and "convert" others. (As an asside, how many threads have you seen started that directly challenge the views and beliefs of atheism, that put together small montogas of reasons why belief in such a theory is folly?)

3. It undermines your attacks on religion, because in the end all you ever come back to is "There is no proof that God exists." Oh, you go about it different ways, but in the end, it's all about imperical evidence to you. Now you pose a paradoxical question to us that "prooves" nothing is proovable. I did by the way have to shake my head a little at your challange for somebody to answer the paradox... What was that all about? What did you come up with when you were in 11th grade that was so fabulous?

4. You say the evidence is not equal. I say it is. You say you are right. I say I am right. You say you have millions of supporters. I say I have millions of supporters.... You cannot speak of totality, and then expect to have everybody jump on the wagon you have decided is the right one.

5. You faith in science is largely based on the idea that we have come far enough in our learning and observation of the physical universe that our theories must now be correct. ... You told me once that you were a history major. What does history teach you about this thinking?

It teaches me that every generation has felt the exact same way. A large bulk of what you believe in so strongly today, will be laughed at by elementary school children in a hundred years. "hahaha How could they have thought such foolish things" they'll say.

I don't think even you will ask me to cite examples of this one.

 

[IntruderLS1]

My take on the original post:

It is an irrelevant question. We cannot know the answer beyond doubt.

We can choose to believe that nothing we do here will have everlasting consequences, and hope against hope we are correct, or we can choose to believe that the physical universe around us is reality, and must act acordingly.

If we choose to believe that nothing is real, and nothing matters, we still have to face the fact that individually, we (or I if you like) have consequences for what we do. If we decide to murder somebody because we know that they don't exist anyway, we will still be forced to live out the rest of our fantacy behind imaginary bars.

In short, no matter what the answer is, our response must logically be the same. We have to do the best we can with what we've got. When we get to the end, we'll either find out, or it will truly be just .. the end.

It is a question with two possible answers, and one possible solution. Therefore the answer does not matter.

 

[HouseOvaries]

My take on the original post:

It is an irrelevant question. We cannot know the answer beyond doubt.

We can choose to believe that nothing we do here will have everlasting consequences, and hope against hope we are correct, or we can choose to believe that the physical universe around us is reality, and must act acordingly.

If we choose to believe that nothing is real, and nothing matters, we still have to face the fact that individually, we (or I if you like) have consequences for what we do. If we decide to murder somebody because we know that they don't exist anyway, we will still be forced to live out the rest of our fantacy behind imaginary bars.

In short, no matter what the answer is, our response must logically be the same. We have to do the best we can with what we've got. When we get to the end, we'll either find out, or it will truly be just .. the end.

It is a question with two possible answers, and one possible solution. Therefore the answer does not matter.

What a way to end this thread...AEF will be pissed. :clap

 

[All Else Failed]

"Therefore the answer does not matter."


Um, thats what I said pages ago lmao

 

[All Else Failed]

I don't know where the conversation is as of now, but I'll respond to this as I just read it...

1. I would agree with you that "Faith" alone does not constitute a religion. However, with all of the scientific evidence you have to support your ideas, a leap of faith is still required to accept that somewhere, somehow, a singularity formed and was able to light the fires of the universe. You can't see it, test it, or prove it. It is in fact a logical impossibility, and yet you will defend it to your last breath. ... This my friend is what I was talking about.

2. Atheism my not be commonly viewed as a religion by its practicing members, but there are in fact very few differences. You have a core set of beliefs based on observation and conjecture. There is no room in your mind that you could be wrong (faith). You activly attempt to spread your views and "convert" others. (As an asside, how many threads have you seen started that directly challenge the views and beliefs of atheism, that put together small montogas of reasons why belief in such a theory is folly?)

3. It undermines your attacks on religion, because in the end all you ever come back to is "There is no proof that God exists." Oh, you go about it different ways, but in the end, it's all about imperical evidence to you. Now you pose a paradoxical question to us that "prooves" nothing is proovable. I did by the way have to shake my head a little at your challange for somebody to answer the paradox... What was that all about? What did you come up with when you were in 11th grade that was so fabulous?

4. You say the evidence is not equal. I say it is. You say you are right. I say I am right. You say you have millions of supporters. I say I have millions of supporters.... You cannot speak of totality, and then expect to have everybody jump on the wagon you have decided is the right one.

5. You faith in science is largely based on the idea that we have come far enough in our learning and observation of the physical universe that our theories must now be correct. ... You told me once that you were a history major. What does history teach you about this thinking?

It teaches me that every generation has felt the exact same way. A large bulk of what you believe in so strongly today, will be laughed at by elementary school children in a hundred years. "hahaha How could they have thought such foolish things" they'll say.

I don't think even you will ask me to cite examples of this one.

1) It doesn't take faith to believe in somehting that has been proven with data.

2) woahhhh when have I ever tried to de-convert someone? I must have missed that somewhere along the line.:confused In the end I don't care what people believe in. Hey, I would welcome threads that challenge atheism, it would be fun. The only reason I start threads on religion is to just start debate to sharpen minds instead of just doing nothing to make people think.


3) I never said I even take the thread argument to heart, or believe in it. I can't prove if we exist or not either way. If you read the thread, you would see that I don't really care if we exist or not, I take the natural world and reality as how I see it everyday. So, its as if the question doesn't even matter. The point of the thread wasn't to show what I think, its to just make people look at reality at a different angle.


4) I don't expect anyone to "jump on my bandwagon". We have established scientific data that show what the universe is and we have some theories on how it came to be. Could they be wrong? Sure, but thats the beauty of science, if we find better data we take it. Its just that from what I see, and what others see, the universe doesn't support a intelligent designer.


5) Science doesn't take any faith. its simple a scholastic process in which we make observations and make conjectures from there. Now where does faith come into that process? You're not in any way making some giant, celestial leap of faith when you make a hypothesis because you could be proven wrong and you KNOW that.



So what are these "foolish" things people will look back and laugh at? I can think of a few.

 

[GraceAbounds]

Great posts Scott.

 

[All Else Failed]

I found this quote that I like, and it applies here:

Science, in its purest form, is the *lack* of faith. The basis of science is to question everything, taking nothing for granted. The path that science takes is one where no matter what seems right, the question will always come up, "But what about...?" Granted, science relies on assumptions to forward its cause, but does not take these assumptions for fact. We treat some suppositions as postulations, but the truth is (excuse the wording) that science acknowledges that these assumptions are not the actual ways that the universe may work, but rather a model that we can use to better our understanding of the universe. Faith asks that we accept something, blindly and without reason. We are not to question faith. Science questions everything, and thus faith has no place in science.

 

[GraceAbounds]

... which came from this site:'
Faith has absolutely nothing to do with Science@Everything2.com
and written by someone named 'loon'

I love science - LOVE IT - and I have faith.

Faith does not mean that you can't or shouldn't ask questions. That is ridiculous. That is what I spend most of my time doing in my studies related to my faith - asking questions and finding answers.

Stating that not questioning things is the reason that faith should have no place in science is wrong.