Can you prove the external world exists?

[GraceAbounds]

Well if you're questioning his existance, thats extreme doubt.

Yes, when I questioned His existence, I agree - it was extreme doubt.

There are plenty of times in my life when my faith was weak.

During the difficult time my husband and I are going through right now with him being out of a job - I find it more difficult to keep my faith level high. I'm human and I get 'down'.

 

[dt3]

Yes, all of my data could be false, and so could yours, yet like I have said 1,000,000 times in this thread, I don't care if this world is real or not. The quesiton does not matter to me, and I accept thenatural world as i see it. In that case, I look at the data like it is. What I believe in does not take faith, since I do not blindly follow it. Skepticism is the anti-faith.

If you "don't care" as you put it, then you would never choose one over the other. You choose science over religion, so on some level you care enough to have made that decision.

Also, you haven't "seen" everything that has been claimed by science. I'm sure you've read many accounts and opinions on a lot of it. But by your own admission, those accounts could be entirely inaccurate. Therefore, you have faith (And by faith, I mean definition #1 in Grace's post:1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.) in the people who have written those accounts and their analytical ability.

 

[IntruderLS1]

Well I think we can admit that we do not know enough about the vastness of the universe to say for certain HOW it all began. We all could be wrong. Knowing this, whats to say that there is some sort of process that we don't understand yet that could generate matter from nothing? This by no means that this force is sentient, but a nonsentient process in physics we do not account for as of yet. This is pure speculation, but it could very well be so. Right now, the big bang theory is the thing that makes the most sense when we look at the data.


Its also a physical impossibility that somehting could "always be".

Not if this thing existed outside of time. Something the physical universe cannot do.

 

[dt3]

Not if this thing existed outside of time. Something the physical universe cannot do.

Are you implying God doesn't have a watch? :willy_nilly:

 

[All Else Failed]

Yes, when I questioned His existence, I agree - it was extreme doubt.

There are plenty of times in my life when my faith was weak.

During the difficult time my husband and I are going through right now with him being out of a job - I find it more difficult to keep my faith level high. I'm human and I get 'down'.

I don't blame you, we're all human. I hope you and your husband's situation gets better.

 

[All Else Failed]

If you "don't care" as you put it, then you would never choose one over the other. You choose science over religion, so on some level you care enough to have made that decision.

Also, you haven't "seen" everything that has been claimed by science. I'm sure you've read many accounts and opinions on a lot of it. But by your own admission, those accounts could be entirely inaccurate. Therefore, you have faith (And by faith, I mean definition #1 in Grace's post:1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.) in the people who have written those accounts and their analytical ability.

Yes I would. Like I said, I accept the natural world as it is, and science exists in the natural world and explains it very well, so I choose that over religion which I think is just myth. The question of whether or not we exist doesn't even enter into the equation.

Its not faith that I accept what has been proven by science so far. It is the knowledge that science is the ultimate anti-faith which uses skepticism to continually test its points. You can't have pure faith and skepticism coexisting when it comes to the question of just accepting things at face value.

 

[All Else Failed]

Not if this thing existed outside of time. Something the physical universe cannot do.

That we know of.

 

[NightWarrior]

An explosion is a rapid expansion, but I suppose there is no need to quibble over this one.

No matter what, when you peel back the bang theory, EVENTUALLY, you have to have something from nothing. This is a physical impossibility.

What say you?

I saw this episode once on Star Trek where they used replicators to make Earl Grey tea. Where did that come from?

 

[All Else Failed]

I saw this episode once on Star Trek where they used replicators to make Earl Grey tea. Where did that come from?

magic :eek

 

[dt3]

Yes I would. Like I said, I accept the natural world as it is, and science exists in the natural world and explains it very well, so I choose that over religion which I think is just myth. The question of whether or not we exist doesn't even enter into the equation.

Its not faith that I accept what has been proven by science so far. It is the knowledge that science is the ultimate anti-faith which uses skepticism to continually test its points. You can't have pure faith and skepticism coexisting when it comes to the question of just accepting things at face value.

There's two reasons you would've responded this way. One is that you either don't read what you write, or that you don't read what others write.

The other reason is you don't like this definition of faith: "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing"

Saying "I accept what has been proven by science so far" means EXACTLY that you have a "confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness" of science.

Therefore you have faith in science.

I know this goes against what you believe in, so the odds are you'll dismiss it out of hand without a second thought.

I have faith in your abilities to ignore what goes against what you believe.

 

[All Else Failed]

There's two reasons you would've responded this way. One is that you either don't read what you write, or that you don't read what others write.

The other reason is you don't like this definition of faith: "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing"

Saying "I accept what has been proven by science so far" means EXACTLY that you have a "confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness" of science.

Therefore you have faith in science.

I know this goes against what you believe in, so the odds are you'll dismiss it out of hand without a second thought.

I have faith in your abilities to ignore what goes against what you believe.

The thing is I approach it with skepticism. Faith is not skepticism.

 

[All Else Failed]

Here is a article I think all of you should read on this matter. It sums up how I feel about the "science is faith" deal.

Atheist Perspective » Science is NOT another kind of faith

 

[CheshireCatGrin]

Meh.....the question has been around far longer than those movies. I'm just asking if you can without a doubt prove that what you perceive is really existing .

AllVenom,

Were you talking about the movie series?

I thought you were talking about an actual matrix question.

 

[All Else Failed]

I wasn't.

 

[TheOriginalJames]

I saw this episode once on Star Trek where they used replicators to make Earl Grey tea. Where did that come from?

no no, It's Tea, Earl Grey, Hot.

Otherwise the dumbass replicator won't know what the hell you're talking about.


I used to watch that waaaay too much growing up.

 

[NightWarrior]

AllVenom,

Were you talking about the movie series?

I thought you were talking about an actual matrix question.

Of course I was.

 

[IntruderLS1]

That we know of.

Okay then. I hate to break this to you then man, but you just admited that God is a possibility.

Everybody here will call me crazy (including you), but I can see you coming around in a few years. You grew up in the Bible. Remember Saul?

(Not trying to insult you. Just making a prediction based on experience, observation, and gut.)

 

[All Else Failed]

Okay then. I hate to break this to you then man, but you just admited that God is a possibility.

Everybody here will call me crazy (including you), but I can see you coming around in a few years. You grew up in the Bible. Remember Saul?

(Not trying to insult you. Just making a prediction based on experience, observation, and gut.)

Of course god existing is a possibility. Everything has a possibility. That doesn't mean it truly exists though if the probability of it existing is so small and microscopic that its ridiculous.

Haha no, I'm very much an atheist for life. You may have your theories but religion disgusts me too much to ever be a part of it again. I don't need religion to be happy.

 

[HouseOvaries]

I agree with AEF on some points. Religion should be something to not get "TOO" involved in. Some people take religion seriously where it comes their life.

 

[All Else Failed]

Religion shouldn't be gotten into at all, but thats just me.