Religious People Are Less Intelligent, But We Win Anyway...

[Charles]

Charles, I don't think I use the word fact in our whole discussion. You are trying to fame this in a way I did not intend. Yes, you can not demonstrate a connection with reality deductively or empirically. But I have to ask, does everything have to be proven deductively or empirically before it is worthy of belief or mental assent? I mean I could not prove deductively or empirically that my mother loved me (God rest her dear soul).

If you go to the begining of our discussion you used the word "fact". That is a fact. :-) On mobile device so link is a bit difficult. Might give you an understanding of what I am pointing to.

[seer]

If you go to the begining of our discussion you used the word "fact". That is a fact. :-) On mobile device so link is a bit difficult. Might give you an understanding of what I am pointing to.

Ok, I believe you, but that doesn't change my point. And let me ask again Charles, does everything have to be proven deductively or empirically before it is worthy of belief or mental assent?

[Charles]

Ok, I believe you, but that doesn't change my point. And let me ask again Charles, does everything have to be proven deductively or empirically before it is worthy of belief or mental assent?

So you want to change topic instead of talking about a possible contradiction? To answer your question then, no. But non contradictory it must be....

[Bill the Cat]

Moderated By: Bill the Cat

Charles, please set your faith tag in your profile immediately

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[Sparko]

I like that story.

What I noticed is that seemingly you seem quite able to distinguish between dream and reality in the end. So even though you show an interesting aspect of this, you actually also point to the fact that even in difficult situations we end up finding a way to differ between dreaming and being awake.

My point was that while in the DREAM I could not distinguish between the dream and reality. Only when I was actually awake could I tell the difference. Or could I? I could have still been in another dream and would not know that until I woke up. and so on. onion skin dreams.


exactly. You just tanked your own argument.
by george I think you have got it! We can't know if we are in a matrix or not. If you "wake" from the matrix (or dream) all you can be certain of is that the previous state was the matrix or a dream. You still can't be certain of your current state. You could still be in a dream or a matrix. If you wake up again, you would know the previous two states were fake, but not your current one. it could still be fake or it could be real. You only know what your senses and memories are telling you.



I am still waiting on you to provide the logical proof that what we experience is actual reality or at least provide that cite or link to the "hundreds of pages" that you claim does so. So far all you have done is handwave away my and seer's posts. And the scientific papers I linked to earlier that says that there is no way to know if we are in a simulation or not.

[Sparko]

In the beginning God created the matrix? If someone created it but in a way completely different from the one people would hold according to the Bible I would be rather careful claiming I was more right than anyone else...

I said "theists" not "christians"

Basically theism believes that a supreme being created the universe and us. We call him God.

If we are in a matrix, then some supreme being(s) did create this simulated universe, ala Tron. They may be human, or alien but they are superior to us simulated creatures. They made us and the universe. They are pretty much the definition of "God" - so all the atheists who claim that there is no God are wrong. And the atheists that propose the simulation hypothesis, if they are right, are doubly and ironically wrong.

Who knows, there could even be a digital afterlife! Your program could be transferred to a different simulation after you "die"

But the kicker is, if the simulation hypothesis can be true (and as I have shown scientists actually give it a high probability) then the probability is just as likely that in a real universe there could be a God who created everything and we would be just as clueless to detect him as the sims would be to detect their creator.

[seer]

So you want to change topic instead of talking about a possible contradiction? To answer your question then, no. But non contradictory it must be....

No, it is not a contradiction - like saying that it is a fact that my mom loved me even though I could not demonstrate it deductively or empirically.

[Charles]

No, it is not a contradiction - like saying that it is a fact that my mom loved me even though I could not demonstrate it deductively or empirically.

No. Cause that is very likely and almost certainly was the case. But in the other case we are talking about a claim that cannot possibly be true.

[seer]

No. Cause that is very likely and almost certainly was the case. But in the other case we are talking about a claim that cannot possibly be true.

No, back to my original point - it is a fact that I can not demonstrate it deductively or empirically that my Mom loved me. Likely or near certainty (i.e. probability) does not enter the picture. And I never say that it can not be true that we actually connect to reality.

[Charles]

No, back to my original point - it is a fact that I can not demonstrate it deductively or empirically that my Mom loved me. Likely or near certainty (i.e. probability) does not enter the picture. And I never say that it can not be true that we actually connect to reality.

But it had to be trough the leap of faith. And that was a fact (if I understood you correct). But before we take that leap of faith there is no reality in which facts can even exist.

[seer]

But it had to be trough the leap of faith. And that was a fact (if I understood you correct). But before we take that leap of faith there is no reality in which facts can even exist.

Charles you are losing me. When I say a leap of faith I'm speaking of believing that something is true apart from deductive (i.e. logical) or empirical justification. Like my Mother's love or as I mentioned other minds. I can not prove that you have a similar internal life, or qualia as me. Yet I believe that that is the case.