You are guilty of the fallacy of equivocation, using two separate meanings of the word “reason” as if they had the same meaning.
“Being reasonable” describes an attitude of behavior in interpersonal relations.
“Exercising reason” describes the specific action of applying logic.
They are not the same thing.
No, you merely presuppose it. You’re right, sorry.
I suppose God IS Jesus if God is an empty set, and therefore a proper subset of the set of all biblical Jesuses (which has exactly one member), meaning all (zero) Gods are Jesuses (also, all Gods are striaght, lesbians, unicorns, and non-unicorns).
To quote Swedenborg on the matter:
“Anybody can recognize that the basic assumptions a person makes, even when completely false, govern him, and that all knowledge and reasoning buttress those assumptions. For countless flattering ideas occur to him to confirm him in falsities. Consequently when a person’s basic assumption is to believe nothing until he sees and understands it, he cannot possibly believe; for spiritual and heavenly things are neither visible to the eyes nor comprehensible in mental images. But the true order is for a person to become wise from the Lord, that is, from His Word. In that case everything follows as it should, and he is also enlightened in matters of reason and of fact. Indeed nobody is forbidden to acquire knowledge, since it is useful for life and gives delight. And the person in whom faith resides is in no way forbidden to think and to talk as learned people in the world do. But he does so from the premise of belief in the Lord’s Word and of confirming spiritual and heavenly truths by means of natural truths, using as far as is possible the terminology of the learned world. Consequently his premise must be the Lord, not self; the former is life, while the latter is death.” -Arcana Coelestia #129, Emanuel Swedenborg
The testing of those assumptions in the real world. If one has no outside knowledge to refer to, one might assume that eating cheeseburgers three times a day would be a wonderful thing, but when this assumption is tested in the real world one finds out that this ignorant assumption is an unreasonable on to make.
Thank you, the post I deleted was an attempt to get this across, but not nearly as eloquently.
But that testing is based on so many assumptions. First and foremost, you are assuming that this world is real. That is not something we can agree on.
This discussion is quickly turning disappointing.
As a matter of philosophy, sure, solipsism and Idealism (the philisophical monistic kind, not in the sense of how a plucky, naive young lad views the world) are just fine. There’s nothing, a priori, necessarily preventing them from being true. However, assuming the world around you is real tends to be kind of useful for functioning in day to day life.
There are more real realities than this world. Just because most people assume something doesn’t make it reasonable.
Care to prove this assertion – empirically or logically is fine. The null hypothesis is that only this reality exists, the burden of proof is on you to prove there are more realities. And if you posit the somewhat well formed idea of multiple universes (from quantum physics), then it’s up to you to show why these alternate universes are possible or likely to have significantly different physical laws than this one.
You’re all starting with basic beliefs for no reason. You’ve just accepted them and don’t dare question them. If you start with the idea that you are real and this world is real, you are completely limited by that.
There’s no reason to use that as a null hypothesis.
The assumption that this world is real is one we both make. This can be shown by your own actions during the day-you get up, you eat meals, you follow a schedule, you refrain from stepping out into oncoming traffic, you earn money, you send off payments for debts that are owed, you walk around trees instead through them, you respond automatically to others in one form or another, etc. I doubt that at any time during the day do you consider making any choices that run counter to the established reality of this world, and I doubt very much that you have ever gotten up in the morning and decided anything along the lines of “Today I will assume that tapwater tastes like grape soda”. No, you assume that the world you live in is very real, because every action you take, conscious and unconscious, reflects that assumption. Don’t feel as if your beliefs are weak though-the same held true for Swedenborg.
I’m not sure what brought you to that conclusion, but it’s not helping your argument. And you should look at tomndebb’s post regarding reason vs. reasonable.
But you don’t see that first I assume there is a world more real than this one, that governs this one. The only reason I take these actions in this world is because of that world. I first assume that that world is real. I have no reason to assume this world is real before I assume that that one is.
Yes, I’ve taken philosophy courses and debated with some really advanced people. It is difficult to posit a good argument for why you don’t exist (“I think therefore I am” tends to cover that one pretty well) – but the view has been entertained by most of us. It is certainly possible, and relatively easy to construct a scenario for why the world around us isn’t real (brain in a vat theory, solipsism, collective unconscious dream, Idealism, etc) – but like I said, it’s mostly an academic objection, there is simply no good reason to assume that what we perceive is entirely, or even mostly false.
So far your argument consists f the same tactics conspiracy theorists and stoners like to use “If you just OPENED YOUR MIND and stopped being a SHEEPLE you’d see what a fool you are and agree with me in an instant!”
Reasonable:
a : being in accordance with reason
We’re missing some basics that have to be supplied before this can be debated.
Please post proof of the existence of a god of any kind. Don’t quote theology or bible verses. Post reproducible, undeniable proof.
That’s not the point of this thread.
Then you’re making extra assumptions that are unneccessary. Rule zero of logic is Occam’s Razor – if it doesn’t need to be, then don’t assume it is. It is not necessary for there to be a higher order reality, so until evidence comes up that forces it to be the best fitting explanation, it is probably false.
That said, there are some very well founded theories that we’re a simulation of a simulation of a simulation [etc…], and some say that statistically it’s probably true, but again, it’s an academic objection, it doesn’t really have any bearing on how the world around you acts.