# Reality **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 31, 2000, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality/31520 "2000-08-31T17:55:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2000, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality/31520/41 "2000-09-01T14:00:38Z")
Your logic is false for all to see! Of course we all lack pure objectivity, but peer we do although misty Through the lens of consensus reality. Does this alter reality to subjectivity? Reality exists for all to see But God remains hidden from you and me. The one and the other are different and not the same. I would not beleive they are on a plane. I would not beleive it in a box. I would not beleive it with a fox. I would not beleive it here nor there. I would not believe it anywhere. Your views remain hopelessly agrarian (hey, it works) my poor befuddled Libertarian. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2000, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality/31520/42 "2000-09-01T14:08:03Z")
**Scylla** A rhyme epistemology! I love it! Why not! agrarian - Libertarian 😃 You might find it interesting that my world-view makes a perfect Haiku! * * * Objectivism Libertarianism Christianity * * * Cool, eh? I therefore declare by the Haiku epistemology that my world-view is correct! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2000, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality/31520/43 "2000-09-01T14:11:47Z")
Haiku pales before the perfect art of Seussian verse. Mine is better yours is worse. besides your logic is flawed you see. We learned that back in Philosophy 103 ---
**Author:** ![Spider\_Woman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Spider\_Woman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spider_Woman)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2000, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality/31520/44 "2000-09-01T14:21:53Z")
> [@](#): > > I think it is fair that, if a person demands proof of God’s existence, she accede to a demand that she first prove her own. I agree :D. [Oh, scylla, please come write us a limerick at [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=35381&pagenumber=3](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=35381&pagenumber=3) this thread, pretty please? :)] [How about you, lib? :)] ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2000, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality/31520/45 "2000-09-01T14:29:29Z")
**Scylla** But you are wrong, I dare to say! Wrong tomorrow, wrong today! I exist because I can, just like any other man. Women don’t exist, you see, because they have to sit to pee. So there! So there! You have your proof. Without a single logic goof. Don’t give me epistemology. Just give me a pissed apology. ---
**Author:** ![dixiechiq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@dixiechiq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dixiechiq)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2000, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality/31520/46 "2000-09-01T14:29:45Z")
> [@](#): > > And one more thing equally important. > > Maybe we can all learn to have a bit more patience with one another’s subjective reference frames. Perhaps the man who says “God exists” can co-exist with the man who says “God does not exist,” and the two of them can understand why the other believes as he does, and stop demanding ridiculous proofs of one another. lack of belief in something is not the same as belief in that same something. i don’t have to prove that unicorns do not exist. the burden is upon those that claim existence. the abstraction called god, if real, would be of major importance to every being on this and every other planet. and due to the profound implications existence of such a thing would have upon reason and science, proof needs to be quite rigorous and firm. this smokescreen you are putting up about proving the existence of each other, while intellectually interesting, is only a smokescreen. i don’t believe that you actually doubt the exitence of myself and the other posters to this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2000, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality/31520/47 "2000-09-01T14:35:45Z")
You will be filled with astounded elation as I reveal to you female catheterization Liberated, they can stand and pee live as equals in man’s reality This you cannot deny (though no doubt you will probably try) Hence, no apology ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2000, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality/31520/48 "2000-09-01T14:40:32Z")
> [@](#): > > I think it is fair that, if a person demands proof of God’s existence, she accede to a demand that she first prove her own. That’s one of the best quotes ive heard in a long time. I can already tell i love this guy and I hate him at the same time, I cant prove it though 😃 ---
**Author:** ![TwistofFate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@TwistofFate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TwistofFate)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2000, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality/31520/49 "2000-09-01T14:56:57Z")
A great debate on reality is too great a debate for me, you see. so I will sit back and cognitate on my inability to iterate my simple views on existance without error or recompance For though Decartes had dwelt on much, “because I think, I am” (as such) for my claim I have no proof, (so please inform if it’s aloof) to prove existence you must have ample unexistence for to sample for unless both sides you have tried you’re only claiming frome one side. “Impossible!” I hear you cry, “I know” would be my own reply. “for if it was you did not exist, you could not think, and would be pissed!” so I revised Descatres own plan its now “I drink, therefore I am.” ---
**Author:** ![Spider\_Woman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Spider\_Woman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spider_Woman)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2000, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality/31520/50 "2000-09-01T15:03:49Z")
I’ve been looking for a sig line (if I can figure out how to use them). If Cisco doesn’t want that quote, may I use it? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2000, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality/31520/51 "2000-09-01T15:07:54Z")
Dammit TwistofFate! nobody asked you to cogitate but “poof” now you am but I don’t give a damn Don’t touch my Merlot '98 ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2000, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality/31520/52 "2000-09-01T15:09:33Z")
**DixieChiq** > [@](#): > > lack of belief in something is not the same as belief in that same something. Of course. It is opposite. > [@](#): > > i don’t have to prove that unicorns do not exist. That’s right. You may believe they do not without proof. > [@](#): > > the burden is upon those that claim existence. What burden? If, in their reference frame, they have seen unicorns, why does any burden extend to some other reference frame (such as yours) that they cannot even experience? > [@](#): > > the abstraction called god, if real, would be of major importance to every being on this and every other planet. Then it behooves us to seek Him out. > [@](#): > > and due to the profound implications existence of such a thing would have upon reason and science, proof needs to be quite rigorous and firm. Please establish a relation, other than one gratuitously presented, between an epistemology of spiritual revelation and one of reason (or science, for that matter). > [@](#): > > this smokescreen you are putting up about proving the existence of each other, while intellectually interesting, is only a smokescreen. A smokescreen? What do you imagine the screen is hiding? When a Theist says that your doubts are a smokescreen, what is your response? > [@](#): > > i don’t believe that you actually doubt the exitence of myself and the other posters to this thread. Well, you’re right. But that is a conclusion I have reached as a result of my own experience. The existence of God, same-same. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2000, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality/31520/53 "2000-09-01T15:13:30Z")
**Spider Woman** > [@](#): > > I’ve been looking for a sig line (if I can figure out how to use them). If Cisco doesn’t want that quote, may I use it? As you wish. **Cisco** > [@](#): > > That’s one of the best quotes ive heard in a long time. I can already tell i love this guy and I hate him at the same time, I cant prove it though. I pray that your intellectual and moral journey here at Straight Dope will be as fulfilling and edifying as mine has been. These are a wonderful bunch of people. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2000, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality/31520/54 "2000-09-01T15:19:38Z")
Ah – a lovely thread. My kind of metaphysics. Lib is, of course, correct that no epistemology can be proven valid in its own terms. The set of valid epistemologies is necessarily empty until the first member is accepted axiomatically. All of this, of coiurse, pales to the real issue: Suessian doggerel vs haiku for epistemological champion of the 'verse. The truth, of course, reveals itself below. There once were two styles poetic Engaged in a righteous polemic Haiku claimed a crown And Suess threw him down But we all know the king is the limerick ---
**Author:** ![soulsling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@soulsling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/soulsling)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2000, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality/31520/55 "2000-09-01T15:22:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > **I equals I. Before cognition there is the sense of “I.” There can be no sense of I without one who senses. I sense. I sense. I am he. He who senses, that is me. Is that proof enough for thee? (though I cannot prove you to be.)** and > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Libertarian_If you are to find God (assuming such a desire), then you must do so using the hand dealt to you: your own consciousness, a reference frame that is closed to me and to everyone else. So, is Occams razor necessary to use here? Before thinking, before any sense of “I”. Just that stuck moment where if someone where to ask you, where does that “I” come from? Or, if you will, where does God come from? With only logical, and acceptable proof to back your answer, when you attempt to answer, that brief moment of being stuck with no answer, this “not knowing” state of mind, Is that the same in all of us? Is this something we share? Is that the proof of our existence, since we all share it? Because if someone isn’t stuck at that brief moment, and can answer, then perhaps they are the only one that exist… Too many words we seek to use Too many theories and thoughts go abused Only the intellectual stands in our way of proving existence is just what we say. Perhaps just agreement that we do is all? Understanding like Lib said, and being mindful? (it’s a stretch, i know) Such great debates on reality Prove only we have mentalities Not these “real” physicalities and boy is my poetry a shame! ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2000, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality/31520/56 "2000-09-01T15:27:01Z")
I layed awake till half past three Trying to prove that I was me. It then occured to me by chance That this was all a silly dance. I need not prove to Lib, you see, That I exist and so does he. I merely have to make the claim - His epistemology is laim! And as he cannot prove to me That he exists - objectively. I am then free to make the choice of what is fact and what is noise. Peace. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2000, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality/31520/57 "2000-09-01T15:29:13Z")
Ah, but Lib, I must address > [@](#): > > If, in their reference frame, they have seen unicorns, why does any burden extend to some other reference frame (such as yours) that they cannot even experience? I place no burden upon anyone to prove they have seen a unicorn in their reference frame. I do place some burden upon those who claim that I could see a unicorn in my reference frame. I place additional burden upon those who claim that they know the manner in which I must look to see a unicorn in my reference frame and then conclude from my lack of seeing that I have not looked properly. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2000, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality/31520/58 "2000-09-01T15:35:27Z")
Fair enough, Spiritus. And well said. ---
**Author:** ![Spider\_Woman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Spider\_Woman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spider_Woman)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2000, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality/31520/59 "2000-09-01T15:39:23Z")
Now I just have to figure out how to use it (presently I’ll go practice at ATMB). 🙂 **Spiritus Mundi** posts this: > [@](#): > > There once were two styles poetic > Engaged in a righteous polemic > Haiku claimed a crown > And Suess threw him down > But we all know the king is the limerick. I think I’m in love. **Puhleese** post at the limerick thread. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![oldscratch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ed655f/32.png) [@oldscratch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oldscratch)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2000, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality/31520/60 "2000-09-01T16:02:31Z")
Here is what I submit. There are two epistemologies, idealism and materialism. Both revert to two axioms. One, that thoughts create matter, one that matter creates thoughts. Neither can be conclusively disproven. Otherwise we wouldn’t be having this conversation right now. However, as an idealist I can not conclusively prove mine or anyone elses exsistence. God could very well exist. This is why I have never tried to prove that God does not exist, only the folly of idealists trying to prove to others that he exists. As a materialist I can indeed prove the existence of my self. I can also reject the belief in God quite handily. Again I admit that this rests on an axiom that matter creates thoughts, one that I can provide proof of again and again. And yet the staunchest idealists will never be swayed by my arguments. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality/31520.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reality/31520.md?page=4)