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.
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
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.
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.
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.”
That’s right. You may believe they do not without proof.
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?
Then it behooves us to seek Him out.
Please establish a relation, other than one gratuitously presented, between an epistemology of spiritual revelation and one of reason (or science, for that matter).
A smokescreen? What do you imagine the screen is hiding?
When a Theist says that your doubts are a smokescreen, what is your response?
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
