TheRealNihilist

Lets try this again.  It's a yes or no question.  Is your reality subjective? (based how you see the world)

False, you can't know what I'm experiencing.  Try again. 

I don't know what you mean by relative 

If your senses are subjective like you say and you're proving them with your senses, then your proof is also subjective. 

Haven't you ever heard of repeatable results or control groups?  Get some science in your head please

So now we've revealed that all of your proof is subjective and your base proof is an assumption.  

So you're using the pictures to prove the pictures that proved the other pictures? 

Are you ready to concede that maybe your thought process might have a flaw in it?

1.  Is reality subjective? 

2.  How do you know? 

3.  Is that reason subjective? 

4.  Does that mean your proof of subjectivity is subjective?

5.  How do you prove that proof?

6.  Is the proof for that proof subjective? 

7.  Does that mean your proof of your subjective proof of subjectivity is also subjective?

We see things with different levels of quality, but we don't see things differently.  The only thing that is different is our opinions and distinct physical features.  You might have better eyes, but both of our eyes do the same thing.  

I'm not proving the apple, the apple is proving itself to me.

We are not our senses.  We are our perception. 

 I would at least know some of the rules.

So to say we can't know anything about the outside forces is simply false. 

Existence is not an assumption and we can and have proved it.

Existence is defined in such a way that humans exist.

If I were God and I never met a human for some reason, then I wouldn't even know that god was a word.  I would call myself what I called myself and it would be true by identity.

It's more like the skill trees in Sky Rim.  You have a bunch of starting points and there are places where they branch off and not every branch is connect with the same base.  If you want to ultimately derive it, Everything would converge at perception.  But that would be the only ubiquitous connection in the tree. 

The force is random and has not mind.  In this case, we would probably see enough instances of it to have a hint of something going on, but it would probably remain a mystery for a long time if not forever. 

If the force is an intelligent agent that is able to pop in and out of reality on a whim, it would necessarily follow that the entity would have no way of perceiving us without at stepping into our reality first. 

So every time it pops in, it would have a random chance of winding up in the wrong place at the wrong time

I would say we could never know much of anything about his being unless it was by pure chance and maybe we caught it in a cage or it decided it wanted to meet us, etc.  But this requires piles and piles of assumptions.  

A, seems more plausible but would be way more easy to detect.  We'd probably have enough information for a conspiracy theory to pop out of it. 

B doesn't even seem remotely plausible, but I can't technically say it's impossible.  So score one for you I guess. 

  That doesn't change that what we do know about gravity is a metaphysical truth.

 It works exactly how we predict that it will every time anybody in the history of the world has ever tested.  Not one time ever has it failed.  That makes it metaphysical until someone proves otherwise.  

I'm Just going to send you a link about tautologies, because you're not going to believe me if I don't show you.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)

- You mean 'contingent'? No it can't, for a contingent being can not be a creator. 'Contingent' means that change from one state to another requires an exterior agent, which means a contingent being is not truly in control of his own fate, let alone the fate of others. It's nice & fanciful to think about all the mythical ways God is or can be, but these notions rarely hold against logical rigor.

 - As demonstrated, for otherwise you encounter a contradiction, as shown.

- This simply makes them non-god beings, for they are contingent beings, for they are restricted by an exterior limitation or agent. 

A God can be in-charge of life

B God can be in-charge of non-life

Both have done their job at creating and now are sitting back.

Why can't this be the case?

- If it's like humans, then it's contingent. It can not be contingent & creator at the same time.

- Cause & effect principle? You mean 'sufficient reason'? The aforementioned argument assumes the 'sufficient reason' principle indeed. 

- From their proper sources, aka Tafsir. Narrated Ibn Abbas, "They said, 'what is Samad?' he (pbuh) said, it is He on whom all is dependent" [Maftih al-Ghayb]. The word essentially means the eternal on whom all depends. 

- You can find the same meaning in many translations of the verse:

MUHSIN KHAN

Allah-us-Samad (The Self-Sufficient Master, Whom all creatures need).

PICKTHALL

Allah, the eternally Besought of all!

YUSUF ALI

Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;

MUFTI TAQI USMANI

Allah is Besought of all, needing none.

ABUL ALA MAUDUDI

Allah, Who is in need of none and of Whom all are in need

SAHIH INTERNATIONAL

Allah, the Eternal Refuge.

DR. MUSTAFA KHATTAB

Allah—the Sustainer ˹needed by all˺.

- That would make Him contingent, thus not divine anymore.

- Any other way = contingent being =/= God.

- I'm not defining anything, this is how the theologians & exegetists define the words. [https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=6&tSoraNo=112&tAyahNo=1&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1]

We don't need to know WHAT we think

You can't logically disprove that you were thinking while also thinking about yourself thinking. It's self-evident,

 all we can say with absolute certainty is that "A thought has occurred". 

If you really want to defend this position you should read up on cogito (the shorthand for this prop). This is a pretty well researched philosophical theory so you would gain a lot of insight from both sides.

The only assumption here is that we are thinking.

Everything else logically follows. 

It's fairly easy to assume that the first assumption is true

What other realities?  Can I get an example?  Because I only experience one reality so that would be news to me. 

If you want evidence of an apple existing and the apple presents itself to you in reality, is that not the apple proving it's own existence to you? 

How do you test to see if a weed scale is correct?  You test it right? You put it into action using a weight and calibrate it accordingly. Is that not the scale using itself to check itself? 

No.  I said it wasn't problematic and you asked me why.  You automatically implied that it was problematic by posing it as a potential problem to my claim. 

It' just like If I'm playing a video game and I do something wrong and die, I now know that was wrong and I can use that information to find the truth in the game. 

Not knowing one thing doesn't disprove what we do know. 

I am a bachelor because I'm an unmarried man.

I could say I am God because I made the universe and that was absurdly easy to prove if I'm not lying, but then we look at the contrary and find out that it's not impossible so It's not self evident.  You following me here? 

However, since it is affecting us, it is possible to know it if we have the right means of observation.

but our opinion can't make gravity stop working nor can it change gravity.

but our opinion can't make gravity stop working nor can it change gravity.

 IF you do, then you should fly to the store for me on weekends, lol. 

Only one can be true at any given time and place.  That means that if you disprove one, the other is automatically the truth. 

Logical deduction is a type of proof. 

That would be René Descartes. If it makes you feel better he was French, not English.

That would be René Descartes. If it makes you feel better he was French, not English.

I find objectivity as a shared concept irrelevant to an individuals senses

Objectivity and subjectivity aren't mutually exclusive.  

I'm jumping off for a bit.  I'll be back on later if you guys want to keep this going.  Good discussion so far.

• I know I am thinking
  
• Something must be doing the thinking
  
• A mind must exist that is capable of thought
  
• Since they are my thoughts, they belong to my mind
  
• Therefore I (my mind) exists.
  

fundamental cornerstone of Western Philosophy.

I'm appealing to authority here but much smarter philosophers than us have thought this through and accepted the proposition.

What makes you think there's anything outside of this world? 

why do you think something can't prove itself?  Can you give me a logical reason why not?

 I think the reason you can't get past this is because you're presupposing that something can't be self evident.  But where's your evidence for that? 

Can you tell me why it is problematic?

Okay, it was confirmed by a subjective life form.  What's your point? 

 The fact is that we can know SOME things for certain and that's all we NEED to know.

it's the same as non existence because it can NEVER have an affect on us in any possible way.  If it could, then it's knowable.  Only a fool denies what is Literally right in front of their face (reality.)

It's absurd because the act of proving it is so basic that it's silly.  It's redundant because to prove it amounts to A = A  

 subjective reality is just your opinion of reality, 

The A part of the statement tells you that it's a tautology which leads you to B because: 

If A = A  then A or Not A

So now I have a tautology and only one of these answers can be true because for both to be true is a contradiction. 

Therefore, If I prove either one to be false, then it's proved.  Self evidence Proves A and disproves Not A all at once by showing the impossibility to the contrary. 

Metaphysical means "at or beyond the limit of physics"  So once something has been proven 100% you're at the "meta" or final limit.  If something was 80% known, then the other 20% would be the "meta"

A) The act of proving it is absurd and redundant.

B) The contrary is impossible. 

the very act of you saying that you don't exist is impossible because you have to exist to fathom your own nonexistence and then verbalize it to me.  

Furthermore, the act of trying to prove your existence is redundant and absurd.  "I exist because I am here"  It's an absurd and redundant proof and it's true,

Our post hoc assessment that we make with our mind is subjective. 

 The mind exist objectively because my opinion of my mind doesn't change the fact that I have a mind. 

So yes you're subject to your environment in the sense that the environment makes you the subject of interactions.  That still isn't problematic.

but I didn't die because that was my opinion, that makes my death objectively true, I don't see a problem here.  

 I don't see how variables make things not objective. 

I think, therefore I am could be considered the first real truth to be metaphysically proven in philosophy and it's the reason that we can have knowledge at all. 

 We exist because we're objective beings.

  I objectively have consciousness and that's not my opinion because I could have the opposite opinion and I would still experience my consciousness.  

That means my opinion doesn't change the nature of my existence and therefore I exist under your definition.  

Well lets keep in mind that the word existence is define by us humans.

So physically.  I exist.  My brain exist and my consciousness is an extension of my brain, so I exist.

Since my senses are objective and the senses of other people are also objective, I can compare my subjective assessment with somebody else's to derive facts by which to tell when people are lying about their assessment.  

That means the amount of objective sense you can assess is lower, but the things that you can still assess with your remaining senses is still just as accurate as anyone else's.  

When you say correct way of perceiving the world, you have to define correct.

Do we view the world correctly?

1, A is B.

2. B is C.

3. Therefore, A is C.

4. C is D.

5. D is E.

C. Therefore, A is E.

- A non self-sufficient being is a being that relies on an exterior cause for its existence, thus is contingent on that exterior cause, thus can not be the source of creation, for it is itself created.

- As established, having two non-identical creators (self-sufficient) entails that one of them is contingent on the other, which contradicts the fact that they are both self-sufficient. Therefore, there can't be more than one creator (self-sufficient being).

- Well, this one is quite evident. A creator can not be both self-sufficient & contingent at the same time, or uncaused & caused at the same time, or creator & created at the same time.

- This follows naturally from having a singular creator. Prior to existence, all things are equally inexistent, which means willing into existence some over others is an absolutely random act (i.e. absolutely free choice), which means willing into existence all things is just as random -& free. This is what we mean by absolute -free- will.

 'Ahad' means singular, not just 'One'.

- 'Samad' in Arabic means Self-Sufficient Master He on Whom all depend. Aka, 'necessary being'.

- That verse is basically denying any relationship or relativity between God & His creation.

- God is disjoint from His creation, as there is no common thing between the two.

- Literally, yes.

- Which part exactly?

1. All creation -whose existence is not self-sufficient- is contingent on a creator, a necessary being whose existence is self-sufficient. 

2. This creator must be singular, for supposing multiple such creators would lead to a logical contradiction.

3. This creator must be transcendent (i.e. different from the creation), for it is not contingent as creation is.

4. This creator must be absolute, for all creation is equally contingent on the creator.

=> I hope this makes it easier to understand.

- This is a very standard definition in Islamic Theology. I referred the chapter, Surah 112 (Ikhalas, aka Tawheed):

(112:1) Qul Huwa Allahu ahad = "Say, He is Allah, the One" (1).

(112:2) Allahu assamad = "Allah, the Absolute [Self-Sufficient Master He on Whom all depend]" (2).

(112:3) Lam yalid walam yoolad = "He begets not, nor is He begotten" (3)

(112:4) Walam yakun lahu kufuwan ahad = "And there is none like unto Him" (4)

=> Theologically, inferred from the scripture, Allah is: singular (1), absolute (2), self-sufficient/necessary (2-3) &  transcendent -disjoint from creation- being(4-3). Thus, conceptually, a being which has all these 4 attributes is hence identified with Allah. All the other attributes of God follow naturally from these.

 Too bad its internet address doesn't pop up more in search results, like debate.org's for example. 

In a bit of poetic justice, we just have to start a spambot campaign.

Oh you mean him taking credit for Virtuoso's work? Alright, you're correct I can't provide evidence for that

Virtuoso doesn't deny anything I said in the OP. Bsh1, so far, hasn't denied it either and the latter has actually posted in this thread.

No one in this entire thread except you, who is brand new here and knows nothing about the past of this site very clearly, has suggested I am lying.

but no one else has said I am lying or need to provide evidence (not even Virtuoso, the Admin or Bsh1 said this). So, you're the one with the conspiracy that I am making a conspiracy.

Dude, this is about what he has failed to do. What he has done is easy to cover up as moderation is always done in private.

What has he done to ever become the chief moderator, let alone keep his role? Go ahead, let me know.

Reversing BoP outside of formal debates against someone so utterly proficient at them is a good try, but I never will give in. You don't understand who has to prove what first here (or you are denying it).

I cannot prove what he is not doing, but I'll start making the threads he should be making soon.

I have. Even in this thread, I did. Just because it doesn't have a question mark after each one doesn't mean I'm not giving him much to answer for.

Sure, the questions are clear. Would you like me to lay them out and show you how mockingly he responds and gets others to bully me into silence?

No. The burden of proof is on the head mod to explain themselves as deserving authority over the rest of us or to laugh and posts memes relishing in their unearned glory.