secularmerlin

What is the difference between reality and ultimate reality?

No I do not. If you want to take that chance then you are free to but I refuse to join an organization which considers it mandatory. I don't want my loved ones to be transported either but if they do I will not treat them any differently. #clonesneedlovetoo

Unless there us a difference between reality and the ultimate reality then I already have. If there is a difference you will have to explain the difference before we can proceed. If the difference is that ultimate reality necessarily has attributes that we cannot verify then reject this as an argument from ignorance.

Then why do you keep talking past me instead of addressing my specific objections. I am not arguing that there is no reality. You are arguing for more than just the idea that some reality exists.

Have I not been? It is an existential nightmare and there is no way to verify objectively that it does not kill you and replace you with a clone. Since I do not wish to die I would not want to take the chance. Ever. Even if it was "me" when "I" materialized I would spend the rest of my life wondering if I were only a clone. I have enough existential horror and uncertainty in my life just having to rely on my flawed human senses to collect data. Transporters I don't need.

Do you even read what I write? It is not the idea of reality or that I am arguing against. I am not arguing that my perceptions are reality. My argument is this  you haven't demonstrated your claim that reality is a particular way over any other. Maybe it's eternal or maybe it's not but until one can be demonstrated I reject both propositions. The reasonable stance is I don't know what created the universe or even if it was created.

Ok you don't care what I think. Logic, reason, and truth do not care what I think either. That is precisely why it is unreasonable to believe in an undeminstrable claim. Either this physical reality is real and we have no knowledge of anything outside it (including any god(s)) or it is not real and we have no knowledge. Which is it ethang5? Do not answer me if you don't want but consider the question for yourself.

I am open to the discussion.

Gross. I have no response for this.

Any claim of something which did not have a start is an argument from ignorance since we have no observable examples of anything which did not have a start or beginning. It is also true that to say such a thing is impossible is a black swan fallacy but that still leaves a skeptic with no reason to believe in anything which did not begin.

There is no evidence of anything before there earliest event we can detect (or even at the biggining of this event) the event in question is the big bang. Any claim about what existed or happened before the big bang is therefore necessarily an argument from ignorance if indeed before is not a nonsensical idea regarding the big bang.

And here is the unsubstantiated (and quite frankly self contradictory) claim. You cannot know what preceded the the physical universe or indeed if anything did (and since reality by definition is everything you just said that reality precedes itself).

If not specifically to me then to the board at large. You are splitting hairs.

(Not the least bit tongue in cheek)

I had not brought up the Heisenberg uncertainty principle because this is a philosophy and not a science thread... but since you did.

A teleporter of any kind would need to keep precise track of the position of every particle in order to reassemble the victim (ahem) subject properly but since all bodies in space are in motion it would also have to match the movement of each particle to the reletive speed of the planet or ship being materialized on lest the object/person being transported be battered by hurricane winds or squashed like a bug on a windshield. Since Heisenberg's uncertainty principle states that both of these things cannot be accounted for simultaneously any teleportation would perforce result in the subject either materializing as a puddle of goo or arriving at the wrong speed relative to their surroundings and crash8ng into the transporter pad on the other side at horrific speeds.

You claim to know that a non physical transcendent eternal force that created at least one universe exists which is not a part of the universe do you not? Are you retracting that claim?

I can be reasonably certain if some things. I can form reasonable expectations based on past experience. You misrepresent me when you say that I claim not to be able to know anything. It is beyond human epistemology to be certain of anything. That is not the same as not knowing anything. That my perceived reality could be illusory does not mean that I cannot learn things about my environment within that framework. Gravity is a part of my experience even if my experience is illusory. Evolution is an observable part of that universe. Human altruism and iniquity are a part of that universe. I can be as certain of these things as I can be of anything. I have no reason to believe based on the evidence available to me that any god(s) exist within that universe. Gravity is real (for lack of a better word) no god(s) appear to be real (for lack of a better word). I cannot say that no god(s) could possibly exist without committing a black swan fallacy but neither can I say that breakdancing alien Elvis impersonators from planet x cannot possibly exist without committing a black swan fallacy. Your god(s) are as likely to be real based on the evidence as breakdancing alien Elvis impersonators from planet x. Also I do not identify as a liberal only a skeptic.

And yet you insist upon making claims about it. The definition of an argument from ignorance.

Which god?

This is a new tact and a new tact can't hurt even if it doesn't help.

This is not news to me.

You can call reality anything you like but that does not grant you license to make unsubstantiated claims about it. In much the same way that Mopac can call reality anything he likes but I draw the line at making claims of nonphysicality transcendence and the unconfirmed eternal nature of reality.

You had me right up until meep meep. That the ultimate reality is the road runner I can accept for the purposes of this conversation but any claim about said road runner must be demonstrated.

I accept that  some road runner most probably exists. 

Why bother if we mean different things when we say those words. I can say what you did and not agree with you. That is the road runner of the situation.

I can easily say that some reality exists without tying that reality to spirituality or religion. That means making the connection between the two concepts up to you as the claimant. Burden of proof my friend.

If you were giving these explanations in Swahili and I said "I'm sorry but I don't understand Swahili" would that make me closeminded? 

As I've said I just don't understand. At a certain point if someone really is confused by your statements (and assuming it is important to you that they do understand) it behooves you to try a different approach. Have you considered trying out some analogies? Or hypothetical situations perhaps? Anything but a grouping of shapes numbers parentheses and dashes because you may as well be speaking Swahili.

I don't know since the source of this claim is unsubstantiated but even if he did why should I accept his claim? That is an argument from authority.

In any case as I said there is evidence for spirituality, unreliable evidence is still evidence. I did not begin this conversation by saying provide evidence I began by saying "prove it".

As for your goal post it starts with "I can prove spirituality is a valid form of knowledge" and I'm paraphrasing of course for which I apologize and then moves to "oh I can only prove it if you are on the right frequency mentally." That is a text book example of moving the goal posts.

Prove it.

It doesn't matter how much unreliable evidence you amass it is still unreliable. To say otherwise is an argument ad populum. 

Now one more time, and perhaps you will answer this time. Why should I accept your unreliable anecdotal evidence over the unreliable anecdotal evidence of billions of other theists, spiritists, conspiracy theorists and assorted snake oil salesman. (To be clear I do not consider you a snake oil salesman. When you say that you believe in your own rhetoric wholeheartedly I take you at your word but that is not proof that you are correct either.)

I once told you of some experiences I had that at the time I thought were spiritual in nature. You declared that my problem was that I had not experienced genuine spiritual happenings. While I agree with that assessment it highlights the problem with your evidence. How on earth can anyone possibly demonstrate that their spiritual experiences were more real then those I experienced for myself? You might have gotten further ifvypu had argued that I had deluded myself into doubting a genuine experience than to argue that I should just have your sort of spiritual experiences. Probably not much further but an inch is an inch after all.

I deny that we can call that objective shared reality since it is entirely anecdotal and eye witness testimony is unreliable. If something not readily apparent to both of us regardless of "frequency" then at least one of us has no reason to accept it as real and true.

If our perceptions accurately reflect reality then we can make certain inferences based on those perceptions if on the other hand our perceptions do not accurately reflect reality then it becomes impossible to know anything. In neither case is there any sufficient evidence of the supernatural to justify any claims made aboutthe supernatural. I tend to accept the reality my senses present simply because no other is observable to me. If that means that there is no reason to bother presenting me with evidence thhen don't bother.

@EtrnlVw

You still haven't answered my question. Allow me to repeat it for your convenience.

Is there any reason that I should accept your unreliable anecdotal evidence over rational madman's or hari krish's? Is there any reason I should accept yours over the testimony of a scientologist or a self proclaimed alien abductee?

@EtrnlVw

@ethang5

Honestly this whole idea that spirituality is provable if only one is "tuned in to the right frequency" is moving the goal posts. That isn't how proof works. If I set out to demonstrate gravity (a real thing if anything we perceive is real) it doesn't matter what frequency you are on or what you believe the gravity is apparent and it isn't dependent on the personal testimony of others it is directly apparent to all parties. When there is any evidence like that for spirituality I will consider it I promise.

What does actual reality have to do with your unsubstantiated claims?

If there is a difference between reality and the ultimate reality then I do not accept the ultimate reality until it can be demonstrated in the same way reality can be. I await your demonstration.

I can say that I accept that some reality most probably exists. 

It's not reality I reject Mopac it is your claims about reality that I remain dubious of.

We've been over this. Ive been very clear about what I am able to accept and what I am not.

I accept that some reality most probably exists and I don't care what you call it. When you start making claims beyond this however, for example that you know nothing could be eternal or that you know something is eternal, you are making an argument from ignorance. 

Fine but literally any other claim you make about it, any claim at all, is then an argument from ignorance.

I had already asked that. So far no answer.

That is impossible to be certain of.

Also also no I can never be certain that my experience accurately reflects reality but If it does then science is pur best tool for discovering objective truth.

My experience is all I have, I cannot rely on yours. Also my memory of past events can be incorrect. Did you not receive my link? Oh well here it is again.

Which had the better track record for curing disease, science or spirituality? How about feeding people? Creating reliable housing? Keeping people warm in winter? Science is observable superior to spirituality at improving our lives and far better at revealing objective truth.

Personal experience is not objective. That is definitionaly true. That means that your personal experience cannot be considered a part of objective reality.

Eye witness testimony is evidence. It is also unreliable. Unreliable evidence can and should be dismissed. I have always been very clear about what sort of evidence I will accept. Is there any reason tbat I should accept your unreliable anecdotal evidence over rational madman's or hari krish's? Is there any reason I should accept yours over the testimony of a scientologist or a self.proclimed alien abductee?

Then any claim made is an argument from ignorance.