secularmerlin

I said if our perceptions accurately reflect reality I did not claim to know that they do. But if they don't then the bible is amongst the things that are illusory and as it does not even exist it would still not be historically accurate. I don't know how many times I have to tell you that even if you can prove that everything I "know" is wrong and the u diverse is merely an illusion you would still be no closer to proving your claims. Arguably further since in that case even physical evidence would be meaningless.

If our perceptions accurately reflect reality then the bible is a work of fiction as it describes magical happenings and magic is not a part of our observable universe, unless of course you can demonstrate otherwise. Feel free to substitute another word for magic if that word is for some reason unacceptable to you. Whichever word you recognize as having the meaning I am trying to convey.

I'm not sure what you are asking to be honest. The universe is not a single object it is an unimaginable number of moving parts that are all separate from each other. If that does not answer your question please reword it and I will try to be more informative.

Kindly define the word contradiction.

The bible is beautiful poetic and historically significant (though not historically accurate) work of fiction. I don't dismiss it but I do not believe that it has any direct connection to the mysteries of reality.

Same actions this round.

I don't know is often the honest answer but if we cannot adequately define conciousness I'm not sure how productive any discussion about it can be.

In this context we is you and I since we are the ones having this discussion but you could broaden the term to include all humans.

I made no claim about the importance of the contradictions in question. My only claim is that the bible is self contradictory which is observable true.

The contradictions in question exist in the bible and in the movie taken and in the collected histories of worldcwar two. If these things exist outside my mind then the contradictions also exist outside my mind therefore by your rational other's should consider them. Unless of course you meant something other than what you actually said.

Then what is necessary? What quality do concious beings possess that other beings and objects do not?

I don't have any text books myself but yes there are probably some contradictions in existing text books. Also as our understanding of the universe evolves older ideas tend to contradict newer ones. What does that have to do with the fact that the bible is self contradictory?

Maybe a rock does but it gives no indication that this is the case. Is self awareness necessary to conciousness or only awareness in general?

You also have more or less agreed that whatever purpose it does or does not fulfill the bible is self contradictory.

What is the difference between aware and self aware? Do both amount to conciousness?

If I understand your analogy directly then we are all waving about blindly in the dark. I have already told you I do not deny that there is probably some reality but you have not demonstrated how the biblical account helps us to understand reality in any way.

Then yes there is an apparent contradiction. This may not necessitate that there is no utility in the accounts under discussion but they do contain contradictions. My statement about the bible being self contradictory stands.

Does the movie claim or show that she both does and dies not get dragged from under the bed?

So in other words it contradicts itself.

So do you just mean being alive or is there more to conciousness than that?

Citation needed.

I'm headed into work and my phone is turned on so I will be able to post but I expect I'll have a lot to do today so my default action is to cast Eldritch Bolt and attack with Spirit weapon at the wolf closest to me unless one is near death in which case I will help finish it off with healing word as a bonus action if someone goes down to 0 hit points

Ok but what dies that mean? Just responsive to the environment?

Conciousness is not a particularly well defined term. After all a plant undergoes cycles of rest and activity (growth, nutrient processing etc) and it reacts to stimulus giving the impression of being aware of said stimulus but most people would contend that a plant is not conscious. Perhaps we should figure out specifically what we mean by conciousness before we try to determine where it came from.

If anything is objectively true then it is objectively true regardless of our ability to know it is objectively true. Objective truth does not have meaning however. We can assign meaning to it but we do so subjectively. We did make up the word objective in order to discuss the subject and we could have called the concept of actual but ultimately meaningless reality anything so in that way I suppose you could day that we assigned a subjective meaning to objective meaninglessness but that is just a dissection of terms not an understanding of the concepts involved. 

Then stand and blast. Plus spiritual weapon of course.

(Doesn't standing up just use up part of my move for the round?)

Make that spirit weapon and stand up.

The bible starts being contradictory right away with two accounts of in genesis that pit creation in different orders. When two claims are made in the same book and those claims are mutually exclusive (like if a book claims both that man was made before animals and that animals were made before man) them it fits my definition of self contradictory. Perhaps you are using your own special definition.

Summon spiritual weapon as a bonus action and double eldrich blast the wolf that has me. Spirit weapon attacks it too.

The bible contains contradictions. Doesn't that make it self contradictory? 

If our perceptions are an accurate reflection of reality then we can make certain inferences based on those perceptions based most notably through the application of scientific method. Anything that cannot be proven can be rejected if we accept our perceptions there are some things that are observable and therefore knowable and some things that are not.

I hope this illustrates my position but feel free to ask questions. 

One can never be certain. But if reasoning is not valid if logic is not reliable if science is based on an illusion and every theory we possess is actually wrong then we don't know anything at all and I still reject your claims except in this scenario there is no way for you to demonstrate your claim.

The problem with using very broad definitions is that they lose meaning compared with narrower more precise definitions. For example if you choose to define god as reality whatever that turns out being then this could easily be interpreted as mindless uncaring physical reality. If that is not an acceptable interpreteation then perhaps you should adjust your definitions. Of course you do then run the risk of having to support your claims.

 

I will just address this for now. If you tautologically define something as a thing which must exist then by definition it must exist but definitions describe popular usage not reality and if the thing you are defining has no correlative in reality then no amount of defining will change that.

As for Mopac's definition sure some reality probably exists and if you wish to call it god then feel free to but that does not demonstrate that your god is more than a mindless collection of matter and energy undergoing expansion and chemical reactions. If there is more to the definition than simply whatever exists then the definition may constitute a claim which would require a burden of proof.

We have not observed everything. This dies not mean we get to make things up about those things which have not been observed. Now that would be nonsense.

Observable reality does not stop being observable reality because no one is observing it and certainly doesn't stop being observable if some one is observing it even if that someone isn't me. When I refer to we in the context of knowledge I am only referring to what we agree on. For example we agree that there is an observable reality and we agree that we cannot tell the difference between this observable reality and an illusion. We do not agree that anything else necessarily exists. Therefore we know there is an observable reality wether or not it is illusory and we do not know that anything exists that is not part of the physical universe which is in part comprised of observable reality.

It is probable that some reality exists but we have no evidence that it isn't our observable reality. You mentioned astronaughts and claimed that faith is required to believe in them but they is photographic evidence of astronaughts and no evidence whatever of anything that is not purely part of the physical universe. Even at that I only accept the existence of astronaughts provisionally as they are an observable part of physical reality and I only accept physical reality as "real" as a convenience.

You have not demonstrated that this ultimate reality is any more than the universe. Quite frankly while I'm open to new evidence I'm not sure how you could demonstrate that.

There is room for more, more just has not been demonstrated. If you can demonstrate your claims I will have no choice but to believe you. Until you demonstrate your claim I have no choice but to reject it. I can consider it as a hypothetical but at the end of the day you have to give me a reason to believe.

I don't know is all I mean. As I have said over and over in this thread rejection of your claim is not a claim in and of itself it just means I don't believe your claim. I reject any claim about anything beyond our observable physical universe. I equally reject any claim that nothing could exist outside our observable universe.I reject both if those claims until such time as any hypothesis can be verified. Until then as you say and as I have said repeatedly I don't know, and unless you can provide evidence of your position you are making a case to special knowledge.

There is no evidence of anything outside the observable universe. Something may exist beyond this (like more physics reality for example) but we have no evidence to base our hypotheses on. I therefore have no choice but to reject any claim about anything that is not contained within oir observable physical universe. If the observable physical universe does not actually exist this would still not prove your position it would only prove that we actually have no evidence of anything. Your claims would still need to be demonstrated.

Allow me to amend that tautologically one can prove a negative. Nothing unreal exists, there are no round squares etc but these are definitional truths they are qualified not quantified. 

By your definition god/reality could simply be the universe. If it is possible for something to be eternal why could that eternal thing not be the universe? On the other hand I don't see how we could ever confirm or deny that anything was eternal as any test would also need to be eternal.

When I  say reject I merely mean nonacceptant. I thought that was clear when I stated that rejecting your claim is not the equivalent to an opposing claim.

It's not impossible to prove a negative? Please demonstrate by proving there is no Russell's flying teapot.