secularmerlin

You can but that does not provide certainty about anything. If reality were an illusion how would it seem discernably different ?

I certainly have not received one.

I am saying that as finite beings even if something were eternal we could not verify it and so any claim that anything is eternal must perforce be mere conjecture.

How do you test reality in a way that doesn't require us to presuppose our experience is real?

Shield bash at the end of my charge.

And I think you don't understand what I am saying. I do believe that there is truth but I see no reason to believe that anything is eternal until it can be demonstrated (which as I mentioned it cannot) so if you only mean eternal truth then I specifically do not believe in this ultimate truth you are proposing. 

Shield rush the mound while switching to my mace.

(We would probably all be dead without you dude)

If our perceptions accurately reflect reality then we can make certain inferences from those perceptions by observation of the scientific method.

Well clearly I have indulged you too far. From now on I will say what I mean and if I am unclear you can ask what I mean and I will try to explain, but until I know what your terms actually mean I am done using them.

So to be clear since I do not believe in any god God or GOD I use the term god(s). This is a stand in for whatever god concept you subscribe to so you may, if you like, pretend that I used your preferred term instead.

When I say reality (as opposed to observable or testable reality) I am referring to everything that exists. If I use the words testable or observable before hand you will know that I am only referring to what humans and can confirm (or as close to as we are able) as existing.

When I say the truth (as opposed to verifiable or accepted truth) I am referring to all true facts about reality. If I use the words verifiable or accepted before hand you will know that I am only referring to what humans can confirm (or as close as we are able) as true.

Reality and truth are not interchangeable. Reality refers to things that exist and truth refers to facts about that existence.

Actually the more you say about this proposed ultimate reality the less I think it has to do with actual reality. For example at one point you claimed ultimate reality is free of corruption. If corruption exists at all then reality cannot be free of it. The same goes for ultimate truth. If there are things that are true then those things are a part of the truth. You claimed at one point that you only meant eternal truth and I am uncertain how you as a finite being could ever confirm or deny that anything was eternal. We could never measure anything eternal unless we were eternal and we are not.

Respecting you will have to be enough as I'm not sure how to respect a non entity like a belief or idea. I can consider an idea but respect is for individuals. Please do not conflate my rejection of your beliefs as a personal attack. I am not rejecting you, only any claims you make that you are unable or unwilling to demonstrate.

So what? Theology and scripture are not a good pathway to truth. In fact the scriptures you subscribe to are not the only scriptures. Indeed why should I give more weight to the scriptures you accept than to Hindu or buhdist scriptures?

I agree completely. What we disagree on is what actually constitutes reality.

Do you have any questions?

Crossbow at the shambling mound.

I fire my crossbow into the forming mound.

@Buddamoose @Drafterman 

I follow Snerp covering our exit with the crossbow.

By the uncertainty of Zud, by the undecided but awesome will of he who waffles at each choice, by the certainty bestowed on me in His confusion!

(Spoken in primordial) turn dead.

I turn full circle crossbow at the ready. Do I see anyone or anything that might have been producing the chanting?

When you say it is more reasonable to believe that something has agency which has not observably displayed agency that is an argument from ignorance.

I don't know. I don't know a lot of things. You don't know either. We don't know if reality possesses agency and until it is demonstrated I see no reason to believe that it does and when I say reality doesn't appear to do things that is exactly what I mean.

The ultimate in "ultimate reality" is actually what renders all your statements mere conjecture. Ultimately ultimate reality is unknowable while I observe that observable reality, while it may not constitute all reality is at least something we have experience of and can therefore make objective statements about.

Also, and I'm sorry to keep harping on this, if God equals reality your statement equates to "there is no reality without reality" which is a tautology.

Eikka glides under the porticulus and heads quietly (for her) down the passage crossbow first.

I suppose that depends on how you define the word dictate. We have had enough trouble with definitions that I feel we should make sure before I agree or disagree. I will say that however you define dictate the universe does not appear to display agency and so I have no reason to believe that it does.

Maybe. I'm still going to try perception.

Unless we literally cannot know what exists which is the case. We can only kniw what is observable and testable and I admit that this leaves a lot we cannot know and that even that does not provide certainty. Thus far you have not convinced me that it is a desire to be reasonable that leads you to refer to reality as God. Arguably it would seem to be the opposite.

Things happen within reality reality does not appear to do things. It just exists passively. Unless of course you can demonstrate otherwise.

Were is the chanting coming from? I follow the sound. 

Yes onwards toward the chanting.

I don't think the term think is meaningless do you? The way I react to my environment is observably different than the way an inanimate object does. One of the differences is that I do something we refer to as thinking and reality at large does not appear to have the capacity for this process. It would seem that I can do something that what you refer to as God cannot.

If that constitutes omnipotence then I find omnipotence underwhelming. 

If that's the case then thinking and thought are nonsense words. Do those words mean anything?

Nobody put it on until it's been identified it could be cursed. We'll identify it after we investigate the chanting.

Maybe but not observably so. Unless you can demonstrate that is the case somehow. Otherwise that is just conjecture and I have no particular reason to accept yours over anyone else's.

Also you are again speculating about the attributes possessed by reality (i.e. thinking) and when I point this out I expect you to retreat to your tautology rather than say conclusively that you do or do not believe that reality thinks or even simpler say that you do not know and no one can.

Of course If we cannot know we are left only with what is observable, which does not seem to demonstrate a thinking reality, and conjecture which might be coincidentally in line with reality but which we cannot confirm or deny is in line with reality. 

Just so we are clear beliefs are not a choice and I am unable to believe conjecture though I am perfectly able and willing to consider it.

In short in the absence of sufficient observable evidence I am unable to believe that reality thinks in the way that you or I do or indeed does anything that qualifies as thinking.

(I'm old school stats change but the abilities of certain monsters stay the same)

I ritually cast detect magic on all the objects we have found. If any is magical it gets put aside for identifying

I am not arguing that we have freewill or that our thoughts are either under our control. I am arguing that some things are what is generally referred to as alive and some things are not and living things interact with their environment which even if it is a form of reaction is discernablevfrom simple physical reaction that inanimate objects display. Reality at large, though it appears to contain life does not observably display the ability to interact only to react. Whether or not it can only react to itself is immaterial.

I embrace the fact that we do not know. I accept that if I am a solipsistic awareness alone in an imaginary world of my own imagination I will never know it and equally that if there any god(s) exist unobserved and unknowable then I will never know. In both cases I see no reason to believe nor to behave as if one believes in either proposition unless it can be demonstrated. You claim not to believe in any god(s) either but instead only in reality which you choose to refer to as God. That's okay but it doesn't change the nature of reality which gives every indication of being unthinking and uncaring. If on the other hand you mean something other than apparent observed reality then you are engaged in conjecture. You would appear to be both engaged in conjecture and insisting on a definition which is tautalogically true so as to confuse the fact that it is conjecture. I could of course be wrong and I am trying to ascertain whether or not I am in fact.

Sorry I do tend to get sidetracked and I do have endless questions. If it makes you feel better I try to consider my questions carefully before printing them and I certainly don't expect them all to be answered. In fact I find that almost any line of questioning that is followed back far enough ends with an "I don't know".

If this is true then how are you making this statement?

I know I know that is your word for reality but if no one can say what it is then really you aren't saying anything now are You? You could just say regular old reality and avoid all this. Also if you are talking about the same reality I am what is all your talk about the bible? The bible does not appear to have anything do with testable observable reality and anything beyond the testable and observable (which itself does not justify complete certainty) is impossible to know. Clearly in that case the bible is a book of conjecture not am authority on reality, unless of course you can somehow demonstrate otherwise.

If you don't believe that reality has emotions say you do not believe it plainly and we'll move on to the next attribute. Once we establish what you believe we can talk about why. The remaining three are thoughts, goals and desires.

(And bless for the double boost and we both still.have two slots for healing. One party member could have a really good combat.)

Probably. 

Ok what is It? I only ask because I can say of a duck or a rock or a tomato "it is what it is" and while not technically untrue it does not actually impart any information about the what is being discussed.

If the problem is that I don't understand perhaps you could be clearer. I find that if I rephrase a statement or question it sometimes clears up such issues.

Eikka strikes low with her mace.

How have you determined that this is the case? Indeed if reality is unknowable how can you make statements about what it is or is not contingent on? More to the point how have you determined that everything else is contingent?

Then we are back to the tautology? 

How do you make that distinction? Like what is an example of a contingent and an incontinent thing?

It is part of the definition. You claim to accept the definition to such a degree that you feel it qualifies as proof in and of itself of the existence of what you refer to as God. Now you are telling me that part of the definition does not count? In that case with would any part of the definition necessarily count for more?