41 replies to this topic

[Libains]

Golan, on 19 Jun 2009, 18:13, said:

AJ, on 19 Jun 2009, 17:02, said:

CommanderJB, on 19 Jun 2009, 16:46, said:

As I have already said, it is impossible to prove what I believe, but neither is it possible to disprove it because in order to use that example to disprove me you would need to prove that I am made of cake, which you have already stated that it is impossible to do. It's self-defeating.

I don't believe there will ever be any way to tell, unless a Morpheus comes along and starts freeing us. It's shame as I'm a curious kinda bloke () but to be fair, if we were ever to probe far enough to see if everything is really 'real'. we'd probably be scared to death what we find if it's not a good thing.

Let's assume you somehow did manage to tear down the walls of what we perceive as reality and take a look behind, or some black guy with cool shades and long coat shows you the door to what lays behind... how could you ever that this "new" reality isn't just a dream/artificial either?

You couldn't in any way, shape or form. There is no way to prove disprove any of this, and it is a massive debate amongst some of the philosophy students that I know I'm just suggesting, that should we ever reach out and meet the real world (no matter how this would be proved or not), a lot of people would be scared, and quite likely retreat to what they knew, as a virtual reality, while virtual, is still what people know as reality - not everyone will want to leave it for something completely different.

[Ghostrider]

Well we at the very least know that ourselves exist - You're sitting there thinking and perceiving things, and thus if you can think about anything, then you exist.

[Golan]

Turian, on 19 Jun 2009, 18:17, said:

I was talking about science but it turned out into ' is life a lie ? ' topic But probably my mistake because I named it as ' What if everything you know is a lie ', sorry for that

I guess the problem is that to 99.9% of humanity, it really doesn't matter if current knowledge about singularities or other extremal situations is true or not. The remaining people that all the stuff is nothing but theories to begin with, so those things can't actually be a lie. At best, they are reasonably close to reality, at worst we'll find a better theory.

AJ, on 19 Jun 2009, 18:18, said:

You couldn't in any way, shape or form. There is no way to prove disprove any of this, and it is a massive debate amongst some of the philosophy students that I know I'm just suggesting, that should we ever reach out and meet the real world (no matter how this would be proved or not), a lot of people would be scared, and quite likely retreat to what they knew, as a virtual reality, while virtual, is still what people know as reality - not everyone will want to leave it for something completely different.

Seeing that neither reality has any precedence in such a case, who could blame someone for choosing what is more beneficial to them?
Regardless, I'd really be interested to know what philosophy students are debating about that matter...

Ghostrider, on 19 Jun 2009, 19:44, said:

Well we at the very least know that ourselves exist - You're sitting there thinking and perceiving things, and thus if you can think about anything, then you exist.

But isn't this kind of a irrelevant point? It can be assumed that anything exists in one way or another (even by passively being considered inexistent by someone, it has to exist at least as a concept), so the actual question is not if something exists, but in what way, no?

Edited by Golan, 19 June 2009 - 18:59.

[Chyros]

This cannot be disproved. Like a few other things in life, this paradox can always be redefined in such a way that you can't factually disprove any of it, which is kind of the whole point of the paradox .

[Ghostrider]

You can also take this to a religious level: St. Anselm argued with the ontological argument that God must exist by definition. The premises are something like this:

1.) If God exists, He would be the best of everything. He would omnipotent, omniscient, etc.
2.) Actually existing is better than the thought of existing. For example, if I'm thirsty and need a drink, if the drink ACTUALLY exists, than that's better than the drink merely existing as a thought.
3.) Therefore, if God is the best of everything, and actually existing is better than not existing, then God must exist.

I myself am not a fan of this argument, but it does make you think.

Edited by Ghostrider, 20 June 2009 - 00:38.

[Golan]

Again, though, it doesn't say anything about the "shape" (*slaps dictionary*) of God. Even if the existence of God would be proved, this wouldn't even remotely mean that the Christian, Pastafarian or any other religious god exists.

Besides, the argument is based on several assumptions. For example, the first step assumes that a being can actually be omnipotent, omniscient, etc. - the Omnipotence paradox is just one example of contesting this.
The second assumption... how many people here are fans of zombie movies? And how many of you would actually feel that it's better if the Zombie Apocalypse were to be reality instead of just an entertaining thought?
The third one assumes that god exists in the first place - quote, unquote, "god IS the best of everything" not "god would have to be the best of everything if she existed".

*thanks Ghostrider for the chance to use the Zombie Apocalypse in an argument against god*

Edited by Golan, 20 June 2009 - 11:06.

[Ghostrider]

Well according to the argument, it's better for whatever article to exist, not by our view, but from the articles view.

From the point of view of the Zombie Apocalypse, it would be better to exist than to not exist. Existence is superior to the thought of existence.

[Dr. Strangelove]

But it ain't.

[Ghostrider]

Dr. Strangelove, on 20 Jun 2009, 23:19, said:

But it ain't.

Explain yourself please Mr. Strangelove, lest your opinion seem weak.

[General]

He probably means zombie apocalypse' existence is ' worse ' than its though of existence, it will be ' superior ' if it left non existent, same goes for hell.

[Golan]

Ghostrider, on 20 Jun 2009, 17:02, said:

Well according to the argument, it's better for whatever article to exist, not by our view, but from the articles view.

From the point of view of the Zombie Apocalypse, it would be better to exist than to not exist. Existence is superior to the thought of existence.

Which is why I feel that it's not exactly a very good argument - or a even a coherent one to begin with.

Beside the point that I really doubt that the Mighty Morphin Zombie Apokalypse has any point of view by itself (it being a) an event, not a person, and b) led by mindless zombies who shouldn't have any point of views to begin with ("BRAAAAAAIIINZZZ!!" is not a point of view)), if God is to be perfect, then she has to be so from every point of view, not just hers, as otherwise she would clearly be not entirely perfect.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Ghostrider, on 21 Jun 2009, 4:22, said:

Dr. Strangelove, on 20 Jun 2009, 23:19, said:

But it ain't.

Explain yourself please Mr. Strangelove, lest your opinion seem weak.

I know reality exists, because I think, therefore I am, to be I must exist in a reality, hence reality exists. So not *everything* I know is a lie, but most of it could be.

EDIT: And, using Occam's Razor, a universe that actually is what we perceive is simpler than one that contains a computer simulation/dream because anything that culd simulate a reality would necessarily be more complex than what it was simulating/dreaming.

Edited by Dr. Strangelove, 22 June 2009 - 19:44.

[Ghostrider]

So Golan, you don't agree that existing is more perfect than not existing?

@Dr. Strangelove: That's what I think as well (I said the same thing in fact on page 1 of this thread).

[Golan]

Ghostrider, on 22 Jun 2009, 3:26, said:

So Golan, you don't agree that existing is more perfect than not existing?

IMO it's not universally better, which means that a perfect being would require both existing and not existing - at the same moment (space-time frame if you believe that the ART isn't a hoax).

Edited by Golan, 22 June 2009 - 09:28.

[Erik]

Existing is definitely supreme to not-existing, otherwise why would there be anything at all? I mean there is no reason why there should be anything (be it the universe or god first).

[Golan]

Existing is a priori definitely not supreme to not-existing, otherwise why would there be so many things that don't exist? I mean there is no reason why there should be nothing at all.

[NOPE]

Though this doesn't seem to be your intent, Lilith was reminded of her own views on life by your post: she has often wondered whether anything really exists except for herself, and whether she's only dreaming of this world.