It depends on what you describe "God" as

Physical laws "appear" to be consistent.

Unless this is all a matrix. But then why try to do anything in life? If someone has a serious suspicion that everything's a matrix, why don't they just end their life and see what happens?

Assuming that this universe isn't real is useless.

 

Parroting.

The plural was used to denote a class/set of entities; no existential claims about number or specific type were implied. If I were to say "Dogs typically have four legs", would one have to list what breeds?

 

Hell, how do you know your mind isn't a computer simulation of some sort that operates by physical laws different from this "universe" (which is really just part of the simulation)? How do you know that even pure mathematics isn't just a programmed delusion, no matter how perfectly self-consistent and self-contained pure mathematics seems to be?

See how useless this becomes? There's no such thing as an "absolute truth" because we could all (or maybe just you) be delusional or simply wrong about everything. You never know. There's NO way to tell if ANYTHING is "absolutely true".

Might as well just ASSUME certain things are true and go with the flow.

 

Just what we need a lecture on common sense from Mr. 186 posts. I would like to see a link verifying that "most people are delusional and ignorant...."

​

 

Read my previous post; no matter what I say, and no matter what "you" (even though "you" could not exist and be a figment of my imagination) say, it can be "discredited" by the reality that nothing is "absolutely" true.

Let's just get practical instead of overly ideological, I say.

 

Keyword = "appear". Appearance is not always consistent with FACT.

Define "a matrix". I presume you reference the story line of the move "the Matrix". In that story line, the people were being used for their 'energy' and kept in a state of illusion, while the purpose of using their congregate energy was being utilized by some other entity(ies). The suggestion of a 'matrix' within this thread is yours... so you would have to be that 'someone' that might have a 'serious suspicion that everything's a matrix,'.... Do you have such a suspicion? Then you would have to answer that final question in that paragraph for your own self.

Assuming that this universe is 'real' is equally useless, because that assumption would of course force one to eliminate the POSSIBILITY that it is an illusion, at which point it could be said that you are not giving consideration to ALL of the possibilities. . . you could be said to be living in a world of fairy tales,,, a delusional world where one can arbitrarily eliminate even a single possibility that something might be immensely more different than the preconceived notion that one currently holds. Where is that condition of 'real'ness determined? Of course,,, in the mind... therefore, that condition of 'real'ness is subjective.

 

Why are you even (assuming you're not a figment of my imagination) posting on here if you seriously suspect that this universe isn't real?

 

And, again, no supporting link. Time for you to head home. You have no credibility in this forum.

​

 

So what's the probability that you'd take to heart what a random person said about a complicated issue? For example, if a random person said "this president will have these exact effects on this nation"?

Not very. It shows that even you don't trust most peoples' delusional and ignorant selves on anything important.

 

Explosions require a steady amount of oxygen. What oxygen was there before the Big Bang? Exactly.

 

Well Hell, if this universe is all a dream and not real, why the hell would a supporting link (which would really be a figment of your imagination) help anything?

 

The poster you replied to is delusional and ignorant about this whole discussion. Just like most people are delusional and ignorant about just about any complicated important issue

 

Resorting to name-calling and labeling of people????? Would your action not also be an act of "ignorance of the subject matter"... the subject matter being the "The poster you replied to is.... "(in that particular instance it was Neutral). Do you have certified documentation to prove that Neutral is delusional and 'ignorant about this whole discussion'? NO? WoW!!!!!!

 

Do you have absolute proof that you even exist, or that the Empire State Building exists? You have no absolute proof of ANYthing.

However, "common" sense rings through on these issues. To practical, sensible people anyways.

 

Sounds like for you "this universe is all a dream and not real," but not so for the rest of us. You make outrageous statements you can not verify with fact links. You are wasting everyones time, you have no credibility. I am out of this thread.

​

 

What, so you really trust most people to have valid views on most complicated issues? Your apparent claim is that we all should trust most people to have valid views on important complicated issues, but I say most people are too delusional, superficial, collectivist, and STUPID to have valid views on much of anything.

 

I hope I'm not somehow keeping you from researching human intellectual capabilities yourself, Incorporeal.

 

What is "absolute proof"?

"Common" sense does not dictate the use of empirical evidence. Remember that list of definitions for the term 'common'? Did you even look over those definitions and attempt to select one that would point to what you mean when you use the term "common" sense?

 

"Common" sense isn't really "common". When I say "common" sense, I really just flat out mean SENSE period. Jesus freaking Christ, stop playing useless word games.

 

Already told you. Truth a priori. Propositions that are true for no other reason than the fact that they've been conceived of.

 

How do you know you're not a computer or head in a jar in a matrix that exists outside this "universe" (which is really just a simulation) and everything you ever perceive or conclude is a delusion? There's no way to tell if anything is absolutely true a priori!

 

It is not a 'word game'... as you can see, the use of the dictionary levels the playing field and makes everyone capable of clearly understanding what the other is speaking about. As shown above, you now step up to the plate and clearly define what you mean... you did not mean "Common sense" but rather "just flat out mean SENSE". Well that is fine... but seeing now that you place no other descriptive adjectives in front of the word 'sense', it stands to reason that your use of the term 'SENSE' is all inclusive.. which would include all forms of 'SENSE' including 'Common sense', which you allude to a condition that 'common sense isn't really "common"" (whatever that is suppose to mean).

 

Yes, there is a way to tell a priori from a posteriori: Experience.

It is true, though, that we must all make a leap of faith before starting to evaluate any other experience than Decarte's famous framing of the basis of all knowledge: "Cogito ergo sum".

 

Propositions are formed with words, and are not 'truth' in and of itself. So again, what is 'truth'?

 

You just wasted a few minutes of your life with this unnecessary B.S. Good job.