Why try to disprove people's beliefs?

"How do you know that you are not a character in some alien kids Playstation game" is the equivilent & opposite I tend to use. If a materialist can simply suppose that what he perceives as reality is reality then there is no reason I can think of why I can't do the same.My own goal is not to attempt a proof (for only God can truly prove God) but to overcome objections (God commanded/commended rape) or drive objections to stalemate.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

That is exactly what they do. And once they do, they set about pointing to things they suppose to be real in ordre to demonstrate the reality (they suppose to be real) is real. I don't need one. The objection has been driven to stalemate.

The materialist starts out like anyone else. They assume their perception of reality is real. For example, they presume those around them are real. They presume the scientific instruments they use to verify things about reality are real.This base assumption, "what I perceive to be real is real" is not testable. Which renders all "tests" connected to it assumed too.Remember that I am merely responding to the "how do you know it's God and not Shiva?" objection. My answer is that I assume my perception of reality is an accurate one. Not testable perhaps but hey! aren't we all in the same boat? See conclusion above. The objector sails in the same boat as me. That's what I mean by stalemating an objection.

I agree I agree. I agree. This because the child is ex-universe You can speak with certainty only about yourself and those who share your reality. God is in-universe for me and many like me. And we have no reason to suspect he is not in universe.There is as little point in posing "how do you know it's not Shiva /delusion / wishful thinking... instead of God" questions at me as there is me posing "alien playstation" questions to you. By what means do you suppose I have the same "in-universe" reality as everyone else? I don't speculate as to God's existance. I know he does exist as surely as I know this computer screen sits on front of me. I agree. I do as the materialist does: I stick only to what I perceive as reality. Yet I get asked "how do you know the reality you perceive is real". The simple answer is I don't (in an absolute sense). No more than anyone knows they are not a character in a playstation game - in an absolute sense.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

What test would you apply? Note: assuming some implement real so that you can utilise it in a test for the reality of something else ends in an assumption of reality. Your running ahead of yourself here. "Everyone" and "everything" are perceived by you to exist. You trust that this perception is real but cannot test that it is real in anyway. For all you know it you are a brain in a jar.There is no point in supposing this to be the case of course. No more that there is for me to suppose my own perception of reality is anything but real. Neither of us can test core aspects of reality. We just perceive and decide to trust our perception or not. View it as you will - it doesn't alter the case. I am as confined to trusting what I perceive to be the case as you are and am telling it like it is for me. God is as real as real can be. The point was to neutralise your objection - not to add more weight to the case for God vs Leprechaun The only evidence worth anything to you would be God turning up in your reality too. So I don't try to show Goddidit.

The aim of huffing and puffing is to blow the house down Otto.

The point being made is that no one involves themselves in wondering whether what they perceive to be real is real or not. Do you wonder about whether people truly exist or not? Or do you just assume your perception of reality is accurate and get on with real life? He is in-universe in my reality and not (apparently) in yours. Clearly our perceptions of reality - though shared in many areas perhaps - differ. The reasons why this is so can be explored theologically.How do I know if he is in-universe? How do you know other people and (the world they supposedly inhabit) are in-universe? You trust that what you perceive to be the case is the case - that's how. And that is what I do. Lets not jump the gun too much. Lets talk about you. You have no evidence demonstrating the reality you suppose exists is real. "Ubiquity" and "consistancy of observation" have whatever value you place on them but cannot be appealed to as a way of solidifying what is real beyond mere assumptionYou assume the alien child is not real for right reasons. We have seen that your assumption is not evidenced based - its an assumption only. Same as me. Should? This implies empiricism is more than just a philosophy which cannot be proven. Perhaps this says something about empiricism? I think you need to read the point again. It has nothing to do with suggesting your closed minded. It has only to do with the pointlessness of folk posing objection to Christian belief by way of Kamikaze Kwestions. I seem to recall that it was a Christian monk called Ockham who developed this particular razor. Do you suppose he wielded it other than you? I agree. "How do you know the reality you occupy really is real?" is the question I was asked by way of objection to the Christian faith. It's one I am often asked. Which all goes to show that knowing something is the case doesn't mean it actually (in absolute sense) is the case. I know God exists. That doesn't mean he does - just that I myself know it to be case. How so? I'm not God so I don't claim my knowledge is absolute. I know what I know s'all.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I should have be more precise. I was referring to the materialists core assumption that his perception of people/planet as real - is accurate. If the materialist can assume his perception as accurate and strike out from there, then so can I.That I happen to perceive God as existing in reality and the materialists does not - is neither here nor there.I am asked "how do you know your reality is real?" by people who do precisely the same as I do in arriving at an answer. I assume my perception of reality is an accurate reflection of reality. This is partily true. But it hasn't anything to do with the point under discussion - which had to do with a specific objection raised to the Christian faith.I'm not sure that theists don't subject their beliefs to their own perception of reality. I know I do. I'm not sure what use subjecting them to the perception of just anyone would serve. Would you subject your proposed photo competition entry to a blind person for consideration? That someone can doesn't mean that someone will. The supernaturalist might not see the point in ignoring evidence. It's more fun to attempt to accomodate it into your model after all. The materialist might have goals other than mine.Driving objections to stalemate won't lead directly to truth. It is interesting to speculate however, on the position of a person whose objections to God have all been shifted into neutral.

Ok, what test can you apply? Note that I am particularily interested in the unassumed-yet-real moorings to which any test tools you propose to use might be anchored. I don't know if you are. I would suspect you are.

You don't waste time wondering whether people are real or not because you assume your perception of reality accurately reflects reality. Period. In your perception of reality perhaps. But not in mine. My perception of reality includes both people and God and like you, I simply assume my perception of reality accurately reflects reality.If the reality does indeed include God there is no need that you detect him. This sounds circular. You cannot point to the people (you assume are real) as evidence that your assumption they are real is a true one.Expand things out now to find that your base assumption has no evidence to support it. Nor does mine. They are merely assumptions. Whose speculating? It is clear that your perception of reality and mine differ. You seem to suppose that yours is the king of the heap for some reason. I've dealt with the circularity of your thinking here in the above point. You don't support the assumption being real by utilising the evidence assumed real. I know enough about evidence to know that it is subject to the veracity of starting assumption for all that it might tell us subsequently.My focus is not on the subsequential-to-the-assumption issue. My focus is on the assumption itself. One we both makeI point out the wastefulness of folk posing solipsist questions at me by posing solipsist questions in return - only to have you prove my point by getting addled about my posing solipsist questions at you. Jaderis posed a solipsist question. I have applied reason alright. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander". Let there be no special pleading Granny. Let there be no side-stepping our the starting-assumption we share in your haste to disappear up the evidence-supports-the-assumption-aquaduct. I'd call it an unwillingness to allow you to pull your argument up by its "evidential" bootstraps - but your entitled to your view. Lets leave it here huh? The tone is starting to decay..

None thus. This due to the potential for... It would appear that you (assuming you exist ) and I decide they are not. We (automatically) run with what we perceive to be the case and failing a way to test our core perception, we assume it accurate.Put another way: objective reality is a destination we assume we are at. Any testing we do subsequently can only tell us about the lay of the land at that destination.Remember where we came from... Inserting the previous point here. What you refer to as "testable" is the lay of the land at the destination you assume exists - not the accuracy of the assumptions that places you at the destination in the first place.In similar fashion, I cannot test that my perception of Gods existance is accurate - I just perceive him to exist. At that destination (assumed objectively real) I can carry out 'testing' by way of the relationship that exists between us. You might see now that what you are referring to is a testing of the lay of the land at this destination called "objective reality". Those are the perceptions you are dealing with. In similar (if not same) fashion I can find out things about God that I didn't know before. I can also find I thought x about God but now think y based on evidence uncovered. That is a different matter to the perception of Gods existance in the first place. Living as we do in societies, all are entitled to have a say in the way that society is shaped. And it can be that my perceptions and yours collide in the shaping of it. But I don't suppose you'd have a problem with that in principle. You tell me. Hopefully you will agree that we can but trust our perception that the destination we find ourselves at is an objective one.