If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature....

Well that's enough of that.

It's the basic question I've been asking throughout the thread: How do you know anything? I could propose an experiment to test the "reality" of Brad Pitt and/or Santa Claus.

How do you know?

Good question. I suppose I'm in as good a position as the rest of you to know whether or not I'm "real". But it's true that I have only the perception of my memories. It's possible that I'm "really" Catholic Scientist having a psychotic delusion that I'm ringo.

Nah, that's impossible. I'd never be so delusional that I lived in a house without the internet

There you go. I have witnesses at the Library that I'm real.

Dear Ringo,Again, great hearing from you. That’s simple: Who’s asking the question?If you did not exist you would have not asked me the question.I certainly am not asking myself if I exist as someone else; so, it only follows logically that, if you are asking me how I can tell if you exist you must indeed exist; and that is how I know you exist. Are you suggesting that there really is no way for you to distinguish between a "real" Bigfoot and a guy in a Bigfoot suit?The fact that you suggest that there is a difference between a "real" Bigfoot and a guy in a Bigfoot suit shows that even you can distinguish, with some accuracy, the difference between something that is ‘real’ and something that is ‘Fake’.One law enforcement officer was once asked how can you tell a fake dollar bill? his reply was by knowing what a real one looks like.One cannot logically say something is ‘fake’ (not real) if there is not a ‘genuine article’ (real thing) to compare it to; would you not agree? And yet, when I explain what ‘Real’ really means you make emphatic statements like: There is no absolute truth.As a matter of fact, at every turn in this conversation you have told me that I am wrong; not asked me to explain how I arrived at my conclusions. In your previous post you told me You cannot sayThese are not questions, they are directives; you are claiming to be right about something and requiring me to accept your way of thinking; without, if I may add, even considering what I have said. You’re getting caught up in the analogy and missing the point all together.So, let’s scrap the whole ‘Christian’ thing.Whether God actually exists is not contingent on a fifty-one, sixty-five, or even a seventy-five percent agreement of all sentient beings in the universe.Even if every sentient being in the universe believed in a supreme being; that, in and of itself, does not guarantee that a supreme being indeed does exist.Before the twentieth century everyone believed that the Milky Way Galaxy was the totality of the physical universe (maybe a few hundred million stars or so). Then we found out that there are actually trillions of galaxies out there (each containing billions of stars).Those galaxies did not just pop into existence when we first peered into our telescopes; they were there all the time; we just did not know about them.What is ‘True’ shapes (or should shape) our understanding of reality; our belief does not shape what is True, factual, real, actual, and correct.If what I believe does not accord with what is true, factual, real, actual, and correct then I am wrong; no matter how many people agree with me.Conversely, if what I believe does accord with what is true, factual, real, actual, and correct then I am right; no matter how many people disagree with me.Whether someone is right or wrong has no correlation with how many people agree or disagree with them.That was my point.Always a pleasure,
JRTjr

How do you know the whole conversation isn't a dream? You have a very low threshold of evidence if you believe that every perception that enters your mind is necessarily "real". I asked you how you could tell the difference. Why don't you tell us? Be specific. In detail, tell us the points that distinguish a "real" Bigfoot from a fake Bigfoot. No. I can imagine a fake unicorn whether a real one exists or not. Well, I did ask you to explain how you arrive at your conclusions about real versus fake Bigfeet - and you didn't say. You're the one who's ignoring what I've said repeatedly: I am NOT claiming to be "right' about anything. I have said repeatedly that there is no way for ME to know whether I am "absolutely right" or not. Since YOU claim to know that "reality" really exists, I'm asking how YOU can claim to be "right". That's what I said. You're still not understanding what "right' and "wrong" are. You're assuming a correlation with "real" reality.All "right" is is a confidence level. We think our current concept of the universe is "more right" than it used to be. We are confident that our current evidence fits our current explanation. Our ancestors were just as confident, based on the evidence available to them. They were just as "right" then as we are now.

Dear Ringo,It is, as always, a pleasure hearing from you again. I pray you are doing well. To properly answer your questions I must impress upon you how I rationalize the universe around me. In other words, you will have to be willing to look at everything from my perspective to see how I determine what ‘is’, and what ‘is not’ ‘real’.If you are truly interested in finding out how I discern between what is ‘real’ (factual, true, and actual) and what is ‘imaginary’ or ‘fake’ then I would like to start you off with a dictionary.I’m not being facetious, funny or rude here; so please do not be offended. Rather, we need to be able to communicate with understanding and not be bogged down with ‘you mean one thing’ and ‘I mean another’. This only leads to confusion.So again, if you’re interested, I would suggest you start off by studying the definitions of the words listed below, because when I use these words I am using those definitions. I would suggest you look them up in multiple Dictionaries; and look at their ‘Synonyms’ and ‘Antonyms’ as well. Then, look up the definitions of those ‘Synonyms’ and ‘Antonyms’.Sincerely,
JRTjr

But I do mean one thing and you do mean another. You say I'm contradicting myself when I'm just pointing out that the dictionary definitions aren't adequate. Never mind the dictionary; just tell us what you mean.So once again I'll ask you, how do you arrive at your conclusions about real versus fake Bigfeet? What is the process?

Dear Ringo,As I said before: If you are not interested in finding out how I discern between what is ‘real’ (factual, true, and actual) and what is ‘imaginary’ or ‘fake’ then why ask the question??Sincerely,
JRTjr

Perhaps you have not noticed that you are participating in a philosophical discussion about the nature of reality in which the premise is that your perception of reality and the rules under which it operates, including your own sense of yourself as an entity may well be illusion.It may well be that such a discussion is ultimately pointless, but you've blundered into it. It turns that pointing to any method of discerning what is real using reasoning and your senses accomplishes next to nothing, at least for the purposes of this particular rabbit hole which is well distant from any idea included in the OP of this thread. Perhaps you can still escape?

Are you saying that you discern real Bigfeet from phony Bigfeet by dictionary definition? If so, how? If not, I suggest that you put a little thought into your answer instead of wasting my time.If you really do discern reality strictly by dictionary definitions, I'm really not interested in that.

Dear NoNukes,Thank you for your interest in my last post. Actually, this started off as a discussion of how involved God is in sustaining the universe.However, I do realize that Ringo is trying to put forth the concept that ‘reality’ is an ‘illusion’.The problem we are having is that he states this as if it is a forgone conclusion and he offers nothing to substantiate his clam. He then expects me to ‘prove’ my point of view; but using only his definitions and evidences’ he believes are not ‘Trivial’. This is a self-contradicting statement; just like a ‘married Bachler’ or a ‘square circle’.Besides all of that; if ‘reality’ were an ‘illusion’ then it would not be ‘reality’.Thanks again for the input,
JRTjr

Dear Ringo,Hope you are doing well. You ask me a question and then tell me I can only answer it a certain way.Like asking a carpenter to explain how to build a house and then telling him you don’t want to hear anything about laying a foundation, or building support walls or setting joists; you don’t want to hear about hammers or nails, screws or measuring tapes.‘Dictionary definitions’ are just the foundation of communication.If I say ‘the color red’ and you think ‘the color red’ is a band that plays rock music, but I meant noun - 1. any of various colors resembling the color of blood; the primary color at one extreme end of the visible spectrum, an effect of light with a wavelength between 610 and 780 nanometers. Then we are not communicating; we are talking passed each other.
{Dictionary.com}I am trying to avoid that problem. I use a dictionary to define terms so that I can articulate concepts in a succinct manner. If one word does not have a precise enough meaning then we can refine it by using other words.Throwing out a common Dictionary decreases our ability to communicate; it does not increase it.If you’re not happy with ‘Dictionary.com’ or the ‘Webster’s Dictionary’ that’s fine with me; pick an English Dictionary (preferably one we can both access on-line) and we will use it.God Bless,
JRTjr