RE: Theists, are you immune to being decieved?
November 18, 2013 at 11:28 pm
(This post was last modified: November 18, 2013 at 11:36 pm by The Reality Salesman01.)
Whether or not that exact scenario would happen is irrelevant to the fact that we're having a very similar conversation right now.
Neither you, Stat, nor I are concerned about whether or not we're actually having a conversation, otherwise, why have we been responding?
Is there a cute conjecture that can be posed to raise doubt to the validity of it actually taking place? Sure. But that's not what we're talking about.
We've all conceded that our experience of reality exists.
We conceded that this experience is governed upon a set of principles.
We've conceded that these principles are nothing without our faculties for perception that make us aware of them.
All that has been established upon entering this conversation. Just like it would be upon us watching a football game.
Having established those things, we can now discuss any number of things and their validity within the paradigm that rests upon our mutual assumptions.
Do you see what I'm saying here yet?
He's trying to throw the whole game out of the window because the catch was ruled incomplete. We all mutually subscribe to the same rules, but you can't throw them all out when something you really want to be true is ruled out by them. On what grounds does one make this special plea? On what grounds after do you make a case for any other?
Neither you, Stat, nor I are concerned about whether or not we're actually having a conversation, otherwise, why have we been responding?
Is there a cute conjecture that can be posed to raise doubt to the validity of it actually taking place? Sure. But that's not what we're talking about.
We've all conceded that our experience of reality exists.
We conceded that this experience is governed upon a set of principles.
We've conceded that these principles are nothing without our faculties for perception that make us aware of them.
All that has been established upon entering this conversation. Just like it would be upon us watching a football game.
Having established those things, we can now discuss any number of things and their validity within the paradigm that rests upon our mutual assumptions.
(November 18, 2013 at 10:58 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: No. Remember what I said: You make an assumption. I assume that reality probably does somewhat match up to my perception of it. But it's still an assumption that I can neither prove to be nor not be the case.But if I were to be convinced that I could fly, would I be delusional? If so, by measure of what other standard than the mutual assumption that is shared by all of us within the paradigm of human experience?
Do you see what I'm saying here yet?
He's trying to throw the whole game out of the window because the catch was ruled incomplete. We all mutually subscribe to the same rules, but you can't throw them all out when something you really want to be true is ruled out by them. On what grounds does one make this special plea? On what grounds after do you make a case for any other?