China does not exist

[AtheistPhil]

How do you actually know anything exists?

We don't ! The only thing we know is that we exist in some kind of way since we can think and are aware that we're thinking (Thanks Descartes).

[theblindferrengi]

So, what exactly would be the purpose of making up a place called China? That does not seem to be worth anything near the effort it would require.

[Minimalist]

and I don't have the capability with my limited resources to do so.(which are not even more limited, ugh...)

The first thing you must do is never, ever, complain again about your limited resources when you apparently have the ability to waste those "resources" on such a pointless fucking thread.

[Violet]

Actually it's a fair point. One cannot be a materialist and then demand evidence of a non-material being. This is why I reject materialism...

Though that is not to suggest that they cannot know China exists (even if they are hypocritical and wrong in doing so).

I am a materialist insofar as my beliefs. I would never defend materialism from an intellectual standpoint... but I believe there to be no mystical voodoo duality realm or other mumbo jumbo nonetheless.

---

How do you actually know anything exists?

We don't ! The only thing we know is that we exist in some kind of way since we can think and are aware that we're thinking (Thanks Descartes).

Actually... we know quite a lot.

But our knowing a thing does not posit that it is correct.

Also, we cannot even prove that we are thinking. We may be simple constructs with simple functions that are designed to display what thinking looks like, although no actual thinking process is taking place. Knowledge is but the assumption that we are correct... and assumptions do not correct us make.

I never said it was anything new. Nothing is.

I disagree with this.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

^Fuck! I've been blown away because he totally is! Dammit!
Oh and Phil, those places don't exist either. They're just made up by people who want to brainwash you into thinking China exists.

Well,yes and no-----.

God actually created reality 30 seconds ago,with all artifacts and our memories.

Prove otherwise.


This waste of time is thought by some to be a form of sophistry,but it isn't;it lacks the sophistication.

Right now, I'd kill for a BLT sammie, with sauce (ketsup)

[Eilonnwy]

Actually it's a fair point. One cannot be a materialist and then demand evidence of a non-material being. This is why I reject materialism...

Not entirely. If the non-material being is said to interact in the world in a substantial and material way, then we have something to talk about.

If you're talking about non-material and also non-interactive then we really don't have much to talk about anyway.

[KichigaiNeko]

I could get really materialistic and murder a kebab!

This thread is a joke right??

[Eilonnwy]

I don't think it was intended to be a joke, but it inevitably became one.

[KichigaiNeko]

I don't think it was intended to be a joke, but it inevitably became one.

If it's a question of just what is and is not real; then the utilisation of China as an example is poor. Surely the question is whether or not the 'I' is real or not. And now I think we might be heading into Zen or it's Chinese equivalent Ch'an, or is it both??

China may or may not exist the question is whether you exist enough to witness it??

[Eilonnwy]

The argument goes like this, "If you believe in only things that you can touch and see, how can you believe Australia Exists?" Basically to prop up the idea that a materialist ideology is insufficient in asserting the existence of a country you've never been to. However it's a fallacious argument because you can assert Australia (or in this case, China) exists because we can see maps of Australia, we can call someone in Australia, we can meet people from Australia, etc... The same idea applies to God in the sense that if he is real and exerts some type of influence on the reality we see, we could test it and come to a conclusion, but that's not the case.

As I've said many times before, if God is a transcendant being that does not influence this world, then why worship? If he does, then we should be able to substantially test for it.