A Non-Violent Solution?

[Abracadabra]

Your "solution" is based on the absence of knowledge about reality. Therefore, it cannot be realistic.

Remaining open-minded about what cannot be known is not unrealistic.

That wouldn't change the fact of certain doom and neither would it protect anyone form it.

Certain doom is not necessarily a 'fact'. It's just something that you have personally accepted to believe because you can't imagine a spiritual essence to reality.

And I never said that it would protect anyone from anything. All I suggested is that it would allow people to have hope who wish to consider these things as possibilities.

You don't need complete knowledge of what a thing is to rule out what it cannot be. Even if a reality independent of spatio-temporal reality does exist, it cannot have a consciousness.

So says you.

But who are you to make such an outrageous claim?

You can't possibly know that with absolute certainty. All you can do is accept that you personally feel that this is the most likely situation. But trying to demand that other people jump to the same conclusions that you do can only amount to extreme personal arrogance.

There's just no other explanation for such a stance.

Knowing the true nature of reality (again with the redundancy, you just don't learn, do you?) is not required to state what it cannot be. What it cannot be is self-contradictory and your position necessarily leads to self-contradiction.

I disagree. It's that simple.

I can personally imagine a scenario where the totally of what we think we know is actually nothing more than an illusion.

Yet, your conclusions that you can rule out illusion would themselves be based on that illusion, thus making them totally illusive and meaningless.

You're very foundational premise begins with your acceptance that everything you have experienced and see around you cannot possibly be an illusion.

You could be totally wrong about that altogether.

In fact, there exists scientists and cosmologists today who are seriously toying with ideas that the entire universe may be nothing more than a hologram of some sorts.

There was a "Black Hole War" between Leonard Susskind and Stephen Hawking concerning the idea of whether or not "information" can be lost from the universe. Susskind held that this would be an extreme violation of our very understanding of physics. Hawking felt that our understanding of physics must then be violated.

After many years, Hawking finally conceded that Susskind was right, and that information is not lost when it falls into a black hole, but instead it is somehow spread across the entire event horizon.

And esoteric conclusion to be sure, but this is what physicists are considering.

From these very results other cosmologists have chimed in suggesting that our entire universe may actually be some kind of hologram that is actually being created by a 'surface boundary' of the universe, too far away for us to even detect.

Yes, I'll be the first to grant that these are truly wild and speculative theories. None the less, these types of theories exist. And like Leonard Susskind himself has said, we don't question whether or not these things make intuitive sense, we just follow the logic, and that's where the logic appears to be pointing.

So your claim that you can "rule out" anything, is a bit premature, IMHO.

You may as well be preaching Christian fundamentalism as far as I'm concerned. You're demand that you can rule something out is equally laughable.

You have absolutely no ground to stand on.

All you can say is that based on assumptions and premises that you are personally willing to accept, you can't imagine how a spiritual essence of reality can exist.

But in truth, that is not impressive to other people, nor should it be.

You could be accepting totally false assumptions and be totally unaware of that fact yourself.

Like I say, I can easily lump you in with the definition of "atheist" in my sig line. A person who simply lacks enough imagination to overcome mundane assumptions. That instantly explains away your claim to have a 'proof" of anything. You're just accepting assumptions that cannot themselves be proven.

Why should I accept your limited thinking?