That was my quote.
It just seems that you are grasping for an exception that could possibly make me delusional on the macro scale. It's not anything you actually consider to be true, but it's an example of an extenuating circumstance that would render my view of reality, on the whole, unreliable.
What I'm saying is that since that could be true for both of us, it would be more beneficial to grant that we're not brains in a vat, and speak to the rule in question, and not the exception.
Take my pumpkin example. The rule being that people are people, and pumpkins are pumpkins. A view that contradicts this would go against the rule. Are you with me? Our religious views are not necessary to determine whether or not my thinking I'm a pumpkin, makes me a pumpkin, right? It's an inaccurate representation of what we both concede to be reality. Having granted our senses and the limitations of them, we can speak about the things that are either accurate representations of what we know, or otherwise. Your thoughts?
It just seems that you are grasping for an exception that could possibly make me delusional on the macro scale. It's not anything you actually consider to be true, but it's an example of an extenuating circumstance that would render my view of reality, on the whole, unreliable.
What I'm saying is that since that could be true for both of us, it would be more beneficial to grant that we're not brains in a vat, and speak to the rule in question, and not the exception.
Take my pumpkin example. The rule being that people are people, and pumpkins are pumpkins. A view that contradicts this would go against the rule. Are you with me? Our religious views are not necessary to determine whether or not my thinking I'm a pumpkin, makes me a pumpkin, right? It's an inaccurate representation of what we both concede to be reality. Having granted our senses and the limitations of them, we can speak about the things that are either accurate representations of what we know, or otherwise. Your thoughts?
