Theists, are you immune to being decieved?

[MindForgedManacle]

Whether or not that exact scenario would happen is irrelevant to the fact that we're having a very similar conversation right now.

I was explaining why the question is so bizarre to most people. Context man.

Neither you, Stat, nor I are concerned about whether or not we're actually having a conversation, otherwise, why have we been responding?

Because 1) I make the assumption that reality is probably like what I perceive and 2) Even if it isn't, I find doing something better than doing nothing at all.

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.

Except it is.

[quote
We've all conceded that our experience of reality exists.[/quote]

Well, at least mine does, because it's an incorrigible proposition. I only assume everyone else does too.

We conceded that this experience is governed upon a set of principles.

Where did we agree to that?

We've conceded that these principles are nothing without our faculties for perception that make us aware of them.

And where did we agree to that?

All that has been established upon entering this conversation. Just like it would be upon us watching a football game.

No, we assume that. The reason no one would bring that up in the football game scenario is because everyone tacitly assumes all sorts of things about reality, even if we can't actually prove it (uniformity of nature, realism, etc.)

Having established those things, we can now discuss any number of things and their validity within the paradigm that rests upon our mutual assumptions.

Well, you're right that they're assumptions. If we could prove them, we wouldn't need the assumptions.

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?

Nothing. It's just the *necessary* assumption that you aren't delusional.

If you are delusional, do you have to know it in order for it to be true? If yes, then how can you trust the reasoning that led you to conclude you're delusional? If no, then you cannot rule it out other than by assumption.

Do you see what I'm saying here yet?

Nope.

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?

I'm not sure what's being said here. If something can't be proved or disproved by the very nature of what's in question, an assumption is really the only way to go.