You can't prove a negative (parody)

[Mystic]

When I beat you to a pulp with a club, you can explain to yourself how the universe in which this is drubbing is happening has not been proven to exist.

Yes I can. Philosophy has proven it. Saying "Pain" "ouch" "you die" etc, all doesn't prove the material world exists. Philosophy has proven that much.

Do you want me to provide that proof or isn't obvious by the very fact we experience things but haven't ontologically grasped what forms the material world, that it cannot be proven?

In fact naturalism wise, how would we ever get to know what is the essence of the material world? We just use our imagination along with our five senses.

[Darkstar]

Saying "Pain" "ouch" "you die" etc, all doesn't prove the material world exists. Philosophy has proven that much.

How so? Even if we were just brains in jars, those brains would still physically exist. Hence, there would still be a physical world, even if it was not what we were experiencing.

[Mystic]

But if it is properly basic, why would it be denied (by sane people)?

Perhaps different motives, factors, reasons. You've seen people here deny free-will existing. I don't know the reason, but, it can be similar to how we leave belief in a certain moral or do cognitive dissonance. For example, a moral and existential nihilist may have so much pride as to who he is, but at the same time, deny there is such thing as objective praise or value. This would be having two contradicting beliefs.

Furthermore, if someone denied the physical universe existing or said he doesn't believe it exists, they are allowed to wonder "Well why the heck do you believe that?".

It sounds unusual, but there is nothing to be gained from denying the existence of the universe. Would we not still act in the same way regardless? What evidence is there that the universe doesn't exist? (And if it does not, how are we capable
of thought?)

Maybe we can have more control over ourselves, if we believe we are solely spiritual. We can derive more will power with this belief and hence a person like people believe in magic or spiritual dragons or Djinn, or whatever, will come to believe in it.

Some counter-intuitive things are true, but there still doesn't appear to be any reason to doubt the existence of the universe.

Exactly. It doesn't appear to you. Which is why you might ask the person who has this view to explain himself.

So which one do you find more rational?The one who says "the burden of proof is on you, I can't prove a negative, it's your job to prove a positive"?

Mario can't actually think, so he couldn't even ponder these questions in the first place.

Missing the point of the analogy again. But I will play. Perhaps your body can't think, and it's just an avatar like mario in the game simulation.

[Anomalocaris]

When I beat you to a pulp with a club, you can explain to yourself how the universe in which this is drubbing is happening has not been proven to exist.

Yes I can. Philosophy has proven it. Saying "Pain" "ouch" "you die" etc, all doesn't prove the material world exists. Philosophy has proven that much.

Do you want me to provide that proof or isn't obvious by the very fact we experience things but haven't ontologically grasped what forms the material world, that it cannot be proven?

In fact naturalism wise, how would we ever get to know what is the essence of the material world? We just use our imagination along with our five senses.

Okay. So philosophy has proven that philosophy's idea of philosophy can't actually prove anything besides the notion that it can't prove anything. So all considered, what is comprehensively the most profitable atitude to take towards the drubbing and the comprehensive circumstances surrounding it, which philosophy can't prove to be happening, but which is nonetheless taking on every non-philosophical appearence of really happening?

[Mystic]

Okay. So philosophy has proven that philosophy's idea of philosophy can't actually prove anything besides it can't prove anything. So all considered, what is comprehensively the most profitable atitude to take towards the drubbing and the comprehensive circumstances surrounding it, which philosophy can't prove to be happening, but which is nonetheless taking on every non-philosophical appearence of really happening?

Now we are talking about what is more useful. But when a believer in God talks about his belief being useful, all attack is on the poor lad, in that it proves nothing.

Philosophy has proven a lot in my opinion. But that's up to people to decide.

---

Saying "Pain" "ouch" "you die" etc, all doesn't prove the material world exists. Philosophy has proven that much.

How so? Even if we were just brains in jars, those brains would still physically exist. Hence, there would still be a physical world, even if it was not what we were experiencing.

Brains in a jar, but not, souls in a different realm, experiencing the world via just our senses.

[catfish]

You're all figments of my imagination.

P.S. Please stop searching the universe, it's alot of work expanding this place every time someone gets close to seeing the brick wall at the end.
.

[Anomalocaris]

Now we are talking about what is more useful. But when a believer in God talks about his belief being useful, all attack is on the poor lad, in that it proves nothing.

We can explore in the real world which philsophy has not proven to be real what is really more useful, and for what purpose. But it would suffice for now to simply say a believer in god who admits his belief is not necessarily of any use at all to anyone else whatsoever, wouldn't be attacked.

It is that almost universal failing of believers in god that deserves them the attacks they receive - the insistence that you must play along in the privacy of your thoughts and actions with what they deem useful in their private thoughts.

[Mystic]

Now we are talking about what is more useful. But when a believer in God talks about his belief being useful, all attack is on the poor lad, in that it proves nothing.

We can real world which philsophy has not proven to be real to explore what actually is more useful, but it would suffice to simply say a believer in god who admits whether his belief is not necessarily of any use at all to anyone else whatsoever, wouldn't be attacked.

Why would he have to believe that? Why isn't the idea that you have a Creator who will show you who you are and the true perception of praise or condemnation of all your actions one day, not a useful idea for everyone? If they believed this was true, why wouldn't they want everyone to believe in it?

If they believed their Creator sent guidance to humanity, why wouldn't they believe others should follow that guidance?

Now personally, I don't mind if people believe in a Creator or supernatural or not, what matters to me is being a good person, but I understand people other perspective, when God means the world to them.

[Anomalocaris]

? Why isn't the idea that you have a Creator who will show you who you are and the true perception of praise of all your actions one day, not a useful idea for everyone? .

Because attempts to show its usefulness is always met with better grounded, more thorough, more cohensive and less circular demonstration of its lack of usefulness.

[Darkstar]

Is this an argument for epistemological nihilism?