Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-03-2016, 12:21 PM
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(28-03-2016 10:55 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  ... how does someone that cannot post more than a paragraph in response to an argument have the ability to detect deep thinkers

You're apparently so uneducated you aren't able to distinguish between "cannot" and "refuses to give you that much time".

Because ... wait for it ... you're not worth it.

(28-03-2016 10:55 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  ... need to study this behavior more...

Oooh, attempted condescension.

Run-of-the-mill comeback, color me unimpressed, 3/10. I would have given you a four except for your entirely extraneous use of ellipses, the mark of an uneducated writer.

ETA: I almost forgot -- dumbfuck.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
28-03-2016, 01:11 PM
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(28-03-2016 12:21 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(28-03-2016 10:55 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  ... how does someone that cannot post more than a paragraph in response to an argument have the ability to detect deep thinkers

You're apparently so uneducated you aren't able to distinguish between "cannot" and "refuses to give you that much time".

Because ... wait for it ... you're not worth it.

(28-03-2016 10:55 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  ... need to study this behavior more...

Oooh, attempted condescension.

Run-of-the-mill comeback, color me unimpressed, 3/10. I would have given you a four except for your entirely extraneous use of ellipses, the mark of an uneducated writer.

ETA: I almost forgot -- dumbfuck.

In the context of a forum conversation I prefer people who can keep it concise. Writing walls of boring blather is the first and most damning sign you're a crank IMO. People who're totally invested in an idea are the only ones who think requiring others to read long meandering crap-posts or watch long stupid videos is reasonable.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like morondog's post
28-03-2016, 01:46 PM (This post was last modified: 28-03-2016 01:54 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(28-03-2016 06:54 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  To the best of your knowledge? What does that mean?


Bro, do you even English?

It means that I know that I don't know everything, and there may exist evidence that disagrees with me or that I am unaware of. It's also a tacit admission that the state of the evidence could change, and the conclusion we draw from them could follow suit. That being said, I am drawing conclusions from the best of my current knowledge. It just so happens to fundamentally both disagree and outclass you.



(28-03-2016 06:54 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  This is not a counter argument rooted in the scientific method.


Bro, do you even science? You seem to fundamentally misunderstand (one may even say, purposely so) what the method is and how it works.



(28-03-2016 06:54 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  "to the best of your knowledge" is not based on any scientific evidence for the claim.


When all you present to support your assertions is (fundamentally flawed and nonsensical) mental masturbation, you don't get to be uptight about everyone else not having a dissertation level source page.



(28-03-2016 06:54 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  It is based on a belief system blinded by trust in things outside of your own perception.


Remember boys and girls: Solipsism gets you nowhere, it is a dead-end epistemology.

For starters, I have eyes, and I can use them to read articles and papers. Clearly, the evidence is perceptible; I can fucking read it. And if you have a fundamental problem with perceived reality (the aforementioned dead-end of solipsism), then why are you here wasting your time arguing with figments of your imagination? Are you a stupid cunt or something?



(28-03-2016 06:54 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I keep asking you to present me the proof of your claim and your answer is "to the best of your knowledge"
If you provide me the proof you will immediately disprove the possibility.


Well, clearly you didn't watch the YouTube videos I posted that give you a quick rundown on evidetalism. But seeing as how you don't trust your perceptions, it would be impossible for me to present any evidence to you to sufficiently convince you. So why in the fucking hell should I, or anyone else, bother? I mean, we're all just figments of your imagination after all. And let's be serious here, if that's true, you have a really shitty imagination.



(28-03-2016 06:54 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Peer review belongs to the set of things that can fall outside of your perception & is therefore inadmissible as EVIDENCE in this case.


If you doubt the existence of reality, no evidence can convince you. So why do you bother? Hard solipsism is both unfalsifiable and an epistemological dead end. You'd already know this, if you'd ever taken a Philosophy 101 course.



(28-03-2016 06:54 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Peer review has it's uses but peer review isnt evidence nor is it something we do before gathering evidence.
Look at the chronology of "peer review" within the scientific method:
1. Observation
2. Hypothesis
3. Prediction
4. Experimentation/Research < ----- evidence starts being gathered here
5. Observation/results/comparison of 'Before' and 'After'. <----- Peer review starts here
6. Conclusion

I asked you to provide me with evidence and you spoke about peer review.
I think you know what my next words are obviously going to be. "Where is the evidence?"


There is no evidence I, or anyone else, could present to a solipsist; it is unfalsifiable. Why do you bother?



(28-03-2016 06:54 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Anything that falls outside the set of perceivable evidence is inadmissible evidence when attempting to prove reality exists outside of perception.


I cannot perceive the past, but I can watch records of it. Pull out your phone and take a video of your surroundings, then replay that video; you are watching a video recording of a limited perception of that time and place. Show that to someone else tomorrow, and they too can share in that small sliver of perception of that time and place. You have evidence of what happened in that time and place, even if you don't show it to anytone else; and other people not seeing it does not negate what happened there. Knowing that, what justification do you have to likewise doubt such evidence presented by other people?

Of course, something like this is just too fucking simple for a solipsist.



(28-03-2016 06:54 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  There currently exists no known way (that I know of) to seperate reality from perception other than educated guesswork.


It's real easy, it's called 'ignorance'. You cannot perceive subatomic particles, so if you've never been presented with the evidence of their existence, you can be totally oblivious to their existence and the role they play in reality. It's really that fucking simple.

The irony of something this simple being lost on someone so ignorant as yourself is not lost on us.



(28-03-2016 06:54 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  It has yet to be proven.


See? This is what we mean when we say you fundamentally misunderstand science and the scientific method. Proofs only exist in mathematics and law. Science has never 'proven' anything. It has only failed to disprove lots of things after trying really, really, really hard to prove them wrong.



(28-03-2016 06:54 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  The inability to prove something exists does not prove or disprove it's existence. The possibility still remains.


For the umpteenth time you cock gargling ignoramus.

Possibility is not the same as probability, and you need to stop conflating the two.



(28-03-2016 06:54 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If you are making a guess it would be nice of you to admit that "educated guesswork is still guesswork."


All of your posts are bad mental masturbation, so how about you go first?



(28-03-2016 06:54 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You are not willing to admit that even though you cannot provide any proof of your claim outside of a guess.


No amount of evidence, being reliant upon a reality outside of 'the self', could ever satisfy a solipicist; so why the fuck do you care?



(28-03-2016 06:54 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Your words sound like "I guess that my guess is true"
My words sound like "I guess that my guess is a guess"


No, you sound like a pretentious dickhead who had his mind blown when a friend tried to explain the simulated reality theory in a drunken stupor at the bar.



(28-03-2016 06:54 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  All I'm saying is:
Respect the scientific method if you are going to flail it around as your flag ship against Theists.


You wouldn't understand the scientific method if it was ass fucking you with a gasoline powered dildodozer.


Plus, thanks for not addressing anything in my post with your vapid response. Always appreciated when the OP is being an evasive disingenuous cunt.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like EvolutionKills's post
28-03-2016, 03:29 PM (This post was last modified: 28-03-2016 03:37 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(28-03-2016 12:08 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(28-03-2016 02:47 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Why are you applying rules that apply to a physical reality to a reality that is said to not be bound by any of the rules such as that? Such a reality would not be bound by time. If you claim it can be destroyed it would have no meaning except as a moment that can be achieved by merely thinking about it. Simultaneously, before & after does not exist. It just is. Every moment is just as equal as another moment and all moments are possible while infinite due to the possibility we can add more to that which already exists.

Change requires time.
Thought requires change.
Minds require thought.

Your timeless reality is mindless.

Quote:Thought is the only thing necessary for such a reality to exist. Adding anything outside of thought to such a reality will collapse the reality.

What you describe is not reality. It is fantasy.

BTW, this is the very definition of Special Pleading and post hoc rationalization. When you start positting unreal realities it is an exceptionally good indicator that your philosophy has gone completely off the tracks.
I was hoping for an objection, but, for the most part, you just repeated what I have been saying.
It has always been the case that the reality I am speaking about was only a hypothetical one.
It is an unproven hypothesis, aka fantasy. I thought this would have been obvious by now.

Discussing unproven hypothesis is what scientists do all the time. Let me guess, only scientists are allowed to speculate over an unproven hypothesis? Isn't that what philosophers do too? Why would the common man be excluded from speculation by the way?
There is a difference between "a philosophy" & "my philosophy" <---- can you tell the difference?
A philosophy would require a belief, & we already established I have none.
I posted a possibility & not a philosophy. <---- looking forward to an objection

There is a reason why the hypothesis is worth looking into:
Thought may be the closest thing we have reason to believe exists which transcends the boundaries of time. <---- looking forward to your objection
If we are to find an answer to what caused reality, we would need a stimulus that is not bound by time.

You could easily put an end to this thread right now if you would slimply make a good objection as to why something with the essence of thought would not be a good cause for the creation of physical reality. (and I'm not talking about human consciousness here)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2016, 03:43 PM (This post was last modified: 28-03-2016 03:54 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(28-03-2016 01:46 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(28-03-2016 06:54 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  To the best of your knowledge? What does that mean?


Bro, do you even English?

It means that I know that I don't know everything, and there may exist evidence that disagrees with me or that I am unaware of. It's also a tacit admission that the state of the evidence could change, and the conclusion we draw from them could follow suit. That being said, I am drawing conclusions from the best of my current knowledge. It just so happens to fundamentally both disagree and outclass you.



(28-03-2016 06:54 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  This is not a counter argument rooted in the scientific method.


Bro, do you even science? You seem to fundamentally misunderstand (one may even say, purposely so) what the method is and how it works.



(28-03-2016 06:54 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  "to the best of your knowledge" is not based on any scientific evidence for the claim.


When all you present to support your assertions is (fundamentally flawed and nonsensical) mental masturbation, you don't get to be uptight about everyone else not having a dissertation level source page.



(28-03-2016 06:54 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  It is based on a belief system blinded by trust in things outside of your own perception.


Remember boys and girls: Solipsism gets you nowhere, it is a dead-end epistemology.

For starters, I have eyes, and I can use them to read articles and papers. Clearly, the evidence is perceptible; I can fucking read it. And if you have a fundamental problem with perceived reality (the aforementioned dead-end of solipsism), then why are you here wasting your time arguing with figments of your imagination? Are you a stupid cunt or something?



(28-03-2016 06:54 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I keep asking you to present me the proof of your claim and your answer is "to the best of your knowledge"
If you provide me the proof you will immediately disprove the possibility.


Well, clearly you didn't watch the YouTube videos I posted that give you a quick rundown on evidetalism. But seeing as how you don't trust your perceptions, it would be impossible for me to present any evidence to you to sufficiently convince you. So why in the fucking hell should I, or anyone else, bother? I mean, we're all just figments of your imagination after all. And let's be serious here, if that's true, you have a really shitty imagination.



(28-03-2016 06:54 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Peer review belongs to the set of things that can fall outside of your perception & is therefore inadmissible as EVIDENCE in this case.


If you doubt the existence of reality, no evidence can convince you. So why do you bother? Hard solipsism is both unfalsifiable and an epistemological dead end. You'd already know this, if you'd ever taken a Philosophy 101 course.



(28-03-2016 06:54 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Peer review has it's uses but peer review isnt evidence nor is it something we do before gathering evidence.
Look at the chronology of "peer review" within the scientific method:
1. Observation
2. Hypothesis
3. Prediction
4. Experimentation/Research < ----- evidence starts being gathered here
5. Observation/results/comparison of 'Before' and 'After'. <----- Peer review starts here
6. Conclusion

I asked you to provide me with evidence and you spoke about peer review.
I think you know what my next words are obviously going to be. "Where is the evidence?"


There is no evidence I, or anyone else, could present to a solipsist; it is unfalsifiable. Why do you bother?



(28-03-2016 06:54 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Anything that falls outside the set of perceivable evidence is inadmissible evidence when attempting to prove reality exists outside of perception.


I cannot perceive the past, but I can watch records of it. Pull out your phone and take a video of your surroundings, then replay that video; you are watching a video recording of a limited perception of that time and place. Show that to someone else tomorrow, and they too can share in that small sliver of perception of that time and place. You have evidence of what happened in that time and place, even if you don't show it to anytone else; and other people not seeing it does not negate what happened there. Knowing that, what justification do you have to likewise doubt such evidence presented by other people?

Of course, something like this is just too fucking simple for a solipsist.



(28-03-2016 06:54 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  There currently exists no known way (that I know of) to seperate reality from perception other than educated guesswork.


It's real easy, it's called 'ignorance'. You cannot perceive subatomic particles, so if you've never been presented with the evidence of their existence, you can be totally oblivious to their existence and the role they play in reality. It's really that fucking simple.

The irony of something this simple being lost on someone so ignorant as yourself is not lost on us.



(28-03-2016 06:54 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  It has yet to be proven.


See? This is what we mean when we say you fundamentally misunderstand science and the scientific method. Proofs only exist in mathematics and law. Science has never 'proven' anything. It has only failed to disprove lots of things after trying really, really, really hard to prove them wrong.



(28-03-2016 06:54 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  The inability to prove something exists does not prove or disprove it's existence. The possibility still remains.


For the umpteenth time you cock gargling ignoramus.

Possibility is not the same as probability, and you need to stop conflating the two.



(28-03-2016 06:54 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If you are making a guess it would be nice of you to admit that "educated guesswork is still guesswork."


All of your posts are bad mental masturbation, so how about you go first?



(28-03-2016 06:54 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You are not willing to admit that even though you cannot provide any proof of your claim outside of a guess.


No amount of evidence, being reliant upon a reality outside of 'the self', could ever satisfy a solipicist; so why the fuck do you care?



(28-03-2016 06:54 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Your words sound like "I guess that my guess is true"
My words sound like "I guess that my guess is a guess"


No, you sound like a pretentious dickhead who had his mind blown when a friend tried to explain the simulated reality theory in a drunken stupor at the bar.



(28-03-2016 06:54 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  All I'm saying is:
Respect the scientific method if you are going to flail it around as your flag ship against Theists.


You wouldn't understand the scientific method if it was ass fucking you with a gasoline powered dildodozer.


Plus, thanks for not addressing anything in my post with your vapid response. Always appreciated when the OP is being an evasive disingenuous cunt.
I'm not even going to read or reply to the remainder of your post past the first point.
The logic of someone, when asked to provide evidence, tells me "to the best of our knowledge" is his evidence is not very interesting to me.
I am hereby instructing you to make a mockery of the debate after this post, insults included. Don't let me down.
Have fun
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2016, 03:46 PM
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(28-03-2016 03:29 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You could easily put an end to this thread right now if you would simply make a good objection as to why something with the essence of thought would not be a good cause for the creation of physical reality. (and I'm not talking about human consciousness here)

People have. You've consistently ignored them.

Other people posting 'counter arguments' is not how things work.

You have to actually post something of substance first. I pointed this out to you on page one and, as usual, you flipped and changed the conversation until quite a few pages had gone by before sliding back to your initial drivel.

So, again for the umpteenth time, have you gone to sleep and woken up and found reality just like you left it?

Not that I expect any sort of decent or credible answer from an evasive, plagiarizing solipsist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Peebothuhul's post
28-03-2016, 03:50 PM
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(28-03-2016 03:46 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(28-03-2016 03:29 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You could easily put an end to this thread right now if you would simply make a good objection as to why something with the essence of thought would not be a good cause for the creation of physical reality. (and I'm not talking about human consciousness here)

People have. You've consistently ignored them.

Other people posting 'counter arguments' is not how things work.

You have to actually post something of substance first. I pointed this out to you on page one and, as usual, you flipped and changed the conversation until quite a few pages had gone by before sliding back to your initial drivel.

So, again for the umpteenth time, have you gone to sleep and woken up and found reality just like you left it?

Not that I expect any sort of decent or credible answer from an evasive, plagiarizing solipsist.
Sorry Peebothuhul, but this thread is for debates. Make an argument or I am just going to keep on ignoring you. Scream for my attention all you like, but I already have enough kids.
While you're at it try to learn the meaning of the word debate.

Debate: a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.
Oh and I'm not posting the source of that definition because you don't even know the meaning of the word immoral either.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2016, 04:09 PM (This post was last modified: 28-03-2016 04:15 PM by Peebothuhul.)
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
(28-03-2016 03:50 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Sorry Peebothuhul, but this thread is for debates.

No... it really isn't. Again people have explained where your thread has been put and 'debating' is low on the list for things that happen here.

If, however, you actually want to engage people in conversation then I am sure they'll oblige.

(28-03-2016 03:50 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Make an argument or I am just going to keep on ignoring you.

No Again for the munbteenth time, that is not how it works from here.

As I explained before and am explaining again. You made a statement. I said you were wrong. I then gave you a way to test your initial statement.

All you have to do is tell me how well you've slept and if reality has come back on for you similar to how your consciousness left it.

(28-03-2016 03:50 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Scream for my attention all you like, but I already have enough kids.
While you're at it try to learn the meaning of the word debate.

Laugh out load

And again with the condescending insults. You're the one ignoring my posts... and a lot of other peoples while constantly adding more of your hype for all to see.

Who's seeking attention here? Consider

Just a note? I've been insulted by lots more and far better and more talented people than yourself. Work harder at it. Thumbsup

(28-03-2016 03:50 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Debate: a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.
Oh and I'm not posting the source of that definition because you don't even know the meaning of the word immoral either.

Laugh out load

Love your insistence of what other people must do while you happily fek about doing what ever the fek you want.

Not that I expect any sort of decent or credible answer from an evasive, plagiarizing solipsist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
28-03-2016, 04:19 PM
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
Peebothuhul Wrote:nothing
Agnostic Shane Wrote:nothing
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2016, 04:25 PM
RE: Open Challenge: Reality may not exist without thoughts
Well... you know what they all say, "Nuffin' will come from nuffin'." Cheer up ye old bugger.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: