Reality

[Azazel]

How can you distinguish anything around you is real? [font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Reality and every object that ever existed is completely independent in your mind, reality is something you choose to believe in. You believe what is real and not real by determining which is valid [/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]using your senses[/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif], when you do this your mind is manufacturing a reality. What if I told you that you could be drooling in a wheelchair right now and everything you perceive to be reality is not reality? Sadly, there is no proving this. Your mind is a box, you are forever trapped in this box.[/font]

 

[Random]

I think that it doesn't matter either way. Just as people naturally think that life must have some purpose, Everyone's different in their perceiving of the world around them.

Honestly, there's also no proving it's not real. so your argument is invalid.

Technically, If you weren't "trapped" in this box (your mind) you'd just be a braindead invalid. your mind controls your body.

 

[Senpai]

Alright @Azazel can you stop fucking with my mind lol. Stuff like this makes me think all crazy.

 

[Shiver]

Shit fam I like the box my mind is in right now like lol.

---

I think that it doesn't matter either way. Just as people naturally think that life must have some purpose, Everyone's different in their perceiving of the world around them.

Honestly, there's also no proving it's not real. so your argument is invalid.

Technically, If you weren't "trapped" in this box (your mind) you'd just be a braindead invalid. your mind controls your body.

My nigga Shaine is not dumb, he is smart. 

 

[Azazel]

I think that it doesn't matter either way. Just as people naturally think that life must have some purpose, Everyone's different in their perceiving of the world around them.

Honestly, there's also no proving it's not real. so your argument is invalid.

Technically, If you weren't "trapped" in this box (your mind) you'd just be a braindead invalid. your mind controls your body.

Almost everything you've just said has proved my point. 

As for your last line, please elaborate.

 

[Random]

Almost everything you've just said has proved my point. 

As for your last line, please elaborate.

You really must be illiterate if you've found a way to interpret my points in your favour.

As for the last line, it was a joke. because you mentioned being trapped in the box if your minds creation 'reality'.

 

[NULLNULLNULL]

I don't know, questions like these are just based on speculation really. All they do is lead to more questions. What is it? Is there meaning? What is being? Its all teleological and metaphysical questions. I think at some basic level we have to assume that certain things are the way we see them, and not some other complex surrealistic way. Then again that can't be proven, so I don't know.

 

[Azazel]

You really must be illiterate if you've found a way to interpret my points in your favour.

As for the last line, it was a joke. because you mentioned being trapped in the box if your minds creation 'reality'.

So much for a formal debate.

Going back to your first post, your first line is you talking about how people interpret the meaning of life when in my original post I am clearly talking about reality. As the meaning of life and reality are two different topics to debate about. For your second line "There's no proving its real" I am inferring by what the thread is about you are saying there's no proving reality is real which is what I am saying that we don't know if anything is real. As for the last line of you saying it was a joke, quite frankly I think your entire post was a joke.

 

[Random]

So much for a formal debate.

Going back to your first post, your first line is you talking about how people interpret the meaning of life when in my original post I am clearly talking about reality. As the meaning of life and reality are two different topics to debate about. For your second line "There's no proving its real" I am inferring by what the thread is about you are saying there's no proving reality is real which is what I am saying that we don't know if anything is real. As for the last line of you saying it was a joke, quite frankly I think your entire post was a joke.

No, I said "Just as" before the meaning of life post, because I was referring to your post with the same reference to those who ponder the meaning of life.

"So much for a formal debate" please explain when I stopped extending my formality, I simply pointed out that you must be illiterate to some extent if you cannot understand my diction. it's the only explanation.

There's no proving that reality is not real. Which invalidates your argument on the point that the same could be said about any non-proven theories, such like: we cannot prove that the sun doesn't get colder as your get closer, since we have not been to it, it must be true.

No.

If you think my post was a joke, you have a very poor sense of humour, and I pity what your life experience must be.. in a world perceived with such low comedy standards.

 

[Azazel]

No, I said "Just as" before the meaning of life post, because I was referring to your post with the same reference to those who ponder the meaning of life.

"So much for a formal debate" please explain when I stopped extending my formality, I simply pointed out that you must be illiterate to some extent if you cannot understand my diction. it's the only explanation.

There's no proving that reality is not real. Which invalidates your argument on the point that the same could be said about any non-proven theories, such like: we cannot prove that the sun doesn't get colder as your get closer, since we have not been to it, it must be true.

No.

If you think my post was a joke, you have a very poor sense of humour, and I pity what your life experience must be.. in a world perceived with such low comedy standards.

I suppose you did say "Just as".

If you think telling someone they cannot read nor write is being formal then I do not know what to tell you.

Now, back onto the actual debate. As I said you cannot tell if anything is real; reality as being apart of anything. [font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]All you are doing is taking what I am saying and repeating it to me as if you are trying to do something clever.[/font]

[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Just because something is a joke doesn't make it automatically funny. I do not think what you are saying is humorous at all, I actually feel somewhat bad for you since you are a [/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]pseudo intellectual.[/font]

 

[Random]

I suppose you did say "Just as".

If you think telling someone they cannot read nor write is being formal then I do not know what to tell you.

Now, back onto the actual debate. As I said you cannot tell if anything is real; reality as being apart of anything. [font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]All you are doing is taking what I am saying and repeating it to me as if you are trying to do something clever.[/font]

[font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]Just because something is a joke doesn't make it automatically funny. I do not think what you are saying is humorous at all, I actually feel somewhat bad for you since you are a [/font][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]pseudo intellectual.[/font]

All I did was prove that your whole argument is invalid.

When you say that we can't be sure if reality is real, you're just creating a paradox, wherein nothing can be proven real nor fake.

 

[Cred]

I've always wondered this as well like what if we're in a coma right now and we're over here living another life while people are waiting for you to wake up, it kinda freaks me out tho.

 

[Azazel]

When you say that we can't be sure if reality is real, you're just creating a paradox, wherein nothing can be proven real nor fake.

YES. That is what I am saying I am glad you were able to read. It cannot be proven real or fake making it possible. 

 

[Random]

YES. That is what I am saying I am glad you were able to read. It cannot be proven real or fake making it possible. 

But also making it impossible, as we cannot prove it's not impossible.

Schrödinger's paradox.

meaning you have no argument. as there is no argument. I'm sure it's true and not true at the same time, as you cannot prove it one way or another.

 

[Azazel]

But also making it impossible, as we cannot prove it's not impossible.

Schrödinger's paradox.

meaning you have no argument. as there is no argument. I'm sure it's true and not true at the same time, as you cannot prove it one way or another.

That is like saying there is no argument of the Christian's God being in existence. There is no proof proving it real or fake but yet there is still millions of arguments about it.

 

[Random]

That is like saying there is no argument of the Christian's God being in existence. There is no proof proving it real or fake but yet there is still millions of arguments about it.

What I mean is there is no point to such arguments, as there is no end. Same as Schrödinger had come to learn, if we can't prove, we must accept that both options are true and false.

So this argument has no grounds, is all.

You can carry on with it, I've simply debated my opinion that there is no reason for this argument.

cheers!

 

[Cann!bal]

What I mean is there is no point to such arguments, as there is no end. Same as Schrödinger had come to learn, if we can't prove, we must accept that both options are true and false.
So this argument has no grounds, is all.
You can carry on with it, I've simply debated my opinion that there is no reason for this argument.
cheers!

This Schrödinger sounds like an idiot.

Imagine a justice system in which all seemingly unfalsifiable claims were asserted to be true and untrue. Now tell me how that makes any sense. You cannot simultaneously claim something to be true and untrue; that's simply impossible. You determine what is by the available evidence or lack thereof.

In principle, this theory is intriguing, however; it lacks any foundational evidence. And, until evidence comes to play it ought to be discarded.

 

[Random]

This Schrödinger is guy is an idiot.

Imagine a justice system in which all seemingly unfalsifiable claims were asserted to be true and untrue. Now tell me how that makes any sense. You cannot simultaneously claim something to be true and untrue; that's simply impossible. You determine what is by the available evidence or lack thereof.

In principle, this theory is intriguing, however; it lacks any foundational evidence. And, until evidence comes to play it ought to be discarded.

Schrödinger wasn't an idiot. It's applicable in theory, not reality; but he wasn't wrong in his justifications. If you don't know something, you can't assume it's Wrong or Right.

So because there is no proof of god, is he not real? you cannot say. as there's no proof of his existence, but there is also no proof of his non-existence.

That last portion of your argument seems to be opinion, and I respect it.. but It shouldn't be discarded as it's a possibility.

 

[Cann!bal]

Schrödinger wasn't an idiot. It's applicable in theory, not reality; but he wasn't wrong in his justifications. If you don't know something, you can't assume it's Wrong or Right.
So because there is no proof of god, is he not real? you cannot say. as there's no proof of his existence, but there is also no proof of his non-existence.
That last portion of your argument seems to be opinion, and I respect it.. but It shouldn't be discarded as it's a possibility.

His theory only works in theory, yet you want me to apply this to reality? Where you say it's not applicable? Okay.

You claim I don't know, not true and false when you cannot say. You operate with what proof you have and that's nothing in this scenario, which gives full permission to discard the theory until evidence comes to play.

There is no burden of proof upon the people who doubt the existence of a god. It's on the claimants of god's existence. It's not 50/50. It's 100/0. If someone claims rape, they have to prove it. It's not the supposed rapist's responsibility to disprove it, although, they do have a capacity to discredit it.

 

[Random]

His theory only works in theory, yet you want me to apply this to reality? Where you say it's not applicable? Okay.

You claim I don't know, not true and false when you cannot say. You operate what proof with you have and that's nothing in this scenario, which gives full permission to discard the theory until evidence comes to play.

There is no burden of proof upon the people who doubt the existence of a god. It's on the claimants of god's existence. It's not 50/50. It's 100/0. If someone claims rape, they have to prove it. It's not the supposed rapist's responsibility to disprove it, although, they do have a capacity to discredit it.

I disagree, but don't feel like arguing anymore on this, as you'll not see from my point of view.. and It'll go on for hours.

Have fun in your world.