Meeting with Bishop: Faith is a Choice

[_Themis]

I'll try another way: the only way you can perceive a blue cup is with your internal mechanisms that tell you it's blue. Because all of us perceive the cup is blue does not mean it is in reality blue because we all have the same mechanism by which we interact with this thing. Until we can independently confirm this thing is blue, our seeing it as blue is meaningless.

Incorrect. IT has meaning becuase we assign it meaning. It is blue because that is what we have defined the expereince as. It is real in that sense, regardless of whether we are just brains in a vat.

[_honorentheos]

Ahhhh.... the sweet taste of victory.

you're welcome back when you've worked on your game a lot more.

How about now?

Let's assume for a moment that there was a sixth way to access reality, a way that is completely external to your experience. Might the trains run exactly on time, instead of kinda on time?

Please, expand on this.

[_Hoops]

Incorrect. IT has meaning becuase we assign it meaning. It is blue because that is what we have defined the expereince as. It is real in that sense, regardless of whether we are just brains in a vat.[/quote]
Incorrect. It has no meaning whatsoever on whether or not that thing is real. Does it exist apart from our experience with it?

And of course we assign that thing the same terms since we are assuming that all of us interact with it in the same way. We perceive with the same things and we perceive the same properties - allegedly.

But none of what you've written here is any indication, any evidence whatsoever, that that thing exists apart from our experience of it.

You've offered no way, no mechanism, no avenue to access reality. You've only made assumptions and those assumptions are not based on reason either.

[_Buffalo]

Nothing is real, therefore Jesus.
Nothing is real, therefore Jesus.
Nothing is real, therefore Jesus.
Nothing is real, therefore Jesus.
Nothing is real, therefore Jesus.
Nothing is real, therefore Jesus.
Nothing is real, therefore Jesus.
Nothing is real, therefore Jesus.
Nothing is real, therefore Jesus.
Nothing is real, therefore Jesus.
Nothing is real, therefore Jesus.
Nothing is real, therefore Jesus.
Nothing is real, therefore Jesus.
Nothing is real, therefore Jesus.
Nothing is real, therefore Jesus.
Nothing is real, therefore Jesus.
Nothing is real, therefore Jesus.
Nothing is real, therefore Jesus.
Nothing is real, therefore Jesus.
Nothing is real, therefore Jesus.
Nothing is real, therefore Jesus.
Nothing is real, therefore Jesus.
Nothing is real, therefore Jesus.
Nothing is real, therefore Jesus.
Nothing is real, therefore Jesus.
Nothing is real, therefore Jesus.
Nothing is real, therefore Jesus.
Nothing is real, therefore Jesus.
Nothing is real, therefore Jesus.
Nothing is real, therefore Jesus.
Nothing is real, therefore Jesus.
Nothing is real, therefore Jesus.
Nothing is real, therefore Jesus.
Nothing is real, therefore Jesus.

[_Hoops]

Buffalo likes to knock down arguments no one has. Guess he has to be good at something.

[_Buffalo]

Buffalo likes to knock down arguments no one has. Guess he has to be good at something.

It's your argument. Own it.

[_Themis]

And of course we assign that thing the same terms since we are assuming that all of us interact with it in the same way. We perceive with the same things and we perceive the same properties - allegedly.

Again irrelevant. If they can identify the same thing same color defined as blue is does not matter if there expereince is different. It will still work just fine.

But none of what you've written here is any indication, any evidence whatsoever, that that thing exists apart from our experience of it.

WE have, just not to the absolute that you want, nor has any made the argument that we can. Good luck trying to argue against something no one has argued.

You've offered no way, no mechanism, no avenue to access reality. You've only made assumptions and those assumptions are not based on reason either.

Based on what works. If it's not reality, who cares, it still works enough, and it is based on reason, and I suspect you are again being dishonest in a weak attempt to protect some positions you are trying to keep secret, but most here have already gleaned enough to know what they are. I doubt though you will answer honorentheos requests.

[_Themis]

Buffalo likes to knock down arguments no one has. Guess he has to be good at something.

Funny since that has been your game here in this whole thread. You blew up the irony meter.

[_Hoops]

Again irrelevant.

Certainly not irrelevant to the puruit of Truth

WE have, just not to the absolute that you want, nor has any made the argument that we can.

Wrong. It is argued consistently on this board that if one can not empirically support a position then that position should be discounted.

Based on what works. If it's not reality, who cares, it still works enough, and it is based on reason,

Wrong. It is unreasonable to maintain that we have access to all of reality based on our perceptions or experiences alone. You've been unable to show otherwise, thus my position remains unchallenged.

and I suspect you are again being dishonest in a weak attempt to protect some positions you are trying to keep secret, but most here have already gleaned enough to know what they are. I doubt though you will answer honorentheos requests.

I've made my position clear several times. I will answer HEO shortly.

[_Buffalo]

Nothing is real, therefore Jesus.

How many people do you imagine you'll convince with this line of reasoning?