Science is a tool that can be abused!

[_subgenius]

Let's see if your word salad can be matched.

In order to exist you must do so within some framework that constitutes the laws by which which you exist.
Subject: Proof that reality exists
1. We perceive things.
This is an assumption on your part that serves to validate your argument. It may well be that "we" is non-existent and therefore no perception occurs. The brain, as a biochemical organ, merely tells itself that it is itself as a result of various immutable chemical and electrical reactions - all of which discount "perception" as being an incorrect characterization of what is occurring - which is just a series of complex reactions.
2. If we perceive things, those perceptions are due to either entities or an illusion.
Assumes #1 to be true, but you have not proven that at all. Furthermore, "perceptions" are wholly sensory - thus an illusion must necessarily be an entity. In other words, there is always a manifestation that stimulates the sense(s).
3. If perceptions are due to either entities or illusions, either entities or illusions exist (or both).
True, but you are making the common "sciency" fallacy whereas a "thing" must have "something" that can be siphoned from itself (eg. the ball is blue is round is bouncy...). So, you are infinitely peeling.
4. If entities exist, truth exists (because if entities exist, the fact of their existence is true).
Your usage of truth here is subjective because you have yet to prove "exist". My example above about "exist" being necessary to stimulate a sense(s) relies on the assumption that senses can only be stimulated by that which exists....yet you would have us believe that illusions do not exist
5. If truth exists, reality exists (because truth requires a reality to be true about).
Truth does not require a reality to be true. 2+2=4 is "true"...but neither 2 nor 4 nor "+" exist in reality...they are imaginary...the number "2" is nowhere to be found i nature...it cannot be observed, or sensed, as an autonomous entity (see also above mention of "siphoned")
6. If illusions exist, falsehood exists (because illusions are false by definition).
7. If falsehood exists, reality exists (because falsehood requires a reality to be false about).
you can not have it both ways. in order to sense/perceive an illusion it must be an entity...or as you say here...it must "exist"...but if it exists then it can not "not exist"...illusions by definition "do not exist"....so which is it? does an illusion exist or not?
So, illusions can only exist in comparison to reality. If an illusion is all there is, then it's not an illusion: it is reality!
Incorrect, or unjustified, conclusion. "Comparison to reality" assumes that the distinction is known. In the absence of this comparison you would conclude that the illusion is reality or that reality is reality...which is absurd, and contrary, to your notion.

The obvious conclusion of your logic here is that illusions and reality can not exist without referencing each other in a verifiable comparison. Yet this "verification" is the heart of this whole matter.

[_spotlight]

Hi Subby,
The whole of it was a parody of Franktalk's method of argumentation which I characterized as Medieval:

You see, medieval arguments such as you are fond of can be made to support the existence of reality. So we are on equal turf there. But when it comes to evidence my side wins.

[_Franktalk]

Hi Subby,
The whole of it was a parody of Franktalk's method of argumentation which I characterized as Medieval:

So you agree with Sub.

[_spotlight]

Hi Subby,
The whole of it was a parody of Franktalk's method of argumentation which I characterized as Medieval:

So you agree with Sub.

No not really. What I stated was that the argument was not a scientific argument but a word salad mockery of your word salad.

The strength of the scientific position is it is the only position backed by objective evidence. If you want to ignore evidence go for the cliff face and demonstrate your superior position already.

[_subgenius]

The strength of the scientific position is it is the only position backed by objective evidence.

Not true. Science concedes, necessarily, that nothing is really "objective" with regards to its paradigm. Increased or high rates of probability are not "objective".
Furthermore, many positions are backed by "objective evidence". Many experiments within the faith/religious paradigm are replicated with the same results and at high rates of probability.
You seem to want to confuse/confound apples with oranges.

If you want to ignore evidence go for the cliff face and demonstrate your superior position already.

I have no interest in ignoring evidence, but you seem to have an interest in holding "evidence" in a very narrow, shallow, and confined box.

[_spotlight]

Not true. Science concedes, necessarily, that nothing is really "objective" with regards to its paradigm.

Science like most disciplines has its own unique vocabulary since without it communication is not precise.

Objective simply means freedom from bias on the part of investigators. No matter your worldview, water runs downhill, apples fall from trees rather than float upwards, etc.

"To apply modern scientific-rationalist or post-modern deconstruction is a rhetorical tactic used by apologists who would denigrate objective evidence (verifiable information) because they lack the same to support claims of knowledge about invisible, undetectable, proposed supernatural beings." - Zzyzx

Increased or high rates of probability are not "objective".

How often does water flow uphill? How often do apples fly away from the tree up into the sky?

Furthermore, many positions are backed by "objective evidence". Many experiments within the faith/religious paradigm are replicated with the same results and at high rates of probability.

Experiments need to be repeatable by anyone, not a limited group of people.

You seem to want to confuse/confound apples with oranges.

That seems to me what you are attempting to accomplish.

I have no interest in ignoring evidence,

Then it would be nice if someone from your camp addressed some of it instead of ignoring it.

but you seem to have an interest in holding "evidence" in a very narrow, shallow, and confined box.

Yes, the objective box.

[_SteelHead]

Sub,
You have piqued my curiosity. Can you provide a reference to a hypothesis, test methodology, results and conclusions for a supernatural experiment?

[_Maksutov]

The strength of the scientific position is it is the only position backed by objective evidence.

Not true. Science concedes, necessarily, that nothing is really "objective" with regards to its paradigm. Increased or high rates of probability are not "objective".
Furthermore, many positions are backed by "objective evidence". Many experiments within the faith/religious paradigm are replicated with the same results and at high rates of probability.
You seem to want to confuse/confound apples with oranges.

If you want to ignore evidence go for the cliff face and demonstrate your superior position already.

I have no interest in ignoring evidence, but you seem to have an interest in holding "evidence" in a very narrow, shallow, and confined box.

You're out of your depth here, Subby. Do you have any good Kerry Thornley stories?

[_I have a question]

You're out of your depth here, Subby. Do you have any good Kerry Thornley stories?

Subby gets out of his depth if he shuffles to the tap end of the tub.

[_Franktalk]

No not really. What I stated was that the argument was not a scientific argument but a word salad mockery of your word salad.

The strength of the scientific position is it is the only position backed by objective evidence. If you want to ignore evidence go for the cliff face and demonstrate your superior position already.

I have never denied the physical laws of the material universe. I guess it is just easier to jump to ridiculous conclusions than to actually take part in a discussion. Your tendency to jump to conclusions is exactly what science does. It takes a small piece of data and stretches it into absurdity dimensions. But because you are doing it then all is well. But no way would you let another outside of your science group attempt to do the same thing.