Butterbattle's Ultimate Solipsistic Argument for Everything Supernatural i.e. Extreme and Depressing Navel Gazing
Offline The existence and characteristics of external reality are completely unjustifiable; it may or may not be the way that we believe it to be. It is merely pragmatic for us to act and assume that it is as we perceive it. It is clear that through our senses, we are experiencing what intuitively appears to be a clear portrait of reality, but it is nevertheless possible that a malevolent God has tricked us and reality is not as we perceive it at all.
If we agree on this, then perhaps the following claim is true as well? If the observable world is unjustifiable, then logically, any supernatural entity or concept is equally probable. Other than pragmatism and preference, is there any reason to hold to a worldview based solely on observable 'reality?'
Can we rely on logic? In the past, I have asserted that our logic is merely an abstraction of the rules of our universe. Yet, to even propose a reality without logic already falls into incoherence. What kind of reality would that be? It would be a reality not subject to the law of non-contradiction, so it could be a reality with AND without logic? It may be that reality is contained within logic, rather than the reverse, although I'm not completely clear yet on what that even means. If that is the case, then although we cannot justify our observed reality, we can at least conclude that reality would conform to logic.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
- Login to post comments
Good points butterbattle.
I don't think a whole lot of theists are thinking about the implications of what they are saying when they often give me arguments like " God can be logical and illogical at the same time" ? ? ? Or my favorite one " God is beyond logic". Uh, exactly what is beyond logic ?
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
OK, I need to dust off an old philosophy paper on this one:
Let's say just for giggles that there is an external reality. However, due to some malevolent being, we are unable to experience that reality.
In fact, we are trapped I the Matrix. What can we determine from our senses?
Well, beef tastes like cow. Pork tastes like pig. Chicken tastes like chicken. Rattlesnake and alligator taste just like chicken as well. In the external reality, perhaps not but the Matrix agents figured that such details were not all that important. Everything unimportant tastes like chicken.
So can I really say that I know anything at all?
OK, I have a crap load more here but this is enough to get started...
=
Well, the whole science of quantum mechanics is counter intuitive. As for the 'matrix' scenario. If such a God is actively tricking us into perceiving reality as he sees fit, why would logic be any different. As you've stated, logic is an abstraction of the rules of the universe. So long as the 'simulation' is done well enough we would still use logic to correctly deduct our reasoning. If such a simulation is possible then it would be indistinguishable from reality, asking what is outside our 'reality' is like asking what is outside our universe only will less to go on because at this point we can literally all be ridding on turtles. I don't see Logic as being the determining factor in such a scenario.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
I would say that it is only the experience itself that is undeniable. Whether it be chicken, pork, rattlesnake, something unrelated to anything in the world that we can observe or a complete illusion, the fact remains that you are tasting.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
That's what I used to claim, but recently, I wonder if it's not quite correct. It might be more accurate to say that logic is emergent from reality, inseparable from reality, whatever reality is. As in, if our entire universe were an illusion, logic would still be completely reliable.
I'm not sure what you mean by "done well enough." Do you think the rules of logic could be broken in a bad simulation?
Even if it is indistinguishable from reality, don't you feel that you would rather know reality? The steak in the Matrix may be just as tasty and juicy, perhaps even more so than real steak, but part of me really wants the real steak, for no reason other than that it is real. Perhaps reality is so horrible that it would be torturous to experience it; perhaps we are all being tortured on the backs of those giant turtles. Then, I suppose it may be better to experience the illusion, but I would still want to know that it's an illusion, that it's not true.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
OK, I intentionally cut my last post short in order to explore where this might go. That was not what I expected.
The Matrix tells you that the steak is delicious and juicy. However, it is only that because you took the blue pill. Had you taken the red pill, you would have reached the level of reality that is (at least) on step beyond the matrix.
Is there a spoon?
=
Something like that, I guess in a less then perfect simulation you would have logical inconsistencies allowed. Think of it like a bad videogame where you walk through walls. You could then, using logic, deduce that this is not reality because everything we know about reality dictates you shouldn't be able to do that. I see a flaw in my reasoning in the sense that everyone would walk through walls all the time, I guess I'm trying to think of glitches and exceptions.
It comes down to what lumminon believes in. He thinks there is an alternate reality because he believes he has noticed the equivalent of someone walking through a wall.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
Well, if the Laws of Logic don't hold, then any given thing, any given thought, cannot be distinguished from any other, and we can hold both a given thought and its contradiction simultaneously, and any thing can overlap with that which it is NOT.
Sounds hard to go anywhere constructive in such a world...
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I completely agree.
Generally, I have found the theist arguments that try to bend and twist the rules of logic around to fit their deity into the picture are generally resorting to imagination and trickery to figure out some way that they can have the best of both worlds. We'll use logic and reason for everything except the deity that exists beyond logic and then we'll create another set of rules so it can fit.
Dissect their arguments too much and it becomes very apparent that they are just making the whole thing up as they go along.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Right, I'm only experiencing the steak in the Matrix because I took the blue pill.
Right. Then, maybe I can experience real steak.
Hmmmm, there is an illusion of a spoon.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
I actually don't see that as a logical inconsistency, but merely something that is counter-inductive with our experiences in this universe. The flaw, as you already noted, is that if everyone walked through walls all the time, then that would be reality, and we wouldn't know that there was a problem with the simulation at all, if that is even a problem. Maybe the fact that people can't walk through walls is actually a glitch in the simulation, and we don't even know it.
What I'm thinking of is more along the lines of a universe where people that don't exist can AND can't walk through walls. Nonsense, right? It seems to me that perhaps regardless of what reality is, it must conform to logic, for to even claim that there is a world without logic falls into incoherency. What world is that? A world that exists and doesn't exist? A world with and without logic?
Yet, I also wonder if this is merely a lack of perspective on our part. As in, it is possible for a world to not conform to our logic; we simply can't imagine it in the same way that we can't imagine a four-dimensional physical space.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
OK that was not quite the right answer but it happens to be one which I can work from.
Next question: Given that you cannot trust any of your five senses, state one thing that you can certainly know...
=
I know that I exist. I do not know what I exist as, but I exist as some self-aware, thinking thing.
I know that I sense things with my five senses. I do not if any of the information that reaches my senses is accurate in any way, but I nevertheless sense things.
I *suspect*(?) I can trust simple deductive reasoning and mathematics.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Before I answer the second question, I would like to think a little about the first one.
I'm going to use Pascal's wager
Either this world is real, or it is fake. If we act as if it were real, and it is real, we have achieved something. If it's not real, we have lost nothing, because we don't know what (the real) reality would be like, and therefore can't prepare for it.
You can try to get out of the Matrix, but that will most likely be futile, since the designers wouldn't be so stupid as to allow us to escape. Alive, that is.
Then. How would the world be different? Right now it acts according to certain rules. Particles interact, creating our world. These particles could all be simulated, but what would be different? I doubt the real and virtual world would be indiscernible, if the virtual world would be simulated at the particle level.
Now, on logic. Logic is doing things if you have certain rules. Like 1+1=2 is a rule. If you combine certain rules, you get new rules. If you approximate the basic rules to the rules of the real world, you will get secondary rules that are similar to those of the real world, with which you can do useful stuff. So logic will remain logic in another world. Whether the basic rules are the same we have in this world, I don't know.
Question two:
In the game 'Rise of the argonauts' the same question is asked with four answers (if I remember them correctly) : The only thing that is certain is
1. That nothing is certain.
2. Death
And then two more...
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
This post is why you have the label "theist" on this website.
We love you here, we really do. But when you talk about "logic" and "should" it shows your complete lack of understanding of evolution.
Evolution isn't about utopias or perfection, which is why you have the ability to sell your claims to others, regardless of it's lack of credibility.Because if evolution were not natural selection and based on "should" we'd all believe the same thing.
The last line scares the shit out of me which is why myth is still successful to this day.
Here is how good logic works.
1. Observe, collect established credible data
2. Set up test to test observation with established data
3. Set up control groups to insure quality of data
4. Plug established data into established test
5. Hand over your data and test to outsiders and have them kick the tires
6. Repeat and repeat and repeat
WHEN everyone involved keeps coming up with the same answers independently, THEN you have something.
Having the ability to be imaginative only constitutes our ability as a species to imagine things. That is hardly credible and unfortunately far to often what we throw into the gap. Our ability as a species to make shit up is a side affect of our evolution because evolution isn't about perfection or utopias.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I completely agree. This is a real dichotomy too, not a stream of assertions and fallacies like Pascal's Wager.
But, it's still a wager, so it's still an appeal to consequences. On that point, I will certainly act as if this world is real, but I have no convincing evidence that it really is.
Right. Assuming that the real word is made of particles; maybe it's actually made of Aristotle's five elements, hah.
Could the rules that apply to another universe be internally inconsistent? Because non-contradiction itself is a rule....
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
And what's wrong with the myth? Some things can be said or could be said in their time only in a form of myth. The shit had hit the fan, when people forgot it's a myth and took it literally, and when emperors changed the myth that it no longer told the hidden message, but served as a tool to brainwash people.
What should be, is not a matter of belief. It is a question of maximal possible benefit for maximal number of people. It can hardly be an object of discussion, only explanation. An esoteric definition of a 'disciple' is the one, who took his development into his own hands. And esoteric purpose of humanity is to become a 'global disciple.' We can not live like nature anymore. In natural selection, animals rule out each other with claws and teeth, and nature cleans up after them. But who will clean up after natural selection through laying mine fields, or worse, nuclear weapons? One should use logic, but also think ahead.
Of course, I agree with this procedure, it's the only possible way to prove something to whole world. But doesn't it make you wonder why people don't like it? For every point I can think a way how it might fail, even in case there is a hidden valid result. It's a question of technology, for example. The most logical method will get you nowhere, if a technology is insufficient.
All institutions can be young and then old. In young phase they innovate, explore, experiment, destroy the old order, hire enthusiasts, set up new norms, and so on. When half of their lifetime expires, they start defending their position and pride, isolate themselves, consolidate their ranks, enforce strict rules, centralize power and expell misfits. The institution then becomes so rigid and unable to react on new changes, that it practically loses relevance and tends to be violently destroyed or silently forgotten, depending on how much it resists the changes of time.
I suspect this process can be applied everywhere, from civilizations and cultures, to religions, states, companies and offices.
And I'm afraid that scientific institution is currently undergoing this degenerative process. It might begin just about 60 years ago and there's still a century to go before it finishes, but I think it's already noticeable. The science gets into beaten tracks that lead to decline.
And perhaps we're better off that way, because what we see in this combination is prostitution of science to commercialism and war, which might lead to destruction.
I'm sorry to scare you, but you scare me too. You say, that the life has no purpose, so go and enjoy it. Which sounds very much like doing nothing. Meanwhile, the world gets more and more fucked up. If it continues like that there suddenly remains a world which is not so much fun. So suddenly, life has a purpose. Thanks to globalization, whatever we screw up, affects the whole world. So suddenly we need perfection. There's no number of populations to carry out selective process, there's just this one. And we can't afford major "selective process" on this scale.
I do understand evolution through selection, I just don't like to apply it on us. It is a blind process, that means driven by circumstances and indifferent to our ultimate good. I can think of better ways to change, less fatalistic approach to our way of life. Fatalism, that's what I mean. I see all the rational folks as slaves of what (they think) is and isn't. I see they're skeptical against religion, because there is no god, but I don't see them oppose commercialism, corruption, consumerism, competition for lives, and other words beginning with 'co', like CO2 in atmosphere...
And that's because these things are quite real, there's no need to debunk them. All that science can do is produce the weapons and technologies and then warn people to not use them - or produce more ecologic technologies and pray that people will find them more profitable. There is research of buyers' behavior, but no research of what makes a harmonious person (except some Soviet project) and research on how to implement this into society. Why is the science so short-sighted, IOW, purposeless?
Just ranting and clearing my thoughts. Please respond to as much or as little as you like.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
Not necessarily. Let's assume that we have the ability to create such a simulation, I would start by giving it a set of constants, (i.e. Plank mass, Plank time, speed of light), then, just to keep it interesting, change those constants every week or so randomly, just enough so that matter is still possible. Anyone living in this universe wouldn't trust logic very much. due to the fact that 1+1=2 today and next week 1+1=2.2. You can build contradictions into the fabric of the universe.... you can have stuff like I don't know, light going from blue to red and then to blue as the frequency decreases. I can't think of anything more tangible right now because I haven't had my coffee yet... more to come.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
This reminds me of a line from 'Family Guy' where Death is interested (romantically) in a pet store clerk. They go out on a date and she turns out to be an airhead anyways, this says it best:
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
wtf? can a mod paste this embeding code in there?
Thank you
Youtube's newer embed code doesn't work here, so after you click the embed button, check the box, "Use old embed code." It would've looked like this:
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qxhUOBmVxOk?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qxhUOBmVxOk?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
Hmmmm, that's still not really.......inconsistent.
Try this. 1+1=2 and 1+1=3 at the same time. Also, red is the same color as blue, but blue is not the same color as red, and they have different wavelengths. Is that possible?
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Anyways, the original point that I really wanted to emphasize is this. If we can't justify our external world, then isn't it the same as any supernatural concept? Believing in our universe would be nothing more than a preference, and it wouldn't be any more rational than believing in a God. In other words, strictly speaking, if we actually believe that the external world exists, then we are just as irrational as a theist! Perhaps it is better if you only behave as if the world existed i.e. pragmatism, but that still seems arbitrary. We would just be exhibiting a preference, namely that we want to act as if the world existed.
This many uses of the word "preference" might lead someone to assume that I am now spouting epistemic relativism, but I am not. It still isn't like morality, where all claims are subjective; there must still be a reality, even if we don't have access to it, so this is only a preference to the extent that we don't know what is real. Yet, we must make a choice, at least with our actions.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Well, not really, there is a much more evidence for materialism then there is for any supernatural being. I equate solipsism with theistic agnosticism. You cannot know the nature of reality/god. Also it's not a falsifiable argument. Even if you were to somehow wake a radical solipsist from 'The Matrix' he would just argue that the remaining reality is also just as 'fake'.
Taken to the extreme, this line of reasoning has no intellectual benefit and it is more in line with fundamental religion. Perhaps this is the kind of logical inconsistency that we need to prove we live in a simulation
Now if I could just bend that f*cking spoon.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
To me Solipsism is just another navel gazing logic problem that doesn't actually *do* anything. You can't prove it, you can't disprove it, it doesn't matter, so why bother? Deism often strikes me in the same way. Or Mak Thorpes ideas about the multiverse. Maybe some people get an emotional zing from it, but...
Shit. If we're going to get this technical on a philosophy point, then let me get technical on a science point. "We" are just atoms bouncing around. All this crap is just a magnificent confluence of physics that results in the universe thinking about itself thinking. Solipsism is invalid because the action of "our" atoms bouncing around forces a reaction from "us". Solipsism only matters if we have free will, and we don't actually have free will, so case closed.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Lol, see the title of this thread?
Eh, because I enjoy mental masturbation?
The crux of my extremely pedantic philosophical navel gazing in this thread is that your belief in reality isn't any more justified than a belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. That turns me on........intellectually.
Hah, touché.
But, how do you know there are such things as atoms in reality?
How do you know they bounce around? How do you know we don't have free will? Ah, see, you have to assume that the information you've received from the external world is accurate.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Oh? Evidence such as you can observe and study the world? Well, how do you know if your observations are accurate?
Well, it's not really an argument, per se. It's more like a non-belief, now that I think about it. The existence of the external world is unjustified, so one wouldn't believe in it until they are provided with sufficient evidence.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
What do you propose would classify as sufficient evidence? A 'strict' solipsistic argument ( here what wiki thinks an argument is : In logic, an argument is a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences (or "propositions"
known as the premises along with another meaningful declarative sentence (or "proposition"
known as the conclusion.) wouldn't suffer any evidence as ultimate proof. That's the point I'm trying to make. A non belief from lack of material evidence is logical, a non belief from an 'intellectual masturbation' session doesn't really equate. Theism is a form of mental masturbation, you're not really getting any, but it will do for now. I guess the Bible is like cheap porn in that sense.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
You don't, it is just pragmatism.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
I can't conceive of any evidence that would definitely establish a "reality" as "real." But, that just throws our realty even further into doubt, doesn't it?
I'm not sure what you mean.
Intellectual masturbation just means we are discussing a philosophical something that has ultimately no practical effect on our lives. Whether or not it's logically justified is a separate issue.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Precisely.
Eh, do you agree with me then?
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
With what, specifically? That operating as though the universe is real is just pragmatism, and we can't technically prove anything is real? Sure.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
However, it is only useful inside itself.
"Reality has the same validity as the FSP" is only valid until you make the choice to operate as though reality is real. As soon as you make the assumption, or choose to act as though, reality is real, then the premise of Solipsism simply evaporates, because within that assumption you *can* decide what is valid and what is invalid, or at least assign probability.
So it seems like the idea is invalidated as soon as you choose to take part in 'reality' which, short of suicide, we all do simply by sustaining ourselves. Hence, it is a useless concept unless your feeling particularly depressed after reading the Fonzie thread.
At least, I think so. I confess, I've never put much thought into it.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
So then, do you agree with the conclusion that I presented in the most depressing way possible? Lol.
- We're just as justified in believing any arbitrary supernatural thing as we are reality.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Did you read my follow up? I think that covers it, but long story short:
I agree it is just as arbitrary but only under the condition that you choose to act as though reality is unreal (I wouldn't advise this). If you presume that reality is real and act as if it is so, then no, I wouldn't agree.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
I would also point out, again, that I have no idea what I'm talking about. I have not even cracked a Wiki article on this one, so if I'm arguing like a moron it is because I'm a moron. :D
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.