The Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Krylo]

Well, Zak, the real problem is, you aren't defending Rene Descartes, so much as you're defending some half-assed convulated version of his philosophical meandering.

You see, you're being too broad. We begin, merely, with the assumption that reality is real. That's it.

Now, when making logical deductions ABOUT reality, that assumption shouldn't even really be considered. I mean, if you assume reality isn't real then there's no point trying to figure out how reality works, now is there?


Remember: Descartes said "I think, therefore I am." Meaning, entirely, that he could only prove that HE exists, because he knows that he is thinking.

He doesn't know that you're thinking, or that I'm thinking. He only knows that his senses TELL him that other people are there. However, he said, too, that his senses are falliable.

So, really, what you're arguing is that the real world doesn't exist and we all live in some dreamland.

And, yes, fine, that's a decent idea, that cannot be falsified. We DO have to assume the other.

What you're leaving out of your arguement is that if we assume reality is not real, then there's no point discussing anything even tangentially pertaining to reality.

And, FURTHER, that it does not mean that anything else we say is an assumption.

Every logical construct in science can be thought to have the prefix to it "In the context of believing that reality actually exists" for if reality actually exists then, well, it exists in the manner that we have measured.