Science IS religion

[Milton Platt]

Origin sciences are belief based so they are religion. Real science has to do with actual knowledge and observations and how the world works now.

so we are all pantheists???? LOL
By your logic (?) if i believe there is leftover fried chicken in my refrigerator, I have formed a new religion. Well done.......

 

[Truly Enlightened]

That you accept, is subjective. You write to the following effect. I subjectively will only accept the objective and not the subjective, because I have subjectively decided only to accept the objective.
So you confirm the subjective by stating: I will accept anything you can demonstrate objectively.
The underscored part is the subjective part.

We might as well stop here. You got so much personal value and importance riding on that you are objective, that you properly can't admit that you are subjective. You have values, which are subjective. That the objective is important is subjective. That is it.
So me both the subjective as value and the objective, how the world works with science, are subjectively important to me.
It is also subjectively important that I find personal subjective peace with my belief in God.
So as long as I keep my God subjective it is not of your concern.
On the other hand what you believe that your values are somehow objective and ought to be so for all humans is a problem for the rest of us.
And that you treat me as if I have to live up to your idea of religion, so you can win, tells more about you than me.
I am not religious, as you would like, because being religious is subjective. And not just your subjective idea of what religion is. Again you can't see your own subjectivity and then project it onto me as if I have to be religious based on your subjective concept of religion.

Why are you so frightened of the obvious? If I bought a washing machine, and it later stopped working, then I would have objective evidence that the washing machine does not work. If I prayed for months for my friend to survive his bout with cancer, and he dies, that is objective evidence that prayer does not work. If I never hear about a NDE from a beheaded victim, that is objective evidence that beheaded victims do not have NDE. If not even ONE paranormal, supernatural, miraculous, or spiritual claims, has ever withstood the most basic of scientific scrutiny, this is objective evidence that these events are far from certainty. I'm not claiming that these events are objectively false, and imaginary. I'm saying that based on the objective evidence, they may as well be. What is your certainty of winning Lotto, if you do not buy a ticket?

Now listen carefully. Humans are not objective, unbiased, or impartial. What people think is true is often not true. People tend to think that how they see and view things reflects an objective reality, but this is often not the case. Just ask anyone whether they are a better than average driver. What do you think the majority answer will be? This is why objective evidence is so valuable. You have made a number of claims here regarding Science and Religion.. I'm simply asking that you support your claims with objective evidence. I gave many examples of objective evidence, in case you were unsure.

It is obvious that you don't have any objective evidence to deposit. It is obvious that this is just your own personal belief, that gives you subjective comfort, your life purpose, and even some emotional security. It is obvious that the threat of critical thinking, scientific methodology, and common sense, will produce only more obfuscating, sciency-sounding word-salad, and fallacious logic. It is obvious that you are threatened by the inconvenient truisms of science, out of ignorance and pre-suppositional biases. Unfortunately, you are not alone. There are many other threads on this forum that encourage conceptualize thinking, that are outside of conventional logic, and where evidence is irrelevant. I think that they might be more suited to your particular method of reasoning. But if you are going to make arguments regarding our physical reality and science, you had better bring more to the table than Pathos and Ad Hominem attacks.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why are you so frightened of the obvious? If I bought a washing machine, and it later stopped working, then I would have objective evidence that the washing machine does not work. If I prayed for months for my friend to survive his bout with cancer, and he dies, that is objective evidence that prayer does not work. If I never hear about a NDE from a beheaded victim, that is objective evidence that beheaded victims do not have NDE. If not even ONE paranormal, supernatural, miraculous, or spiritual claims, has ever withstood the most basic of scientific scrutiny, this is objective evidence that these events are far from certainty. I'm not claiming that these events are objectively false, and imaginary. I'm saying that based on the objective evidence, they may as well be. What is your certainty of winning Lotto, if you do not buy a ticket?

Now listen carefully. Humans are not objective, unbiased, or impartial. What people think is true is often not true. People tend to think that how they see and view things reflects an objective reality, but this is often not the case. Just ask anyone whether they are a better than average driver. What do you think the majority answer will be? This is why objective evidence is so valuable. You have made a number of claims here regarding Science and Religion.. I'm simply asking that you support your claims with objective evidence. I gave many examples of objective evidence, in case you were unsure.

It is obvious that you don't have any objective evidence to deposit. It is obvious that this is just your own personal belief, that gives you subjective comfort, your life purpose, and even some emotional security. It is obvious that the threat of critical thinking, scientific methodology, and common sense, will produce only more obfuscating, sciency-sounding word-salad, and fallacious logic. It is obvious that you are threatened by the inconvenient truisms of science, out of ignorance and pre-suppositional biases. Unfortunately, you are not alone. There are many other threads on this forum that encourage conceptualize thinking, that are outside of conventional logic, and where evidence is irrelevant. I think that they might be more suited to your particular method of reasoning. But if you are going to make arguments regarding our physical reality and science, you had better bring more to the table than Pathos and Ad Hominem attacks.

Okay, the problem is not whether I believe in God or not as such.
The problem is if you can avoid being subjective. Your model rests on the assumption that there is at least one human, which can avoid subjectivity. That one human is you.
Reduce down all your words and what you claim is that you can do it objectively for all aspects of the everyday life.
The problem is this. I admit I am subjective. You then answer to the effect, that this is avoidable, because you can do it without subjectivity for these 4 categories.
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

• How to do morality and ethics?

Ethics, also called moral philosophy, the discipline concerned with what is morally good and bad, right and wrong. The term is also applied to any system or theory of moral values or principles.

ethics | Origins, History, Theories, & Applications

• How to do aesthetics?
• How to do utility?
• How to do metaphysics?

God as for creator gods as the first unmoved mover falls under metaphysics and ontology; i.e. what reality really is.

Further there is this:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/cog-rel/#H3
And this:
Münchhausen trilemma - Wikipedia¨

All you are doing, is in effect this:

Some parts of reality are objective and physical.
Therefore all parts are objective and physical.

The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. You are trying to establish a "gotcha" moment. You think that by establishing that some parts are objective and physical, you win. You don't.

That is it. Science can't answer everything for the everyday life, because you can't do morality, ethics, aesthetics, utility, metaphysics and ontology using science.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I am not thinking about a change IN our nature! I am thinking our current nature is the result of a change. You do not know what changed or how, to leave nature as it is today. Your argument is a strawman.


No no no. Speed is how must time something takes to move through space! It would not be that something went slower or faster, that whatever it did, there was not time as we know it to move in. Without time, nothing can TAKE time to do anything, including move. Also, without time existing in far space, as we know it here in the fishbowl, we could not expect anything to take the same amount of time out there. So the question is do we know time is the same in far space or not? (Not 'did the speed of light as we know it in the solar system area change')




That depends if gravity itself was not the same, or if there were some countermanding force that used to exist also.


The fact that huge blocks were used and moved in the more ancient structures, and that they got smaller in some cases fairly suddenly comes to mind. One could suspect that they had some way to, at least at times, overcome gravity. But I neither know, nor care too much. If YOU claim no change happened, fine, if you have hard evidence, I could accept that.
But when you talk about objects attracting each other in far space, that are of unknown size or distance I have to ask how accurate your gravity calculations are!
The funny thing is mass itself is determined by nature!

In deep space for example we see this..

"But there are other objects in space that astronomers are very interested in knowing their masses: stars and galaxies. The way to get the mass of these objects is to look at the gravitational interaction with other objects nearby. For example, if you have two stars orbiting one another and you know the distance between them and how long it takes for one to go around the other, you can calculate the mass of the stars. Similar tricks apply to measure the mass of galaxies, for example by measuring how fast they rotate."

How do we weigh objects in space? (Beginner) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer

So they use realities on earth that we see now, the force of gravity for example, Then they assume that star would follow the same rules. Then they use distances derived from a belief time exists with space the same out there. Then they use the time we observe HERE on earth or area, in the light from that far away star. That is several beliefs piled on one another.

Also, looking at earth and mass and gravity here, all we can do is measure how it is now! Tell us how this tells us the force of gravity...etc was the same long long ago?


Or simply change the forces that cause earth to have the mass it does!



The way nature changed would not be a change in nature itself as we know it. OUR nature did not change since it came to be. We would not be looking for cataclysmic physical changes, but rather, looking at a possible change in the very forces that used to exist. Not a tweak IN our present nature, but a change in the former nature orchestrated by the creator.


Now, they do, at least in the solar system/earth area. When did this start, and how would you know? You look at the forces of nature existing today, and simply use that to model the past!


Says who? Einstein? He never got out of his veranda in this universe! He sat there on that veranda talking about what he thought an observer should/would see coming in the fishbowl at the speed of light! His math was fishbowl based and therefore relativity is relative to the fishbowl. He took the time and space we know here to model. There IS no other observer in the universe, he/we have only ONE observation point of reference...the fishbowl.
Yes, we see relativistic effects in far space. But since we do not know sizes or distances or what else may also be working on objects that we are not familiar with here in the fishbowl, it does tell us much.

All claims dealing with time outside the fishbowl are extraordinary!

Please try to understand. ALL matter is affected by the 4(maybe five) fundamental forces of nature, period. All the 4 fundamental forces are interconnected, since at one time they were just one force. I pointed out the cascade of changes that would also have had to occur, if somehow these forces were different in the past. The change in the speed of light, and the acceleration due to gravity were only the most obvious ones. Why do you make silly statements, and offer no evidence to support your claims? I clearly demonstrated why your statements are wrong. What evidence supports that your statements are correct? If your only evidence is, "that you can't prove me wrong, because you weren't there", then that is just the kind of self-serving fallacious argument from ignorance, I would expect from someone who has nothing left to offer. Oh, and you have now inherited the burden of proof.

Also, looking at earth and mass and gravity here, all we can do is measure how it is now! Tell us how this tells us the force of gravity...etc was the same long long ago?

I'm not interested in you poor understanding of tangential, centrifugal, and centripetal forces, and how they are used to determine masses of planets, stars, and galaxies. There are plenty of internet sites to help you in your understanding. My comment was, that in order for changes in the acceleration of gravity to have occurred in the past, the rotational velocity and the mass of the earth would need to have changed. Do you agree or disagree? If this has occurred, then there would certainly be evidence of this. You are saying that it may have occurred, so what is your evidence? How do you simply change forces, that are properties of matter itself? Also, Gravity, Weak and Strong, and Electromagnetic forces are interconnected with each other. Changing one, will also change the others. If changes happened in the past, we would still see it today. These changes would also have a cascade effect on everything related to these forces. It is like saying that time itself, may not have been the same time, as it is today. You also seem to think that by understanding these natural forces, we can somehow affect the nature of these forces.

How do you KNOW what forces use to exist? How to you KNOW that these forces are different than the same forces we have today? We can also look into the past in space, and see how other stars, galaxies, and other objects have formed. We can then form comparison models to how our planet and solar system formed. We can accumulate evidence to form an educated hypothesis. You can't absolutely prove what you had for breakfast, can you? No matter how much evidence you present about what you had for breakfast, there will always be someone to tell you that you didn't have breakfast, so prove me wrong. And keep saying "No" to anything you say. This would be just about how we feel.

Only you choose live in the fishbowl of your own making. The rest of us want to expand our knowledge and understanding of all natural phenomena. Science is dynamic and continuing. We are always refining, reviving, modifying, or dismissing established ideas and principles, as new information becomes available. Religion is the antithesis of science. Only the mythical stories vary from one religion to another. If you could look outside of your self-imposed fishbowl, you could see far beyond Einstein's relativity(Quantum fields, Quantum Gravity, Chaos Theory, etc.). But there are some aspects of religion, that I still do enjoy,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io6_HziVjgs

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

... (All reasonable)

And keep saying "No" to anything you say. This would be just about how we feel.

Only you choose live in the fishbowl of your own making. The rest of us want to expand our knowledge and understanding of all natural phenomena. Science is dynamic and continuing. We are always refining, reviving, modifying, or dismissing established ideas and principles, as new information becomes available. Religion is the antithesis of science. Only the mythical stories vary from one religion to another. If you could look outside of your self-imposed fishbowl, you could see far beyond Einstein's relativity(Quantum fields, Quantum Gravity, Chaos Theory, etc.). But there are some aspects of religion, that I still do enjoy,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io6_HziVjgs

Now all you need to do, is to connect that you enjoy something back to the physical and objective only using the scientific laws of nature about purely physical processes and forces. And that is what you can't do.
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

Science doesn't make aesthetic judgments
Science can reveal the frequency of a G-flat and how our eyes relay information about color to our brains, but science cannot tell us whether a Beethoven symphony, a Kabuki performance, or a Jackson Pollock painting is beautiful or dreadful. Individuals make those decisions for themselves based on their own aesthetic criteria.

So you are subjective. Further for morality and ethics you are subjective.
While you are at, would you please connect "Only you choose live in the fishbowl of your own making" back to the physical and objective only using the scientific laws of nature about purely physical processes and forces. And that is what you can't do. That you use these words about dad, is subjective. You use what amounts to feeling and project in psychological terms out on dad. He doesn't live in a fishbowl and you have no evidence for it using science. You are not scientific, objective, with reason and logic. You are first person individually and subjectively judgmental.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Only you choose live in the fishbowl of your own making. ...

Take 2.
As long as you only accept objective evidence and are functionally unable to spot when you are subjective yourself and unable to understand that you don't use objective evidence, when you are subjective, this will continue.

You will write something with objective evidence and then you will subjectively judge people for being subjectively different than you without apparently being aware you subjectively judge them.

It is a fact for how reality works that I am subjective and dad are subjective and you judge us for it subjectively, yet you apparently don't notice that your judgment is subjective.
You admit that humans are subjective, yet you act as if you are not.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Okay, the problem is not whether I believe in God or not as such.
The problem is if you can avoid being subjective. Your model rests on the assumption that there is at least one human, which can avoid subjectivity. That one human is you.
Reduce down all your words and what you claim is that you can do it objectively for all aspects of the everyday life.
The problem is this. I admit I am subjective. You then answer to the effect, that this is avoidable, because you can do it without subjectivity for these 4 categories.
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

• How to do morality and ethics?

ethics | Origins, History, Theories, & Applications

• How to do aesthetics?
• How to do utility?
• How to do metaphysics?

God as for creator gods as the first unmoved mover falls under metaphysics and ontology; i.e. what reality really is.

Further there is this:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/cog-rel/#H3
And this:
Münchhausen trilemma - Wikipedia¨

All you are doing, is in effect this:

Some parts of reality are objective and physical.
Therefore all parts are objective and physical.

The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. You are trying to establish a "gotcha" moment. You think that by establishing that some parts are objective and physical, you win. You don't.

That is it. Science can't answer everything for the everyday life, because you can't do morality, ethics, aesthetics, utility, metaphysics and ontology using science.

This is NOT about winning or losing an argument. This is about the exchange of ideas in search of the truth. Try to look past your own ego, insecurity, and pride. Listen carefully. I will repeat again. EVERYTHING THAT I PERCEIVE THROUGH MY SENSES IS SUBJECTIVE. MY PRECEPTION OF REALITY IS SUBJECTIVE. I, LIKE EVERYONE ELSE, IS TRAPPED WITHIN MY OWN SUBJECTIVE PERSPECTIVE OF REALITY. So why do you keep saying that I am avoiding being subjective? What language do I need to use, for you to understand that I'm not? Why can't you understand that rational people support their subjective understanding, with objective evidence? Or, is this just another desperate deflection?

God falls under pseudoscience. Pseudoscience includes aesthetics, metaphysics, imagination, and a closed mind. Science has only physical limitations. It has no conceptual limitations. Obviously, you are not going to address any of my concerns, so you might also enjoy this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_c5ZFFUWT0

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Take 2.
As long as you only accept objective evidence and are functionally unable to spot when you are subjective yourself and unable to understand that you don't use objective evidence, when you are subjective, this will continue.

You will write something with objective evidence and then you will subjectively judge people for being subjectively different than you without apparently being aware you subjectively judge them.

It is a fact for how reality works that I am subjective and dad are subjective and you judge us for it subjectively, yet you apparently don't notice that your judgment is subjective.
You admit that humans are subjective, yet you act as if you are not.

I'm afraid that posts #1305 and #1306,both sound like incoherent gibberish to me. Maybe someone else can explain them to me? Maybe you might also address my concerns?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Only you choose live in the fishbowl of your own making. ...

This is NOT about winning or losing an argument. This is about the exchange of ideas in search of the truth. Try to look past your own ego, insecurity, and pride. Listen carefully. I will repeat again. EVERYTHING THAT I PERCEIVE THROUGH MY SENSES IS SUBJECTIVE. MY PRECEPTION OF REALITY IS SUBJECTIVE. I, LIKE EVERYONE ELSE, IS TRAPPED WITHIN MY OWN SUBJECTIVE PERSPECTIVE OF REALITY. So why do you keep saying that I am avoiding being subjective? What language do I need to use, for you to understand that I'm not? Why can't you understand that rational people support their subjective understanding, with objective evidence? Or, is this just another desperate deflection?

God falls under pseudoscience. Pseudoscience includes aesthetics, metaphysics, imagination, and a closed mind. Science has only physical limitations. It has no conceptual limitations. Obviously, you are not going to address any of my concerns, so you might also enjoy this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_c5ZFFUWT0

Science has this limit. You can't give objective evidence for that fact that it is wrong that I believe in God. How, because you can observe that I do.
All the rest you do is to state that you think and feel... If it was impossible like flying unaided in earth gravity for humans, then humans couldn't believe in God. They do. That is the truth. You admit it yourself. You admit that some humans do it and then you subjectively evaluate it as bad. That is subjectivity in practice, you have no objective evidence for the fact, that I live in a fantasy world. That you use this phrase "fantasy world" is derogatory and based on feelings in you.
That is it. You have no objective evidence for your "fantasy world" or "fishbowl". Those words originate in you and are a product of you being subjective.

 

[Darkstorn]

That is it. You have no objective evidence for your "fantasy world" or "fishbowl". Those words originate in you and are a product of you being subjective.

Actually, they have "objective" evidence in the form of religious texts. You can test those against natural phenomena and conclude that at least some of them are erroneous enough to be considered mythical at best. Fantasy is a very generous term here, and your taking issue makes it seem like you're not capable of understanding a philosophical view opposite of yourself.

You're a metaphysical naturalist, who is blind to methodological naturalism. It's quite simple. You're inside your bubble, and you're thinking it's all there is.

But there's a problem with metaphysical naturalism: ALL its proponents treat it as "truth" yet they have nothing to verify with evidence, because every single metaphysical naturalist, including yourself, turns into a solipsist whenever faced with a logical argument or one containing evidence or proof. You just reduce everything into nothingness.

And earlier i said Last Thursdayists are even worse than solipsists. But take the hint: Your philosophical view, and what you're doing on these forums, is counter to a rational argument. You're essentially pleading us to reduce everything into an issue of subjectivity.

But you're failing to grasp that methodological naturalists will not be able to accept that kind of a claim, since their world view includes objective evidence. Just because yours doesn't, doesn't make you correct.

In fact, to a methodological naturalist, your lack of convincing argument for your world view does make the objective evidence regarding the usefulness of your philosophical view HIGHLY suspect. So maybe try a different approach: You're not right, and you're not arguing from a higher pedestal.

I don't know, you feel like a novice in philosophy who believes his own mythos too hard. But really: You don't come off as deep as you imagine yourself to be.

/E: Your world view is FINE and ACCEPTABLE in a sense of its validity. But you trying to use it to reduce debates into a poster child for your views is decidedly NOT productive. For a debate to work, people must understand each other. And in the context of "evidence", you will not be able to explain it away with just logic. No matter how much you try. Trying to make it into "subjective" will not work. That's how simple it really is.

 

[gnostic]

That is it. Science can't answer everything for the everyday life, because you can't do morality, ethics, aesthetics, utility, metaphysics and ontology using science.

And?

No one said that science have answers for everything. There are limits as to what science can or cannot do.

That’s ok, mikkel, because if you actually given serious thoughts, there limits to what can you can do with each of the list that you provided.

Because you cannot do natural science with morality, or with ethics, or with aesthetics, etc. Every single philosophies and religions all have their limits.

Everything have limits.

You are just being one-sided, and quite absurd.

If you want to studying astronomy and become an astronomer, you would not ask the student to enroll in the courses like accounting, auto engineering, acting or dentistry, or do apprenticeship in plumbing, bricklaying, etc. To be astronomer, you will only learn and train on subjects related to astronomy.

Likewise if you were a carpenter, you would expect to be astronaut or ship helmsman or brain surgeon.

So what scientists don’t become expert in ethics or morality, the examples that you frequently used in your arguments?

It is like you are comparing orange and elephant. What is your bloody points in comparing two unrelated things?

I will grant you there are only so much that science can do. But limits also exist in arts, philosophies, and every other disciplines, and yet you are so focused in pointing the limitations of science.

What are you? A science nihilist? You seemed to have anti-science sentiment.

 

[gnostic]

But there's a problem with metaphysical naturalism: ALL its proponents treat it as "truth" yet they have nothing to verify with evidence, because every single metaphysical naturalist, including yourself, turns into a solipsist whenever faced with a logical argument or one containing evidence or proof. You just reduce everything into nothingness.

I find metaphysician or metaphysicist in general to be nothing more than armchair philosophers who frequently use sophism.

 

[Darkstorn]

I find metaphysician or metaphysicist in general to be nothing more than armchair philosophers who frequently use sophism.

Then you'll probably be very surprised to hear that whoever invented the scientific method used metaphysics to devise it. We no longer NEED to employ metaphysics to understand the natural world, but it wasn't always the case.

Do not shoot down something you do not understand. You're doing the same mistake as Mikkel.

The only real problem with metaphysical naturalism is the mistaken idea by some of its proponents that it could replace methodological naturalism. But they don't even answer the same questions. So they'll never be comparable.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Everything have limits.

...

Yes, everything has a limit. Human mobility has a limit. Religion has a limit. Faith has a limit. Philosophy has a limit.
So we agree.

 

[Darkstorn]

Philosophy has a limit.

No, it does not. That's exactly the problem: It's the people DOING philosophy that have limits. Philosophy itself has NO limits, and those who BLINDLY try to argue for it, are just limited in their thought processes.

Religious philosophy is notably limitless in its absurdity. They can say ANYTHING. And it'll make "sense" in the context. Philosophy's lack of limits is what lends it to be abused so easily.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Science has this limit. You can't give objective evidence for that fact that it is wrong that I believe in God. How, because you can observe that I do.
All the rest you do is to state that you think and feel... If it was impossible like flying unaided in earth gravity for humans, then humans couldn't believe in God. They do. That is the truth. You admit it yourself. You admit that some humans do it and then you subjectively evaluate it as bad. That is subjectivity in practice, you have no objective evidence for the fact, that I live in a fantasy world. That you use this phrase "fantasy world" is derogatory and based on feelings in you.
That is it. You have no objective evidence for your "fantasy world" or "fishbowl". Those words originate in you and are a product of you being subjective.

Because I am trapped in my own subjective perspective, I can't provide any objective evidence that would suggest which world your mind chooses to live in. But I can bury you in objective evidence that will more than suggest, that your body will always belong to Mother Earth.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Because I am trapped in my own subjective perspective, I can't provide any objective evidence that would suggest which world your mind chooses to live in. But I can bury you in objective evidence that will more than suggest, that your body will always belong to Mother Earth.

You are in a sense caught in a duality of objective and subjective. As long as you can't combine that reality is in part objective and in part subjective, then we will talk about different understandings of subjective and objective.

 

[Darkstorn]

You are in a sense caught in a duality of objective and subjective. As long as you can't combine that reality is in part objective and in part subjective, then we will talk about different understandings of subjective and objective.

That sounds like a statement with certainty. Which means your philosophy has failed you, and you got distracted by your ego.

You're still polluting a logical debate with different logic. Either do it based on the same logic everyone else does, or stop cramming your failed philosophy down our throats. Thank you in advance.

When we're dealing with evidence regarding the natural world, you cannot wish it away with logic. Otherwise arguments like last thursdayism and the matrix would be equally appropriate to yours; And since we're dealing with empiricism, your contents amount to woo made by a person who doesn't understand it.

You can only argue empirical evidence with empirical evidence. That's it. It's beyond preposterous for you to have even begun to think that you might be right in this instance.

You're just a solipsist. Meaning, you're not even a metaphysical naturalist. You're just a solipsist.

Solipsism - Wikipedia

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Just put me on ignore. You don't control me, so do something you have control over.

 

[Darkstorn]

Just put me on ignore. You don't control me, so do something you have control over.

Prove it. The way i see it, i'm controlling your next reaction. Like i controlled this one.

If i don't control you, then you are able to answer to me using your philosophy in a way that amounts to a discussion. Now you're just making the admission that what i'm doing is causing you to recoil in a way that prevents this eventuality.

How do you deal with this?

/E: Last time we had a discussion, you immediately stopped answering when i told you this:

I know that you're being limited by your understanding of "nothing." I can reduce you into nothing inherent to yourself. All your thoughts, experiences, feelings, and even genetics, are but the thoughts, experiences, feelings and genetics of someone / thing that you experience, feel and think about, or to who you are biologically related.

You literally have nothing inherent to yourself. Your very being is an amalgamation of things that came before. Much like a star. Or a piece of sand.

The very idea of what "you" even are, is a defence mechanism.