-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
something we can all agree on?
- Thread starter Eddi
- Start date
There appear to be lots of somethings. 
But surely the fact that something can "appear" to be anything indicates there is something rather than nothing?There appear to be lots of somethings.
Nope.
Philosophy is more complicated than that.
Some ontological perspectives suggest that all is an illusion.
Science teaches that the vast majority of what we perceive is actually empty space (aka, "nothing")
While some philosophies posit a unified "something" others are pluralistic "somethings" or dualistic "something A and something B."
Agreement is neither necessary nor desirable, IMHO.
Philosophy is more complicated than that.
Some ontological perspectives suggest that all is an illusion.
Science teaches that the vast majority of what we perceive is actually empty space (aka, "nothing")
While some philosophies posit a unified "something" others are pluralistic "somethings" or dualistic "something A and something B."
Agreement is neither necessary nor desirable, IMHO.
That doesn't follow what I said.
I said that there appear to be a lot of somethings, not there is something that can appear to be anything.
To the ophthalmologist?
I know that I exist so as far as I'm concerned those perspectives are wrong
In the day-to-day, I typically assume "I" exist too. Then, I remember that "I" is meaningless without "thou" and various teachings of no-self, nonbeing, and interconnection.
Wouldn't it be possible to call "a lot of somethings" simply "something"?
Sure. But I said "appear to be" not "are."
Can you prove you exist? If so, how?
Prove to myself or prove to others?
Since you're giving me a choice, we can start with the latter and work our way to the former.
I think it would be reasonable for others to believe I exist because it would make more sense for their experience of me to be based on there being a reality of me than it would on me being some kind of an illusion
Reality being real is less complicated than reality being an illusion hence I would say it is more reasonable
For instance who would be behind such an illusion and how would it work?
Occam's razor etc.
Which would mean me existing is more reasonable than me not existing, as far as others are concerned
So that is why I would hope others believe I exist
Eddi, that was sweet to even read.
Good morning and Thank you!
We can agree, that people are dying to understand.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
An illusion is something, no?
Empty space isn't nothing. There's space and time and a whole swarm of quantum stuff there.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Yes, insofar as I can prove anything.
If you want me to prove to you I exist, you can present me your cheek and I can introduce you to my fist.
I don't think you'll doubt my existence afterwards, assuming you actually doubted it before.