What is Faith?

[blü 2]

If someone who hallucinates could test the hallucination they might find that it doesn't corroborate physically with the other senses and thus know it's a real illusion.

Same goes for dreams. In my mind's eye I can see images produced and as my mind reacts I seem to be able to exert some control over the actions in my dream. I have imagery responses to the images that happen in my mind. They are somewhat nonsensical occurrences.

Even now I can imagine the checkout counter at the grocery store I was just at in my mind. I know it's real because I've been there so many times physically.

All senses should corroborate that I'm actually experiencing an actual reality vs. an imaginary one.

To some extent the hallucination is real it's just not in the same category of real as the actual physical world.

Hallucinations, dreams, and imaginations are separate realities from the physical actuality.

So it's all real, just in totally different ways.

To me one sense should corroborate with all other senses to know I have actuality.

Of course my niece may actually be a purple dragon appearing as my niece, but I don't buy it.

Then there is the topic of pain. Pain that can't be wished away.

I would say everything is real, but there are different categories of real.

I define "real" as existing in the world external to the self, aka nature, objective reality, the realm of the physical sciences &c.

How do you define "real"?

 

[Trailblazer]

Old friend, one reason why there can't be evidence that God exists in reality is that there is no definition of a real God,

There is a definition of God. In fact, someone just posted that definition on another thread.

Definition of GOD

one with objective existence, sufficient to allow us to determine whether any real suspect we might find is God or not. All the definitions of God appear to attribute only imaginary qualities to God ─ immaterial, supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, perfect, eternal, infinite, and so on.

Those are not imaginary qualities of God, those are the real qualities.

No, you will never be able to track God down with a GPS tracking system, as God is hidden. Haven't you ever read the Bible verses that say that nobody has ever seen God, and there is another verse that says that nobody can see God and live.

The attributes of God are manifest in the Messengers but God Himself remains forever hidden. Even the Messengers have never seen God. Remember that scene in the movie The Ten Commandments at the burning bush where Moses could not look at God? Moses only heard God's Voice through the Holy Spirit.

Manifest Yet Hidden

Thus when it comes to real gods, gods that exist independently of the concept "god" in any brain, I've never found anyone who can clearly state what real entity they're intending to denote when they say "God".

Definition of GOD

Baha'is also have their own definition of God that is a bit more descriptive.

God in the Baháʼí Faith

 

[osgart]

I define "real" as existing in the world external to the self, aka nature, objective reality, the realm of the physical sciences &c.

How do you define "real"?

That's one real I agree with. However I have a category for abstract phenomena such as character qualities, mathematical truths discovered, and the capacity to live according to meaning. Things internal to self are real; such as inner experience.

 

[Trailblazer]

Mathew 5:11-12; Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets before you.

Wow, thanks, I have never seen that verse, it is a WINNER.

Baha'u'llah said something similar to Jesus about the reward we will get in heaven for defending our Faith, so the attackers are really doing us a big favor.

“If any man were to arise to defend, in his writings, the Cause of God against its assailants, such a man, however inconsiderable his share, shall be so honored in the world to come that the Concourse on high would envy his glory. No pen can depict the loftiness of his station, neither can any tongue describe its splendor. For whosoever standeth firm and steadfast in this holy, this glorious, and exalted Revelation, such power shall be given him as to enable him to face and withstand all that is in heaven and on earth. Of this God is Himself a witness.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 330

 

[osgart]

That's one real I agree with. However I have a category for abstract phenomena such as character qualities, mathematical truths discovered, and the capacity to live according to meaning. Things internal to self are real; such as inner experience.

The identity of self is real; actual identity as compared to perceived identity.

Real is anything that has existence

 

[YoursTrue]

First, you said that if there is absolutely no evidence for something then faith is unjustified.
Secondly, you say that religious faith is unjustified, given that no evidence for the divine has been provided.

The problem is always evidence. Is there absolutely no evidence of God's existence? If so, why do most people in the world believe in God?

84 percent of the world population has a faith

I am not saying that God exists is true because most people believe that God exists since that would be the fallacy of ad populum. I am wondering why that many people believe in God if there is absolutely no evidence for God's existence. It makes no sense that that many people would believe in God if there was absolutely no evidence for God's existence

What would be evidence for God's existence if God existed? I posted more than one thread on this very subject, but no atheist could give me anything that would be evidence, not anything reasonable.

I cannot remember everything that atheists suggested, but I will hit on the ones I remember.

Evidence for God

1. God writes in the sky "I am God and I exist"
2. God drops a Bible down the chimney of every living room in the world
3. God communicates directly to every person in the world.

The problem with each one of these is the same - there would be no way to verify that any of these came from God, thus they would not be proof that God exists. How could we know that God was the one who wrote in the sky, rather than a government trying to cause unrest or an alien from outer space? It is the same with the Bible down the chimney. How could we know God did it? If everyone heard voices in their heads saying "I am God and I exist" how would they know that was God rather than an auditory hallucination? They could not know it was God, they could only believe it was God.

But would 1-3 even be evidence? Maybe, because people would believe in God because of them, but most people in the world already believe in God because of Messengers. You can call them Messengers or Holy Men, but whatever you want to call them, they are men who serve as intermediaries between God and humans.

My point is that Messengers of God who reveal scriptures might have come from God, so the salient question is why any one of the methods listed above (1-3) is a better method than Messengers who reveal scriptures? Why would any of those methods even be as good as Messengers in order to not only reveal that God exists but also convey information about the attributes of God and the will of God?

Another important point is that if God does exist, there is no evidence that God has used any one of these methods (1-3) whereas there is evidence of Messengers who reveal scriptures that establish religions, so it would make more sense to evaluate that evidence rather than talking about 'what God could do.'

Another angle I have heard from atheists is what we would expect to see if God existed. What would we expect to see? Why would you expect to see x, y, or z? What we would expect to see if God existed all boils down to a personal opinion, that is all it is, so who is right and who is wrong? It is all a matter of personal opinion/belief. I would not expect to see what some atheists say they would expect to see if God existed, so why are their expectations right and mine wrong?

I get so tired of this ridiculous debate. Nobody can ever know what we would expect to see if God existed, so all of it is an ego projection.
Moreover, if God exists what we see is exactly what we would expect to see, so all the expectations of atheists fall down like a house of cards. The argument that God does not exist because we do not see what some atheists say they would expect to see is completely illogical, since nobody can ever know what we would expect to see if God existed. It is nothing more than an ego projection because they would expect to see what they want to see, what they believe God would do if God existed, which is nothing anybody can ever know.

I'm going to re-read the account of Moses and the Israelites because even many of the Israelites had problems believing Moses as representative and spokesperson for God. The Egyptians had their gods, too, but -- there's a reason for the whole thing.

 

[Trailblazer]

I just got this verse from a Christian, I think he is Catholic, and I never saw it before:

I'm going to re-read the account of Moses and the Israelites because even many of the Israelites had problems believing Moses as representative and spokesperson for God. The Egyptians had their gods, too, but -- there's a reason for the whole thing.

Please let me know what you find out.

 

[YoursTrue]

Please let me know what you find out.

I will be looking at the account, but I was also thinking that things really got fractured when people started speaking tongues and they couldn't understand what the others were saying, also it really all started with Adam and Eve. I'll go into it later.

 

[Truthseeker]

Wow, thanks, I have never seen that verse, it is a WINNER.

Baha'u'llah said something similar to Jesus about the reward we will get in heaven for defending our Faith, so the attackers are really doing us a big favor.

“If any man were to arise to defend, in his writings, the Cause of God against its assailants, such a man, however inconsiderable his share, shall be so honored in the world to come that the Concourse on high would envy his glory. No pen can depict the loftiness of his station, neither can any tongue describe its splendor. For whosoever standeth firm and steadfast in this holy, this glorious, and exalted Revelation, such power shall be given him as to enable him to face and withstand all that is in heaven and on earth. Of this God is Himself a witness.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 330

That is going to be part of my upcoming Sermon on the Mount Amplified Zoom deepenings. I collected Writings similar to Sermon on the Mount verses and other relevant verses way back in the 1990s, but I didn't really have thoughtful commentary with that, and I needed to do that I realize now, so I can understand it more completely myself, and help others understand it also. I hope people respond to my request to come to these Zoom meetings.

 

[Trailblazer]

No, critical thinking is demonstrable and recognized by those who are skilled. You aren't skilled and that is your bias and blindspot. You also have no interest in learning as they threaten your religiious belief.

The evidence for God is easily recognized by those who are skilled. You aren't skilled and that is your bias and blindspot. You also have no interest in learning as they threaten your atheist belief.

Feel free to point it out. But not accepting your claims is not bias. I don't see you understand what bias actually is, so your claim above means nothing.

No, simply not accepting my claims is not bias, but rejecting all religious claims in favor of non-belief is biased.

More mimicking my criticisms of you. Have you no original thoughts? That you mimic suggests you can't discern any actual flaws in the posts of critics.

I am not mimicking you. You just stepped into a pile of dog **** when you called me biased and I immediately recognized it.
I am not biased in favor of belief, I simply recognize the evidence for God's existence so I believe in God.

More grievance posting. This doesn't actually point out a problem I have, you are just complaining.

What you just did is called deflection, a common atheist tactic. When you don't want to or can't answer my question you deflect.

I am not complaining I was just pointing something out.
All you can say is "we are critical thinkers and you aren't." Where is the actual evidence that you can think critically, that you are smart enough to remain an atheist? That is not evidence of critical thinking abilities.

Yet again, more complaining, no discussion.

What you just did is called deflection, a common atheist tactic. When you don't want to or can't answer my question you deflect.

How is critical thinking serving you? Keeping you in an atheist box with a mind closed like a trap door. You do not look at any other viewpoints, you just keep repeating the same mantra - we are critical thinkers so we know better than to believe anything on faith.

If you want a discussion you need to answer my questions.

Funny how you mimic the terms I use to explain your flawed thinking.

What you just did is called deflection, a common atheist tactic.

You seem to think you are entitled to post and face no criticisms in an open forum. I can see how you are defensive, and this barrage of criticism feel like an intervention, but you keep it going every time to respond. That suggests you want something out of this. What do you think that is?

That is projection if I have ever seen it. You seem to think you are entitled to post and face no criticisms in an open forum. I can see how you are defensive, but you do it in a passive-aggressive way, by refusing to answer simple questions I ask. You keep it going every time to respond.

The difference between me and you is that I can see what I am doing but you cannot see what you are doing. You keep telling me that I am doing what you are doing.

 

[Trailblazer]

That is going to be part of my upcoming Sermon on the Mount Amplified Zoom deepenings. I collected Writings similar to Sermon on the Mount verses and other relevant verses way back in the 1990s, but I didn't really have thoughtful commentary with that, and I needed to do that I realize now, so I can understand it more completely myself, and help others understand it also. I hope people respond to my request to come to these Zoom meetings.

You sure are as busy as a beaver with those Zoom meetings.

 

[F1fan]

There is a definition of God. In fact, someone just posted that definition on another thread.

Definition of GOD

So just the vague and general notions that are popular among religions.

Those are not imaginary qualities of God, those are the real qualities.

And then you write:

No, you will never be able to track God down with a GPS tracking system, as God is hidden.

If God is hiding how can you determine it exists? And how can you know the actual attributes it has?

Isn't it true you are just repeating what you read and heard people claim about God, and have no facts about a God you know exists?

Haven't you ever read the Bible verses that say that nobody has ever seen God, and there is another verse that says that nobody can see God and live.

So no human can claim a God exists, or even believe it since there is no way to verify any evidence of it existing.

The attributes of God are manifest in the Messengers but God Himself remains forever hidden. Even the Messengers have never seen God. Remember that scene in the movie The Ten Commandments at the burning bush where Moses could not look at God? Moses only heard God's Voice through the Holy Spirit.

Manifest Yet Hidden

Definition of GOD

Baha'is also have their own definition of God that is a bit more descriptive.

God in the Baháʼí Faith

Yet the texts and claims by the messenger are not very impressive. Since you are addressing critical thinkers it is our level of evidence that is required, not yours.

 

[F1fan]

The evidence for God is easily recognized by those who are skilled. You aren't skilled and that is your bias and blindspot. You also have no interest in learning as they threaten your atheist belief.

Yet you go no further in explaining how I am blind. You can't explain the skill you claim is required. You don't explain a process by using this skill. This is what a bluff looks like.

No, simply not accepting my claims is not bias, but rejecting all religious claims in favor of non-belief is biased.

The logical default is non-belief. That is a rule of skilled thinking.

I am not mimicking you. You just stepped into a pile of dog **** when you called me biased and I immediately recognized it.
I am not biased in favor of belief, I simply recognize the evidence for God's existence so I believe in God.

Yes you mimic. It is there for all to see. You make no effort to conceal your mimickry.

What you just did is called deflection, a common atheist tactic. When you don't want to or can't answer my question you deflect.

You don't debate in good faith, and you have many bad habits. You like to avoid this criticism and make false accusations like these.

I am not complaining I was just pointing something out.

Complaining.

All you can say is "we are critical thinkers and you aren't." Where is the actual evidence that you can think critically, that you are smart enough to remain an atheist? That is not evidence of critical thinking abilities.

You don't understand what critical thinking is. You try to inflate your abilities, as in your first sentence in your post, and then try to deflate your critics like this quote, but not with sound thinking.

How is critical thinking serving you? Keeping you in an atheist box with a mind closed like a trap door. You do not look at any other viewpoints, you just keep repeating the same mantra - we are critical thinkers so we know better than to believe anything on faith.

Critical thinking is stable and consistent because it follows facts to valid conclusions. It serves me well.

If you want a discussion you need to answer my questions.

Notice the only questions you ask are what is evident to those reading my posts. So not good faith questions.

What you just did is called deflection, a common atheist tactic.

Another emotional repeating of this claim and no explanation. Can't take it serioiusly.

That is projection if I have ever seen it. You seem to think you are entitled to post and face no criticisms in an open forum. I can see how you are defensive, but you do it in a passive-aggressive way, by refusing to answer simple questions I ask. You keep it going every time to respond.

Oh the irony.

The difference between me and you is that I can see what I am doing but you cannot see what you are doing. You keep telling me that I am doing what you are doing.

Another mimicking of my criticisms of your inabiity to self-reflect. That you do this so often suggests it is a reflex and emotional response. That you keep doing it suggests you can't stop yourself, or see it.

 

[Trailblazer]

So just the vague and general notions that are popular among religions.

I have a more descriptive definition of God.

God in the Baháʼí Faith

And then you write: No, you will never be able to track God down with a GPS tracking system, as God is hidden.

If God is hiding how can you determine it exists? And how can you know the actual attributes it has?

We know the attributes of God by what the messengers reveal in scripture, and the messengers also reflect the attributes of God.

"The Baháʼí teachings state that there is only one God and that his essence is absolutely inaccessible from the physical realm of existence and that, therefore, his reality is completely unknowable. Thus, all of humanity's conceptions of God which have been derived throughout history are mere manifestations of the human mind and not at all reflective of the nature of God's essence. While God's essence is inaccessible, a subordinate form of knowledge is available by way of mediation by divine messengers, known as Manifestations of God.

The Manifestations of God reflect divine attributes, which are creations of God made for the purpose of spiritual enlightenment, onto the physical plane of existence.[6] All physical beings reflect at least one of these attributes, and the human soul can potentially reflect all of them.[7] Shoghi Effendi, the head of the Baháʼí Faith in the first half of the 20th century, described God as inaccessible, omniscient, almighty, personal, and rational, and rejected pantheistic, anthropomorphic and incarnationist beliefs.[2]"

God in the Baháʼí Faith

Isn't it true you are just repeating what you read and heard people claim about God, and have no facts about a God you know exists?

How else would I know except by reading what the messenger of God says about God?
There are no facts about God, only revelation from God through messengers.

So no human can claim a God exists, or even believe it since there is no way to verify any evidence of it existing.

No, there is no verifiable evidence of God existing since that would constitute proof.
They can believe God exists but they should not claim that God exists, since they cannot prove that God exists.

Yet the texts and claims by the messenger are not very impressive. Since you are addressing critical thinkers it is our level of evidence that is required, not yours.

I guess you'd have to look at something besides the texts. There is other evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yet you go no further in explaining how I am blind. You can't explain the skill you claim is required. You don't explain a process by using this skill. This is what a bluff looks like.

I was being facetious when I said that the evidence for God is easily recognized by those who are skilled as a retort to what you said, that critical thinking is demonstrable and recognized by those who are skilled. The evidence is not that easily recognized but it is not impossible to recognize either.

The logical default is non-belief. That is a rule of skilled thinking.

Do you follow strict rules or can you think outside the box? Rejecting all religious claims in favor of non-belief is not logical.

Yes you mimic. It is there for all to see. You make no effort to conceal your mimickry.

Sometimes I do mimic, so what? I don't care what people think, I am just trying to get my point across.

You don't debate in good faith, and you have many bad habits. You like to avoid this criticism and make false accusations like these.

That is not a false accusation, you just deflected again.

You don't understand what critical thinking is. You try to inflate your abilities, as in your first sentence in your post, and then try to deflate your critics like this quote, but not with sound thinking.

What you just did is called projection. I do not inflate my abilities you do. I never said anything about my abilities.

Critical thinking is stable and consistent because it follows facts to valid conclusions. It serves me well.

Fine, if it serves you well use it.

Notice the only questions you ask are what is evident to those reading my posts. So not good faith questions.

The answers to my questions are not evident to me, or I would not be asking the questions.

Another emotional repeating of this claim and no explanation. Can't take it serioiusly.

Deflection is when you change the subject to create a distraction instead of answering a question I asked or responding to what I said in my post.
Maybe you are doing it subconsciously so you don't realize it.

Another mimicking of my criticisms of your inabiity to self-reflect. That you do this so often suggests it is a reflex and emotional response. That you keep doing it suggests you can't stop yourself, or see it.

More deflection, it's constant. You change the subject and start talking about me. That you keep doing it suggests you can't stop yourself, or see it.

Here is something for your critical thinking. I have posted 41,821 messages on this forum and there are only two posters on this entire forum who I have any problems communicating with or don't get along with, you and your sidekick. Logically speaking, that means I cannot be the one with the problem.

Please note that I certainly do not agree with everyone I post to but we can agree to disagree so it doesn't have to be contentious whenever we disagree. Moreover, we can learn from each other when we disagree. Most people can compromise and see other viewpoints, they don't always have to be right about everything. It is only contentious with you and your sidekick as it is your style of communication. I get along with everyone else because they don't criticize me constantly saying I lack critical thinking skills.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Well, since you tagged me.

Faith in God would solve the problem of overcoming strict philosophical skepticism. Philosophical skepticism is the denial that we can know anything, more akin to Pyrrhonism. It's not a rational philosophy, but an intentionally anti-rational one, making it almost the exact opposite of "scientific skepticism" which is what pop culture tends to mean when it mentions skepticism these days. Unlike a scientific skeptic, a philosophical skeptic's doubt is not grounded in reason, but denialism, so they have to deny reason itself and its efficacy. It's been applied by a number of Anti-Enlightenment movements, including Romanticism and Postmodernism.

You can't really have a debate with a philosophical skeptic, because they don't believe in truth. The point of a debate is to reach an agreement about what is true, so the position of the philosophical skeptic necessarily undermines this Socratic goal and is therefore always in bad faith. Likewise, you can't approach them with logic, because logic is a method for extrapolating truth and they don't believe in truth. As such, you can't really reason philosophical skepticism away, because it's inherently unreasonable.

The only way someone who has rejected reason can believe in anything, including that the universe is real, is through the suspension of disbelief or an intellectual "leap of faith." It's apt to compare this faith in a universe to a faith in God.

Of course, faith is completely unnecessary to those who are equipped with logic, but philosophical skeptics would say that using logic to arrive at truth is (or requires) some form of faith in the axioms of logic and/or the premises that one uses. In this way, there are no facts. There are only narratives we tell ourselves and have faith in.

Unsurprisingly, the most common place you will find philosophical skepticism in the modern age is in anti-intellectualism, pseudoscience, Marxist-Leninism, nationalism, racial realism, and all manner of conspiracy theories and urban legends. It's essentially madness distilled into a philosophy; "an inability to distinguish fantasy from reality" is part of the clinical criteria for psychosis. Since philosophical skeptics reject reason as a means for discovering the truth, you see here that they rely on magical thinking like faith to reach any conclusions, and magical thinking is also a common symptom of psychosis. Since this also means they cannot be reasoned out of their positions, having rejected reason as a method for arriving at knowledge, they are also delusional. Philosophical skeptics might even doubt that they themselves are real, and that sort of derealization can also be a warning sign of psychosis if it isn't explainable by something like trauma or SzPD.

Of course, not all philosophical skeptics are psychotic. The philosophy itself promotes psychotic thought patterns, though, so it can be treated as a sort of madness. I don't know what the treatment for it is, but debate isn't the solution. You might make some progress using defusion techniques from ACT, though, which is often used with psychotic patients. The general thought-pattterns displayed by philosophical skepticism and psychosis are nearly identical so similar interpersonal interventions might be effective.

It's worth noting that using these methods to treat psychosis is not always effective and, likewise, some philosophical skeptics might just be too far gone to ever return to reason. Personally, I pity them.

Just out of interest, how do you as a person who appears to pride herself on being a serious student of philosophy, address Descartes dream argument, which may be summarised as follows?

a) sometimes dreams can be very realistic so that during the dream it is indistinguishable from everyday life.
b) If you cannot distinguish being awake from dreaming then it is possible you are dreaming now.
c) If you cannot eliminate the possibility that you are dreaming now, then you don’t know for certain that you are not dreaming now.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You're redefining reason and truth in idiosyncratic ways, which is a semantic game not worth my time. As far as I use the words, as with most of academia throughout history, philosophical skepticism does include the rejection of reason. You yourself do it. Historical examples of this include Pyrrho and Pierre Bayle. Denying that you deny reason is just patently dishonest. It's why nobody takes their debates with you seriously; your serial irrationality is potent to pretty much everyone here.


Deductively, unfalsifiable questions like these are irrelevant for forming coherent descriptions of our experiences, which includes the concept of reality. Newton's Flaming Laser Sword dismisses your sophistry entirely.

Inductively, we form our conclusions based on what is most likely, according to the a posteriori consideration of the evidence. We have evidence that there is a self-coherent world external to our control that can be perceived through the senses. Directly because we are able to affirm the reality of this external, mind-independent universe, we are also able to rationally determine when we have experienced illusions or hallucinations that distort our perception of this reality. Ultimately, it is through induction that we come to conclusions about the content of the world we perceive.

Is it possible that we're all brains in a vat? It is deductively possible. Are we justified in believing that this is not the case? Absolutely, until you can demonstrate evidence to the contrary, because that is the inductive conclusion that sensory experience leads us to. I don't think it's very controversial to point out that literally denying reality is irrational, and it's completely ridiculous that you need that explained to you.

I'm not going to give any further undue credit to either of your positions by dignifying them with my time. You have both had plenty of opportunities to make your cases as best you can and you've failed, which is inevitable when you abandon logic. There's no sense in rehashing the same discussion over and over again when neither of you are interested in progressing the subject.

The problem is that "... these are irrelevant..." irrelevant, is not real according your definition of real as observable physical property.
Further your post is overall nothing but that following: You subjectively first person claim what matters to you as you as how you make sense of your experiences and you then in effect dogmatically declare that your understanding is correct for all humans.

So here is your problem. You would accept say that human mobility has a limit, but you won't accept that reason, logic and evidence have limits. That is psychology in the end.
So show an actual justification that is real according to your own definition of real and I will listen to you.
The same with this: "... that literally denying reality is irrational,..." Show that as real and show that I actual deny reality. I don't. I just say that I have faith in it, so I don't literal deny it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Just out of interest, how do you as a person who appears to pride herself on being a serious student of philosophy, address Descartes dream argument, which may be summarised as follows?

a) sometimes dreams can be very realistic so that during the dream it is indistinguishable from everyday life.
b) If you cannot distinguish being awake from dreaming then it is possible you are dreaming now.
c) If you cannot eliminate the possibility that you are dreaming now, then you don’t know for certain that you are not dreaming now.

:Winner:

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I can assure you there are many "we's" on the planet.

Believers like me (a collection that could be referred to as "we" if applicable)? I'm an atheist.

It is my opinion that doesn't seem to have any argument against it.

Assumptions such as?????

And one thing that occurs to me is that even if this is true it doesn't stop science from doing its works and getting valid results.

Yeah, you just use words like valid.
You don't even understand how come there is a version of science based on not true, unproveable axiomatic assumptions.

 

[Nakosis]

Just out of interest, how do you as a person who appears to pride herself on being a serious student of philosophy, address Descartes dream argument, which may be summarised as follows?

a) sometimes dreams can be very realistic so that during the dream it is indistinguishable from everyday life.
b) If you cannot distinguish being awake from dreaming then it is possible you are dreaming now.
c) If you cannot eliminate the possibility that you are dreaming now, then you don’t know for certain that you are not dreaming now.

Sorry, I know this is not addressed to me but I'd like to answer.

a) sometimes dreams can be very realistic so that during the dream it is indistinguishable from everyday life.
b) If you cannot distinguish being awake from dreaming then it is possible you are dreaming now.
c) If you cannot eliminate the possibility that you are dreaming now, then you don’t know for certain that you are not dreaming now.

It doesn't matter until it matters.
We might as well accept the universe as it appears to be until we know that it is not.
As long as everything remains consistent in the universe according to how we would expect the universe to be, there is no reason to think it is not real.

IOW, I don't need faith in this but I can trust that things will continue to work as if the universe is real until I have reason to think otherwise.