BeautifulMind
Member
What characteristics would you factor in to determine if something is real? Not necessarily religion, but anything.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Surely, there are real things that are not detectable with ALL five senses???Terrywoodenpic said:Must be detectable with all Five main senses.If it is a Gas it must be compressable to a liquid or solid.
Terry____________________-
Amen! Truly I say to you: Gather in my name. I am with you.
Yes, there are. I tend to agree with Aqualung.nutshell said:Surely, there are real things that are not detectable with ALL five senses???
I agree, when was the last time you heard or smelt the moon for instance?nutshell said:Surely, there are real things that are not detectable with ALL five senses???
Engyo said:Actually, the first step would be to define exactly what "real" means in the context of the question.
Assuming it could be done at all on this forum.That could take years.
Or to Paraphrase. Frubals to the dictator.SnaleSpace said:The element that decides whether something is real or not, is my experience with it. If I have not experienced it, it remains in the "i don't know" basket.
Fascist Christ said:Reality is perception.
too bad there isn't the punching icon like in the chat rooms...Halcyon said:I'd like to agree with Aqualung, but i can't because its Aqualung
victor said:As long as it's rational. Things can be rational without any evidence.
~Victor
So you are prepared to accept another's testimony that something is real, without your having seen it ?robtex said:Various ways:
As others say, that which is detectable by the 5 senses. The more senses that could detect it the more validity it would achieve and the longer the detection the more validity it would achieve.
Deduction would be the second componet. The deduction taken from what is known and can be verified. It would have to fit within the context of that which was already known. Non validaded deductions would be speculation which may or may not have validity but could not be escalated to the notion of "real" until which time the deduction could be verified.
For instance,
Buddy my poodle is real because I can see smell and hear him sleeping under my chair (he snores). Skippy his brother is dead. Skippy's death is real because he was found on a highway (years ago) crushed and not breathing. I know from deduction that animals on a road crushed and not breathing are likly hit by a car. A deduction. His breathing never resumed and thus I am deducitng he died based on the past information that living animals (including humans) need to breathe to live.
Deduction I can see a watertower from my window. I don't see the water but can deduce it is a water tower since I understand what the blueprint for one looks like and the tower outside my window matches the blueprint.
Deduction People in Germany live in Europe. From maps made out of observation in the world the majority of people have agreed that the land below poland and next to france is germany. The people who live there agree it is Germany and the majority of the world through personal observation and deliberation have decided it is Germany.
Hi Michel,michel said:So you are prepared to accept another's testimony that something is real, without your having seen it ?
Perhaps; since Rob is now offline, and you have made a pertinent point, perhaps you would answer the following question which I would have asked Rob;SnaleSpace said:Hi Michel,
Isn't that then a matter of who you trust?