We see things with different levels of quality, but we don't see things differently. The only thing that is different is our opinions and distinct physical features. You might have better eyes, but both of our eyes do the same thing.
How can we see things in a different quality but that does not impact what we see?
No they were created to see. Now that I have been subjected to this environment my eyesight has been reduced? Are you telling me my reduced eyesight doesn't have a part to play in how I see things differently? Basically eyes are required in seeing. My eyesight is worse therefore my view of the world is different in the world. What am I saying that is not correct?
I'm not proving the apple, the apple is proving itself to me.
You are not the apple self identifying yourself you are instead looking from the outside. We are inside what we are proving. How can you even do this?
We are not our senses. We are our perception.
Okay. We are our perception which requires our senses.
I would at least know some of the rules.
What rules?
Are they objective or subjective?
So to say we can't know anything about the outside forces is simply false.
You used what was already inside the world to make rules not outside forces.
In a game God is trying to k*ll you.
You wouldn't know this and as the game progresses you may know it to be the case.
God does not appear in person but does summon natural disasters in order to try to k*ll you.
Would you know it is God?
Existence is not an assumption and we can and have proved it.
Can you prove it?
Existence is defined in such a way that humans exist.
No we defined existence in a certain a way to include us.
If I were God and I never met a human for some reason, then I wouldn't even know that god was a word. I would call myself what I called myself and it would be true by identity.
Isn't in some way how we use words to define things? We don't know what they actually mean we are using what we have to make the meaning. Is that correct?
It's more like the skill trees in Sky Rim. You have a bunch of starting points and there are places where they branch off and not every branch is connect with the same base. If you want to ultimately derive it, Everything would converge at perception. But that would be the only ubiquitous connection in the tree.
Use more game examples. The bachelor one didn't work.
As a player playing Skyrim we know we have skill points in the game but if we were in the game would we know it is "skill points" or the exact meaning of it?
Why would everything converge to perception?
The force is random and has not mind. In this case, we would probably see enough instances of it to have a hint of something going on, but it would probably remain a mystery for a long time if not forever.
In that mystery could we be wrong about our existence?
Lets say we do unlock the majority of the mind and we have enough proof to save we are living in a matrix. Would want we know before be true in that time or was it always wrong?
If the force is an intelligent agent that is able to pop in and out of reality on a whim, it would necessarily follow that the entity would have no way of perceiving us without at stepping into our reality first.
What if it is an illogical being that can bend its reality to its whim?
So every time it pops in, it would have a random chance of winding up in the wrong place at the wrong time
I don't know how you got to this. If the creator created the world wouldn't the creator know what is in the world without it being based on randomness?
I would say we could never know much of anything about his being unless it was by pure chance and maybe we caught it in a cage or it decided it wanted to meet us, etc. But this requires piles and piles of assumptions.
Yes piles of assumptions but lets say someone saw God appear into this world and also had it recorded do you think scientists and archaeologists would be capable of understanding it?
A, seems more plausible but would be way more easy to detect. We'd probably have enough information for a conspiracy theory to pop out of it.
But then we are deriving strict meaning from a random force. Are you saying it is not truly random only random until we understand it?
B doesn't even seem remotely plausible, but I can't technically say it's impossible. So score one for you I guess.
It would require an hypothetical like the first one but I can make it plausible.
God gets into the world knowing no-one would see how God got in.
With our existence over no-one knew that God was living among us.
Would this hypothetical be correct?
That doesn't change that what we do know about gravity is a metaphysical truth.
How much of a percentage is it true for it to be a metaphysical one?
It works exactly how we predict that it will every time anybody in the history of the world has ever tested. Not one time ever has it failed. That makes it metaphysical until someone proves otherwise.
Oh so we deem it to be true until someone finds out something that we were missing out gravity. Wouldn't that in a sense mean we are attributing things that are consistent as fact but we don't really know because we are still learning about the world or we may never know?
The things that tautology didn't really help me understand your position because I didn't know what it was.
