Reality Check

Reality Check
No matter what science or religion discovers or uses to explain the begining you can still ask yourself the question - what came before that? What made that happen. What caused the big bang clycle to start?...
And with religion you can always ask - where did god come from?
Both sides have the same problem, We as humans can not understand how something can come to exist without first being created.
The biggest argument used towards supporting the God pov is having faith - but faith also has a huge flaw that it shares with science. Our faith is based on our experiences, what we learn from others and even what's in our 'heart'.

The problem is how do we even know this is not a dream? or a dream within a dream. Then we are just feeling the heart within our dream, and having faith in our experiences from within that dream.
How do we know that a past or a future even exist, for all I know i could have been typing this post over and over for a thousand years and my memories of what i have done before this were simply created - we would not know.
IMO before we can answer the question of "is there is a God?" we must first answer the unanswerable question of what is reality. Because nothing we can feel, learn or observe will have any effect if this is not the true reality.

The reason we can not answer the question of is this reality is because we are inside it - if we found the true reality how would we know it is the true reality. Remember we can not use our memories etc as any form of evidence, because we have no way of proving they really existed without including this 'reality'. Lost yet?
A fish in the ocean can study the ocean all it likes but it will never understand the ocean is on earth which is in space if it can not leave that ocean.
Science and religion can't claim to be right because they, just like you, are part of this reality so can not answer the question of "is this reality?". Sadly both are blinded by their faith in this reality and can not seem to comprehend that neither can explain anything outside of their experiences within this reality which does not matter if it is not the true reality.
I often wonder if I am but mere energy, having a dream of being human. Perhaps I am the basic lifeform in the primoridal soup dreaming of being advanced or maybe i am the dream that created dreams
I also find it funny how dreams always make perfect sense until you wake up - this is because that dream became your reality, and it is very hard to question your reality when you do not realise you need to.

The conclusion - believe what you want to believe, there is no right or wrong answers because in being part of this reality we can not see past it to know the truth.
For those that are so entrenched in this reality they need a scientific view -
before he died, Einstein said "Now Besso [an old friend] has departed from ...this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us ... know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."
In fact, it was Einstein's theory of relativity that showed that space and time are indeed relative to the observer. Quantum theory ended the classical view that particles exist if we don't perceive them. But if the world is observer-created, we shouldn't be surprised that it's destroyed with each of us. Nor should we be surprised that space and time vanish, and with them all Newtonian conceptions of order and prediction.


Think about it - We know nothing if we can not know that what we know is something.

- By Leigh Reily

Source (extract in italics)
.

This is one of the best posts I have read, S&F.

reply to post by BrianDamage


Thanks, I have tried to express this before but often people do not quite get it. Also I am only just managing to get it out right - but it makes so much sense to me, Im glad to see you made sense of it.

your thoughts on the matter aren't necessarily uncommon. there are some that would suggest a similar concept to a dream or perhaps even some sort of computer simulation and likewise a sim within a sim ad nauseam, but you are correct; being within a seemingly closed system we are limited in our understanding of said system.

i have thought perhaps what we perceive (i.e. the universe) is some sort of way to work through a problem (like a word problem). think about any time you have ever had to make a difficult decision: in such an instance you take a pause to reflect on memories to try and predict an outcome. in a way the universe is like a computer trying to solve a problem. in order to do so it has delegated certain processes to perform certain tasks necessary to work through this problem. we could then consider ourselves as one of these processes running until completion at which point we just run through as a different process in a different cycle.

whatever the case may be, any analogy you want to use could be a real possibility.

at every moment everywhere in the universe something is happening. in essence everything IS happening at once. within our closed system only what we perceive at this moment is what is likely, given our environmental parameters. who is to say though that outside of our lightcone a universe populated with talking waffles isn't wondering the same things we are at this very moment?

reply to post by thegiftbearer


I have also often thought of this world in the software/matrix mindset. I thought all matter could be the data and we are simply a program arranging the data - totally unaware of the big picture. Are our thoughts our own or is it our programming. Another great mind boggler!

I don't see the connection between pondering beginnings and the almost solipsistic questioning of reality here. There seems to be a theme of whether there is absolute certainty about things present in your OP. Absolute certainty is unnecessary and useless anyway. And maintaining an uncertainty about the nature of reality doesn't keep religious and scientific claims of origins at bay or render them invalid. At best, such behavior is a tenacious adherence to the ignorance of the observations about origins. Your stance that knowledge of origins is perhaps unknowable because this could all just be a dream is an untenable position to me.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I don't see the connection between pondering beginnings and the almost solipsistic questioning of reality here. There seems to be a theme of whether there is absolute certainty about things present in your OP. Absolute certainty is unnecessary and useless anyway. And maintaining an uncertainty about the nature of reality doesn't keep religious and scientific claims of origins at bay or render them invalid. At best, such behavior is a tenacious adherence to the ignorance of the observations about origins. Your stance that knowledge of origins is perhaps unknowable because this could all just be a dream is an untenable position to me.

No, actually my point is religion and science are tools of this reality - but that is as far as they can go, so if you are questioning life it's self with questions such as 'why are we here?', 'what is the purpose of life?' - then solid answers can not come from something that is based off this reality such as religion or science.

Originally posted by byteshertz
No, actually my point is religion and science are tools of this reality - but that is as far as they can go so if you are questioning life it's self with questions such as why are we here, what is the purpose of life - then the answers can not come from something that is based off this reality.

No, the answers most certainly can come from something based off this reality and almost certainly will. What other reality could the answers possibly come from?

The "why are we here" question is addressed by science as well as the "what is the purpose of life" question. Religions attempt to answer such questions though fail miserably. The notion that there's some other reality either by "Matrix" or solipsistic fantasy remains untenable.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by byteshertz
No, actually my point is religion and science are tools of this reality - but that is as far as they can go so if you are questioning life it's self with questions such as why are we here, what is the purpose of life - then the answers can not come from something that is based off this reality.

No, the answers most certainly can come from something based off this reality and almost certainly will. What other reality could the answers possibly come from?

Uncertainty: The lack of certainty, A state of having limited knowledge where it is impossible to exactly describe existing state or future outcome, more than one possible outcome.

When we do a calculation we always show the uncertainty in order to not only show the degree of accuracy but that it is definable within a range therefore it is. My OP shows we can not determine the uncertainty from within this reality of there being an alternate one - so therefore, no conclusions can be drawn - science and religion can not claim to know the answers to question that supercede this reality - They can not base off anything from this reality because they can not do it with measurable certainty that another reality does not exist.
You are asking me to prove an alternate reality exists, I am saying in order for science and religion to prove anything is truth that could supercede this reality they must show one does not exist.

Originally posted by byteshertz
I am saying in order for science and religion to prove anything is truth that could supercede this reality they must show one does not exist.

Wrong. If you claim that there is some other reality then YOU have the burden of proof to establish your claim. You're asking science and/or religion to prove a negative. Your position is untenable.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by byteshertz
I am saying in order for science and religion to prove anything is truth that could supercede this reality they must show one does not exist.

Wrong. If you claim that there is some other reality then YOU have the burden of proof to establish your claim. You're asking science and/or religion to prove a negative. Your position is untenable.

Religion aside for a sec...

I am not saying the alternate reality exists. Show me where science has shown their measurement that this reality is the only one and the level of uncertainty.

They don't - yet all science is based off the assumption that this is reality. Because science measures THIS reality - show me how we could measure an alternate reality using this reality.

Breaking it down:
Uncertainty:

"impossible to exactly describe existing state"

"or future outcome"

"more than one possible outcome"

"A state of limited knowledge"

- sounds to me like an alternate reality would definitely be a level of uncertainty when attempting to answer questions that are not refined to this reality.

Originally posted by byteshertz
I am not saying the alternate reality exists.

Sure you are. You said this:

then solid answers can not come from something that is based off this reality

and you've claimed that religion and science must prove that one doesn't exist.

Claiming that there might be some alternate reality therefore answers cannot come with absolute certainty is a bizarre claim. Absolute certainty about anything doesn't exist and absolute certainty is unnecessary to understand the universe.

I choose to react to the fact, at least it is a fact to myself, that I am here. If I am not here, this concept is something I cannot, nor realistically can any one else fathom. And rather than dwell upon that which I cannot know, I observe, react and interpret.

Irrespective of whether there is one, many or no gods over that which we are arguably a part of, the fact remains that this phenomenon is perceived as real to us. We can argue, bitch and bicker about "who did", "what happened", or even the more easily answered question of "how did" - this come into being. But to explain why "we" are part of this... there are too many variables in the equation for "us" to make sense of.

In the scope of "our" Universe, we are but billions upon trillions upon ... I think you get the point of our part in this.

We are, as are our knowledge, observations and interpretations but a small portion- likely an infinitesimally small portion- of what is "real".

Science and religion are by far more similar than different, and strict adherents to either philosophy are deluding themselves. Neither is likely to be able to answer every question, doubt or hypothesis we can present to anyone's satisfaction.

To me, it's time, and always has been the time to enjoy the ride; not time to dwell on questioning what one already knows as truth within the self and expend energy on arguing and the feeble attempt at proving to others that any particular opinion is the "correct" one.

SF thanks you put how I feel into words soooooo well

Originally posted by cbaskins
SF thanks you put how I feel into words soooooo well

Thanks I often thought about how science and religion are great at presenting us with tools to discribe how we percieve this reality but how neither can really tell us if something lies beyond it or not. They themselves are part of the small picture so can not see the big picture. You get my point anyway. thanks again.

reply to post by abecedarian


Great post, star for you.

No amount of religion has explained anything resembling an assertion of fact, unless it was supported by scientific evidence and the probability of such evidence evaluated and cogently presented to other scientist for feedback and scrutiny.

To worry yourself over concepts of "nothing" , "transcendence" and "reality" serves to breed a delusional mind. Relativistic thinking is highly unsubstantiated and unbelievably worthless.

All that is required for the universe to exist as it is, is a beam of light. From there life may very well be a chemical necessity. There is no reason to think "before light" ever existed, or some eternal paradise housing one or many gods is our destiny. Why believe in the most complex creature imaginable before the simplest? Seems extremely illogical to me and a pathetic attempt to take solace in wishful thinking, a belief driven by desirability of the outcome rather than actual experience and truth.

reply to post by byteshertz


You are adding random possibilities like "how do we even know this is not a dream?" to add to the complexity of the question "is there a god" for no reason at all.

Lets do this with a simple question.

Q: Did you put ketchup on my hot dog last night ?
A: Yes, indeed I did.
Q: Were you in in the factory when the ketchup was bottled ?
A ...
Q : Well that could have been a new unknown type of mustard that taste and looks just like ketchup !
A: ffffuuuuuuuuu
Q :Check and mate !

You can make any question too complex to answer by adding possibilities and assumptions.

Originally posted by byteshertz
I often thought about how science and religion are great at presenting us with tools to discribe how we percieve this reality but how neither can really tell us if something lies beyond it or not.

What does it matter if there's another reality beyond this reality if it clearly doesn't affect our existence in this reality in any way since we can't observe/measure it?

What saddens me is that so many people in this forum fail to accept this reality that we exist in. You know stuff like evolution, agw, 100% lack of any evidence supporting existence of deities, etc..

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by byteshertz
I often thought about how science and religion are great at presenting us with tools to discribe how we percieve this reality but how neither can really tell us if something lies beyond it or not.

What does it matter if there's another reality beyond this reality if it clearly doesn't affect our existence in this reality in any way since we can't observe/measure it?

What saddens me is that so many people in this forum fail to accept this reality that we exist in. You know stuff like evolution, agw, 100% lack of any evidence supporting existence of deities, etc..

edit on 7-3-2011 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

It's not the reality beyond this one that matters - it's the acceptance that it is a possibility, and while it may not effect your physical existance here it can effect your behaviour here if you realise this existance is to complicated for science or religion to have all the answers, if you realise that not much makes sense if everything is based off random chance of genetic mutation and then we die. It's not about wanting there to be more it's about realising there probably is more but we are unable to see beyond our limits.

What saddens me is so many people accept that this is all there is to life and that we all should sit here and argue about god and science accepting that this reality is all there is, if we accepted that in the grand scheme of things none of us know jack - we would all get along a hell of a lot better.