You Don't Exist, Apparently...

[Rhodmhire]

So last night at around nine o'clock I was chatting with someone online who was going on about how he was a "conspiracy theorist," his point of disucssion was the oh-so-well-known moon landing conspiracy which he claimed was the "most likely one to be true."

So, as usual, I pinned him down describing how his "facts," and premise as a whole, were based upon assumption, postulation, and overall nonsense that he tried to cover by declaring it "top secret" or "only known by the elite," the usual shit.

But then he got me very off track from what I'm used to, as he applied this statement as part of his supposed correct standing point:

"Anything is possible."

I went on to agree, to an extent. I then brought up a simple example to refute his point as relevant to his premise(s) being at all factual or true, by saying I have one head.

His response, something along the lines of:

"How do you know you don't have an invisible head inside of the one you can see, one that x-rays can't detect?"

I simply laughed at the idea, but he then asked:

"Well, how do you know?"

In all honesty, I really didn't. I then went on to say the most basic thing I could think of as irrefutable by this assumption:

"I exist."

He asked:

"Well, how do you know?"

I respond:

"I think, therefore I am."

He responded:

"You can never know, you can never be sure. Your life could be a mirage, a dream, etc."

This went on for several minutes, me asserting one point and him demolishing its truthfulness with that one statement:

"Anything is possible."

Then I got the idea that would end this circular reasoning by asserting the point that if anything is possible, it's possible that nothing is possible--in an attempt to illustrate the idiocy in his assertion as being relevant to proving a point.

He agreed, and wasn't moved.

In the end he left, I guess when it comes down to circular reasoning the winner of a debate can only be determined by the one who remains the longest, but it left me baffled and confused--far more baffled and confused than I usually am.

Being somewhat agnostic, as far as stating knowledge is concerned, I have unstable confidence in what my five senses cannot detect--I assume things I cannot see, hear, smell, taste, or touch to be true when I can't interact with them.

For example, I can't physically see Abraham Lincoln, nor was I there to see him when he was alive--I assume he exist based on other sources I can detect utilizing my senses.

Of course, because on the statement:

"Anything is possible."

That logistic approach to things is really undermined as nothing is 100% certain, even the statement itself that justifies that assertion as true.

So, I have to ask, and I really don't know any way to ask this in any other way: what the hell is going on?

Is this relevant? Is it only relevant to a certain point? Is it just installment of circular reasoning to defend one's idiotic point that's so idiotic even he knows it to be utterly and hopelessly false?

Can we really only go as far as to say things we call facts are, say, 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% truthful, with a 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of being false, the opposite, different, etc. than what we state they are?

Is nothing truly known? Is everything a guess?

Does fact exist?

[Soratsin]

No. But we have to assume it does or else we wouldn't be able to do much of anything really.

[Rhodmhire]

No. But we have to assume it does or else we wouldn't be able to do much of anything really.

Exactly the point I made, yet he constantly struck it down by saying if we didn't know it 100%, we couldn't declare it true/false.

Therefore, nothing is true/false.

Nothing.

[Natapoc]

He is right in a way. Yes we can never be 100% sure of anything. When I say yes or no or this is truth or that is false I don't really mean that I'm "objectively correct" in anything I say. We must always understand that we could be wrong and we are not able to know anything absolutely.

This of course, in no way implies that you do have something inside your head that no one can detect. The flaw in the logic comes from the idea that just because something is (in this abstract sense) possible that it it also necessary or in any way likely.

As humans with physical limitations imposed on us by biology we must accept our fallibility. But that does not mean we must embrace it as a good thing

[Rhodmhire]

As humans with physical limitations imposed on us by biology we must accept our fallibility. But that does not mean we must embrace it as a good thing

If he wasn't so ignorant, he'd understand this.

But, ignorance is bliss, I suppose.

[EKJ-746]

as far as i know my reality exists, i don't know about yours. as what i see, say or type could be something completely different to what is actually happening. i could be dreaming this all up, or you could, or someone else could. certainty cannot truly exist because existence is just a matter of perception.

[Mimic]

It's not true that anything is possible.

Certain things are objectively true whether we want them to be true or not: for instance, America is the greatest country on earth. Fact. Dogs are better than cats. Fact. The universe was created seven hundred years ago by God in exactly the state it is in now, except for the development of human civilization since then. Fact. Anything that contradicts these facts is, in the strictest sense, wrong.

However, in other areas there is room for leeway. For instance, while it's a generally accepted fact that Star Wars is better than Star Trek, it's entirely possible -- perhaps in an alternate universe, for instance -- that that isn't true at all, and Star Trek is actually better than Star Wars, or the two are of equal quality.

[The_pantless_hero]

Is nothing truly known? Is everything a guess?

Does fact exist?

The very fact you had that conversation proves there is one universal constant that is undeniable: stupidity.

[Dimoniquid]

LG! Rhodmhire is confusling me!

[Lackadaisical2]

No. But we have to assume it does or else we wouldn't be able to do much of anything really.

Exactly the point I made, yet he constantly struck it down by saying if we didn't know it 100%, we couldn't declare it true/false.

Therefore, nothing is true/false.

Nothing.

I hate hwne people say "we can't do something, therefore it doesn't exist". Just because we can't be certain about the truth or fiction of something, doesn't mean that an objective truth doesn't exist.

[LOL ANARCHY NUBZ]

I don't know what convinced you that you ever existed in the first place, but no, you don't. Nothing does

[Spartan Philidelphia]

Nothing is entirely true? That can't be true, or else it'll be false which means its true...

I say that we all exist because... TACO!

[Ordo Mallus]

Man fears the unknown, thats why we form conspiracy theories to try and explain something that is either entirely overwhelming and horrifying to know or something that we can't understand at all. I'd say your friend is afraid of the dark and doesnt understand why it is dark (figure of speech).

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Nothing can be known with absolute certainty, but if we live our life on that premise, we end up in a small shack on a rainy planetoid feeding our cat named 'The Lord'.

In the meantime, we have to accept a modicum of statistical likelihood, grin, nod and move on with life.

[LOL ANARCHY NUBZ]

No. But we have to assume it does or else we wouldn't be able to do much of anything really.

Exactly the point I made, yet he constantly struck it down by saying if we didn't know it 100%, we couldn't declare it true/false.

Therefore, nothing is true/false.

Nothing.

I hate hwne people say "we can't do something, therefore it doesn't exist". Just because we can't be certain about the truth or fiction of something, doesn't mean that an objective truth doesn't exist.

But you can't prove it does.

[Cecilia Penifader]

Even though our perceptions are limited, they're all we have, and all we can do is observe the world around us with our senses and use our reason to sort it out. It's not a perfect system, but it's what we've got. He had no solid, credible evidence to support his claims. That's the bottom line. If "anything is possible" justifies his position, then it justifies yours, as well, and then you're at a stalemate.

Also, simply stating that something is "possible" is not the same as saying that it's "true" or even "likely." While acknowledging possibilities is good, and even important, that in no way means that we should believe things without something more. Seriously, if ANYTHING is possible, and that means it's true, then ANYTHING is true and truth no longer has meaning.

[Lackadaisical2]

as far as i know my reality exists, i don't know about yours. as what i see, say or type could be something completely different to what is actually happening. i could be dreaming this all up, or you could, or someone else could. certainty cannot truly exist because existence is just a matter of perception.

The only certainty I know, is that I do exist. I don't know what form I take or even if I am capable of independent thought, but I can tell form the fact that I have thoughts, I do exist. I don't see how I could possibly imagine having thoughts, without in some way existing.

[Lackadaisical2]

No. But we have to assume it does or else we wouldn't be able to do much of anything really.

Exactly the point I made, yet he constantly struck it down by saying if we didn't know it 100%, we couldn't declare it true/false.

Therefore, nothing is true/false.

Nothing.

I hate hwne people say "we can't do something, therefore it doesn't exist". Just because we can't be certain about the truth or fiction of something, doesn't mean that an objective truth doesn't exist.

But you can't prove it does.

Of course not, nothing is proveable, if we take such a ridiculous standard of proof. Maybe my above statement would be, we can all know we exist. Its harder to say though than you'd think.

[Old Tyrannia]

Yes, anything is possible.
But most things are so unlikely that they are barely worth thinking about. You're friend's arguement fails.

[Yootopia]

Not on any of the records you have access to.

ಠ_ಠ

[Wilgrove]

So....this is The Matrix?

*Goes jump off a building in an attempt to jump to the other one, falls, and dies*

[Hairless Kitten II]

...

Strictly spoken there are no absolutes. We all know that a man in a state of insanity, can not distinguish delusions of truth.
Such a person can, at the time of his delusion, not be convinced he is wrong. If what I experience and write now would be a delusion then I wouldn't be aware, but that's working for all of us at any time. So nobody can have absolute certainty. However, It has little practical meaning, to take this limitation into account, because that would not help us at all.

We should use the 'certainty' in a practical sense: I'm sure about things where I have no doubt about. When I say that Paris is the capital of France, and someone asks: "Are you sure?", then we are limited in a practical sense that the answer is a shrug.

The fact that someone is certain of some issue does not mean necessarily that it is the truth, people are often mistaken, even if they feel very sure about their case. When we want to persuade others of our faith or belief then it is not enough to say that we are sure, we also have to introduce arguments.

[Angleter]

Now let's get real here. Fact exists. I can make a statement:

Barack Obama is a member of the Democratic Party.

That is a fact, hence fact exists.

[Natapoc]

as far as i know my reality exists, i don't know about yours. as what i see, say or type could be something completely different to what is actually happening. i could be dreaming this all up, or you could, or someone else could. certainty cannot truly exist because existence is just a matter of perception.

Yeah and... lets pretend that there is an equal possibility that reality does exist as it does not exist. In other words there is a 50% chance that you are "real".

Lets go with the first assumption that reality is false and only, and entirely figment of imagination (mine or someone elses). If this is the case then nothing matters because it is not real anyway. Any actions I take have no real effects just as any non actions I take have no effects positive or negative as they are all an illusion.

Still going with the assumption of non reality lets assume I act as if it is real despite it being an illusion. There would be no real negative effects of such a silly action as treating this illusion of reality I'm stuck in as real.

Say I treat it as if it were not real: There would still be no actually effect as it is simply an illusion anyway.

Now assume instead that the there is a reality and it is not an illusion then if I act as if it were an illusion bad things could happen to me and others. We could die, we could feel pain so it would be dangerous in a real world to treat it as an illusion. Sharp objects actually are sharp and trains will run you over.

Continuing with our assumption that there is a reality lets say I treat this reality as if it were real. In this case I make choices based on this reality that are in the best interests of myself and others who do exist (as per the assumptions of the argument.) Since I've made these choices "rationally" I benefit and so do others. For example I do not step in front of moving trains because I feel they are a real.

We can conclude therefore that our best choice is to treat the world as real and rational because the risks of doing otherwise are greater with no rewards.

[Ordo Mallus]

Now let's get real here. Fact exists. I can make a statement:

Barack Obama is a member of the Democratic Party.

That is a fact, hence fact exists.

teh democratic party might be secretly the new communist party (countered! lol)