| appolose said: The challenge (the one I proposed initially) was to prove that our senses work, not how they worked (if that's what vlad's implying). And that (the former) cannot be done, because that would involve us using our senses to make observations about our senses, which we couldn't do yet because we haven't proven that they work. |
Hold on...
Why would anyone ever need to "prove that our senses work"? Our "senses" are our interactions with the world; they provide all of the information that we receive.
So, any argument either for or against our senses must rely on... evidence provided by our senses.
That means, if you make an argument against our senses, you will be basing that argument on an assumption that the evidence provided by your senses is correct. Thus, any argument against the senses will be self-contradictory. (Though note: any argument for the validity of our senses will be consistent.)
The senses don't need to be proven--the fact that our senses work is apparent in everything that we say and do, and tacitly acknowledged even in those arguments that try to conclude that the senses don't work.
And, btw, does this have anything to do with the existence of a god, or why a thinking human being ought to believe in one?
