When you say "we certainly wouldn't be left with nothing," I think that your example is undermined by "while operating under the assumption that there is a coin and you can tell which side it lands on."

I mean, if we grant the coin... why not grant the other things that our senses inform us of?

And besides, when I say we'd be left with absolutely nothing, I really mean it.  I mean that... our very use of language is predicated on learning that has all taken place within the context of sensory data; we can use the word cat because we've seen a cat.  (Or, a blind person has touched a cat, or heard it.  Or, we have concepts of imaginary things by making internal comparisons with things that we have experienced.)

Any reality we ascribe to, or can imagine, must be predicated on our experience of sensory data.  Without that data, there'd only be void.

Perhaps I have misspoken with my intolerance comment, you sir really don’t fit that mold, and a few others as well

Perhaps I should not have used “you” but a more open word, b/c you cant deny that when it come to a matter of faith and god as soon as he is out the door other judges the poster and those like him harshly

We can agree on that matter no?

And you are right, it does boil down to my faith

Faith that we are not all here for no reason other then a bunch of atoms smashed into each other and sparked a series of events that lead to much forming man, Faith that a guiding hand help stir the primordial soup pot, Faith that he was been with me trying to give me the best life I can even if I close doors in face at times and ignore others, Faith that now that my mind has grown and come to understand him in his glory that when the flesh rots the soul will go on, faith that all life has meaning and every thing happens for a reason and a purpose (even if its not a divine purpose) if only we look and give it time to be explained

Absolutely we can.  (Though I would add that as soon as I say that I'm an atheist, I often feel harshly judged for it.  It's not just theists who suffer from that. :)

For whatever it's worth, I honestly hope that you're right about many (and maybe all) of those things; I would like for there to be a greater purpose, too.

thank you and don't worry i don't agree with your beliefs but that does not mean i am going to have it out for you

i wish more Christians would remember the part about not casting the stone unless your without sin yourself

To better explain the whole Blackhole vs speed affecting time I came up with an example explaining the difference.

Say you and I are godlike beings.

We are racing paralel on two beams of light and I get caught in a black hole... and you take a "lead".

If I were to zap that blackhole out of existance. Space would return as normal.

I have still traveled as many miles as you and as space unfolds and uncontracts we will be perfectly paralel again.


While if you and I were gods who aged and were both 25. Traveling threw "time" across the universe... and I were to go 60 miles an hour and you were to go 60 miles less then the speed of light....

When I hit 60 if i were to hit a kill switch that instantly shut off both of our engines... I would be 60... and you would have barely aged at all... and would still be 25.

This difference would always occur... and would never change. I would always be roughly 35 years older then you.

"Time" is the counterpoint to Speed.

Time as defined by a rotting peach can not be a dimension because we have two different sets of time interesecting the same point now.'

A 25 year old me and a 60 year old you.

Furthermore if time were a dimension... either in the way he is stating or an objective "real time" that we can't perceive....

Saying we can perceive it because I can remember both today and yesterday is like saying a 2-D person can perceive a multicolored 3D object because somedays the line interecting the plane is red and othertimes it's blue.

You aren't seeing the object as it is. To truley perceive a 4D object in which time is the object you would have to be able to see different points in time silmaltaniously... once again like the Aliens in Slaughterhouse 5.

That was just one method that needed that assumption to work; that does not imply a universal need for it (nor does it somehow mean we have to grant all sensory data the assumption).  Another method would simply be "Anything that I currently think is true is true".

 And how do you know our language/meaning comes from sensory data (as opposed to other possibilites)? Also, you say that we get all our language/meanings from sensation, and as you mentioned we can make incorrect judgements about reality, so I must ask your method for determining which of your judgements are true or false.

I don't really see why I would need to answer such a battery of questions in order to defend the proposition that sensory data is valid.

You're responding to an argument that I've made that, presumably, you've read; in doing so you relied on your sight.  Your answer was formed by typing, relying on your touch.  In short, by having this conversation with me, I believe you're making a thousand micro-decisions that are all based on this: at heart, you trust your senses.

More than that, I presume you live your life accordingly.  I don't expect that anyone who took seriously any idea like "anything that I currently think is true is true" would survive very long on planet earth; reality would disabuse them of that notion swiftly and brutally.  If you drive, you likely pay great heed to your senses.  When you talk to people, you hear them and act accordingly.  When you eat, if something tastes rotten, maybe you spit it out.

So, I feel like you're asking me to prove something that should be readily apparent and impossible to ignore.

I suspect that ultimately you want me in the following position: all of my "evidence" for believing in the senses is based on sensory evidence, so therefore it's circular, or fails according to Godel, or something like that.

But really, I find sensory data to be axiomatic, and my "proof" for that is that any attempt to "disprove" sensory data will necessarily rely on sensory data, even if you proclaim that it isn't so.  (Like I've said, in "proclaiming" anything, you're using language--and if you've ever observed teaching, or if you've ever been taught anything, then you'll know that teachers and students rely on their senses.  That's why Helen Keller had such a rough go at it, at first.)

Beyond that, I find this sort of discussion as pertinent as Zeno's paradoxes; it's perhaps entertaining to discuss Achilles and the Tortoise, but the question of "does motion exist?" doesn't actually need much asking.

Sorry about that; I don't mean to sound overly on the offense.

For your first paragraphs;

Yes, I do assume all those things.  I, personally, trust my senses.  But that's just because I do, not that it's a necessity or anything like that.  I never said you couldn't assume, just that it's an assumption on the level of any other assumption. Furthermore, all the consequences you've listed for not assuming empiricism are all derived from empiricism again, which still, even if these consequences are going to happen, has nothing to do with truth or assumption.

For your next paragraphs;

I do agree with you that sensation is an axiom (an unavoidable one at that); the difference here is the judgements  we make from our sensations are not necessary, and not a better idea than anything else.  Furthermore, I still disagree with you on the idea that meaning and sense data are inseperable, as I gave the possibility of there being an outside source that simply drops meanings into your mind.

For your last line; that would be a correct assessment if your position is true. If mine is true (that judgements made on sensory data are not necessary and are avoidable), then that has massive ramifications.

Heh, I'm less than eager to post because I don't really want to be in this discussion, but I feel the need to reply to this. The ramifications of your philosophy is just magical thinking where you can claim anything is true regardless of evidence, proof, logic, reason, or anything that we use to define and understand our existence. Which may be a fun thought excercise but has no practical or reasonable value beyond me saying that the universe is made of kittens and then demanding that somebody prove me wrong.

Sensory data, empricism and logic have practical and tangible value. We can create a space ship and land on the moon with sensory data. Magical thinking doesn't create anything tangible, it just creates a mind blowing experience for somebody smoking a good joint.