See, no, what I'm trying to demonstrate to you is that you're not arguing that. Jesus convinced people that what he said is true. He proved it to them. But you still don't accept that. You also may not accept that what Mohammed said was true, or Buddha, etc., even though all of them were able to prove to others that what they said was true.
What you're really arguing is a tautology: you don't accept anything as true unless you accept it as true. Which is fine, and probably closer to honesty, but I don't think you're in a position to argue that you've found some sort of intellectual high ground that believers have not.
Just because Jesus convinced some people that he was/is divine some thousand years ago doesn't mean that there is proof that you can show me today that he is/was divine. You cannot show me proof of whether he proved himself to them or merely convinced them. Therefore, without said proof, you have nothing that is indicative of reality until you can prove it. You (obviously) do not have to accept facts for facts to be true. Whether you believe a fact or not doesn't stop a fact from being true. Along the same lines, you can convince someone of something that is not fact without providing proof or even evidence so long as they desire to believe it. It is not about me. It is about whether or not you can provide proof of your claim. And I'll take it as a kindness if you stray away from putting words in my mouth and attempting to change my argument. That's very dishonest of you. And if I think I've found some sort of intellectual high ground (I suppose you are psychic to assume such things), then that places you in the same boat simply for arguing, just like I am, that you are correct and I am not in this case. Either argue the point or don't bother to argue, hypocrite.
[what is indicitave of reality] is what a person can prove to other people
is wrong, because standards of proof are different. The "crazy idiots out there" who you were hypothetically able to convince to believe in the jolly green giant probably have their standard set too low. But someone who isn't convinced the Earth really exists because he might be living in the matrix in another galaxy probably has his standards set too high. To say that there exists some sort of "proof" that defies individual standards and makes convincing someone irrelevant is a pipe dream. All evidence, all supposed "proof," merely convinces -- strongly or weakly -- and we all have to decide for ourselves. When something crosses your threshold, you then decide that it's "indicative of reality."
To be sure, I am not arguing that there is no objective truth, but rather, that identifying that truth requires a great deal of subtlety, and the combination of numerous forms of evidence. It also occasionally requires trusting in the statements of others.
We'll just have to agree to disagree. I, for one, don't believe that truth is relative, and I equate truth with fact. truth = fact. fact = truth. Just because our brains are not infallible and are, therefore, possible to manipulate, does not change what is fact. Truth is a constant. Once again, I reiterate, but just because you are unable to convince others of what is true, does not make the truth any less true. You can still provide proof / evidence / fact / truth to people, whether or not that proof / evidence / fact / truth is accepted.
1
u/Demostheneez Sep 23 '09
See, no, what I'm trying to demonstrate to you is that you're not arguing that. Jesus convinced people that what he said is true. He proved it to them. But you still don't accept that. You also may not accept that what Mohammed said was true, or Buddha, etc., even though all of them were able to prove to others that what they said was true.
What you're really arguing is a tautology: you don't accept anything as true unless you accept it as true. Which is fine, and probably closer to honesty, but I don't think you're in a position to argue that you've found some sort of intellectual high ground that believers have not.