does everything exist beyond our perception????

Question

they must because then what are you observing. doesnt this prove were real and its not just an illusion?? whats the point of our minds creating it as an illusion if were going to recognize it as an illusion. would that defeat the purpose of creating it in the first place??

Answer 1

Bats use radar and dolphins use sonar if we had radar and sonar

Answer 2

Oh I'm going to drown you a little deeper first. Isn't it that when we dream, sometimes we do not know that we are dreaming? Lets say you dream you are a butterfly. But are you Joe S dreaming that you are a butterfly, or are you a butterfly dreaming that you are Joe S?

But again like I said earlier, things don't exist BEYOND our perception but within it, even though our perception is not perfect it has a capacity to observe reality and affirm what it is observing. Tell me, do you really think you are a butterfly?

You are looking for a mathematical proof of the existence of the world? But that's like looking for an equation for determining if the equation is correct. You know that 1+1 is 2. That's logical. That's mathematical. You know that one apple plus one apple are two apples. That too is logical and mathematical. But how do you know that THERE ARE one apple and one apple to begin with. You do not use logic for this, you use your ability to affirm what you observe.

Now lets go back to your cartesian doubts. You are able to determine when your senses are tricking you right. If your sense of sight fools you, you can correct it with your sense of touch. And then its now for your logical mind to calculate which sense to believe.

But you know what, even if you see an illusion, you should be aware of the fact that the really is an illusion for you to see. The principle of the pen that appears bent when half submerged in a glass of water, is the same principle that allowed for the existence of a lense.

Answer 3

no person limits the qualification of "certainty" to easily issues which would be perceived. Many atheists will renowned issues like gravity, that have no perceptive high quality. The question isn't any remember if or not there's a reason to have self assurance in issues. Gravity, mutually as not straight away perceivable, could be referred to to take place as a widespread concept between bodies with mass. Gravity is an effect without perceptive mechanism (even with the certainty that there are, of direction, theories to describe the mechanisms in contact). Ignoring the certainty which you're portray all atheists with the comparable brush (undesirable flow, and one which you are going to work out roundly criticized for sturdy reason), if we won't become attentive to the effects of something, then we've no reason to assume that is there. that would not shrink what someone can comprehend: that is an acknowledgement that understanding with regards to the international can purely come from the international. we can easily think of a lot of issues that don't exist. that doesn't propose that issues we've no reason to have self assurance in (i.e., that we are going to not straight away become attentive to or become attentive to the effects of) might desire to exist outdoors of our understanding. affirming that specific issues exist on the foundation of our skill to take flights of delusion isn't a device for understanding certainty. that is purely extra proscribing in which you're proscribing your self to what you be attentive to, rather of becoming unwarranted extrapolations. once you decide on a particular answer to a query, proscribing your self is extremely the main suitable element to do. In different words, think of you have a field until now you. in case you prefer to be attentive to what's interior, it fairly is extra enlightening: commencing the field and searching, or imagining what could be interior? the former is easily extra proscribing, besides the undeniable fact that it does extremely answer the question handy.