Thread 22846189

You have no proof that the past ever existed or that matter exists.

>>22846189 (OP)
>You have no proof that the past ever existed or that matter exists.
Things having order means they were ordered, naturally or supernaturally take your pick, and were means it happened, and if something happened the past exists.

calm down zeno

>>22846189 (OP)
Wrong. Proof is objective and objectivity refers to objects that exist in time. You don't have a word for the kind of higher truth we'd need to go further.

>>22846190
That's circumstantial evidence, not proof. You have no proof anything exists beyond the contents of your consciousness in the present moment. When you're looking at a table the table itself doesn't go into your brain, rays of light do, and then they're converted into nerve signals. Could you cut open a nerve and see the table floating through like a boat in a canal? Is the nerve signal the same thing as the actual table or is it just a symbol of the supposed real thing? You never get anything real into your mind, it's all just a representation, and hence you don't know that there even is a real thing at all at the end of the chain.

>>22846189 (OP)
but people will deny the existence of god because of lack of proof

C H E R R Y P I C K I N G

Op is correct, both time and matter are illusory

>>22846195
Time is only thing that's has to be really for this to work, its like the anchor of reality

>>22846196
That has to be real*

>>22846193
>solipsistic faggots are on the loose again
It is summer after all.

>>22846189 (OP)
>You have no proof that the past ever existed or that matter exists.
babbys first solipsism

>>22846195
Wrong. Your linguistic frame of reference is not up to the task of describing things outside description.

>>22846194
bro 4chan is all just cherry picking to fit cognitive bias lmfao

Absence of evidence is also not evidence of Absence

>>22846202
There is evidence. The problem is it doesn't violate causality, OP is asking for God.

>>22846193
>You have no proof anything exists beyond the contents of your consciousness in the present moment
I'm going to stop you here. You cannot prove you have consciousness either.

>>22846204
Prove to what standard of evidence? You guys are just saying words, the sentences are meaningless.

>>22846205
words a social constructs, concepts and objects are brain constructs. the sun is no different than the sky except in your racist, bigoted mind, we all ar eone, which is why i can fuck your wife, eat your fridge, steal your cash and genocide your people you fuckin nazi, dont u do that to me tho

>>22846204
What's that supposed to mean? Meaningless statement. You don't need to prove the existence of the contents of your consciousness. By definition it's that which is present, rather than absent. Nothing is more evident than the content of your consciousness, and its existence. Whether or not something exists beyond it you don't know. "Knowing" by definition is when something is in your mind.

>>22846204
>>22846193
>>22846205
>>22846206
see >>22846199
congrats, you found solipsism, you exist within your mind and have no way of knowing if anything outside your mind is real or if your mind exists in vacuo. yay. now you can either go insane obsessing over this or you can try to be a functional human being because this shit really doesn't change anything.

>>22846193
but everyone sees the same table not just you.

>>22846206
In order to objectively prove something you need an object and you need to be moving forward in time. How are you going to do that without prerequisites? Is it even useful as a thought experiment?

>>22846205
I don't care and it's independent of definitions. I just said he should apply the same skepticism to the one point he took as granted. If everything else is dismissable through lack of provability (to whatever standard), so is consciousness.

>>22846206
>>22846211
THESE specific words are useless for discussing nonphysical higher truths. You can invent a word for that, but it doesn't carry the same weight because nobody cares. OP wants it both ways where his fake problem caries the weight of real words.

>>22846189 (OP)
Nope, but i can act in ways that do.
Power is merciless.

>>22846205
>just saying words
No matter what we talk about it's just words. Semantics, despite the phrase "just semantics" is in fact of perhaps greater value than anything. That's why I'm studying grammar, logic and rhetoric. We've been brainwashed to think grammar and logic are boring things, but I can't think of anything more interesting or deeper. But I know what you mean, using words without meaning, many people on this board are very lacking in the art of using words right, we were never taught this art but have to study it on our own.

https://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00watt

>>22846211
Intellect is not intelligence on here. Most are not capable of applying the same rule to one thought as another, mainly bcs t doesn't fit their belief system that makes them feel "in control".

>>22846189 (OP)
nice to see a fellow 2001 enjoyer

>>22846189 (OP)
Is the present already the past or the future?

>>22846214
Words are powerful to manipulate. Sadly not representative of intelligence but a skillet.

>>22846189 (OP)
Yes, everything is god and we're all in the eternal present

>>22846189 (OP)
Again? Stop spamming this shit here go to /x/ holy shit
Why make this thread every fucking day, take your meds, its imppssible to convince a retard out of a position they arrived at by being retarded with any argument, therefor you are a waste of time

>>22846208
>really doesn't change anything.
No, you're wrong. The ideas of solipsism and philosophical idealism are just a springboard to further inquiry. But the idea that it all seems real so therefore it makes no difference is false and anti-intellectual, but very common on here, because it's hard to think and do research, and most people here would rather not think and not do research.

>>22846210
> Is it even useful as a thought experiment?
No but it's enough for jews and leftists to destroy the entire world on this premise kek

>>22846209
no

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/5827/5827-h/5827-h.htm

>>22846189 (OP)
true

>>22846214
Objective proof exists because those are words made in reference to real life. If you want a higher standard of proof you need a higher word. You can't "absolute truth" the past existed or that matter exists, although it's absolutely true that they do, you'd be right to say I can't encapsulate it and show you.