Can you prove water exists?

[AquinasForGod]

The question for debate: Can you prove water exists?

You might say, we cannot prove anything absolutely. I agree. Then you might say, we can show evidence for things to justify our beliefs. Right, we can show evidence that water is a composite of hydrogen and oxygen.

But do you have evidence water exists outside our minds? What is that evidence?

Showing what water seems to be made of is not evidence it exists outside our minds. You might say, why not stick your head underwater and see if you drown? How would that be evidence that water exists outside our minds?

It could be that we are all living in some very long shared dream or something like the Matrix. In that case, we would all mentally see me drown. I would experience drowning. I have drowned in a dream. The fact I drowned sure doesn't show that the dream water existed outside my mind.

This question of course extends to everything. Do we have evidence that trees exist outside our minds?

If we cannot even offer evidence that water exists beyond our minds, something we probably interact with daily, why would we expect to demonstrate God exists outside our minds?

Now if we cannot show evidence that water exists outside our minds, does that mean it doesn't exist outside our minds? If we cannot give evidence that water exists outside our minds does that mean it is unreasonable to believe that water exists outside our minds? i.e. is it unreasonable to believe water exists as a physical object even if we cannot give evidence it is indeed a physical object that exists outside our minds?

[JoeyKnothead]

I only learned about argumentum ad hominem after I joined this site.

I don't think it's a true fallacy.

viewtopic.php?f=79&t=37986

I fail to see the connection between your rejecting a fallacy, and it being one.

Or, for example...

"You're a so-and-so, and so you can't possibly be right."

In reality you're cool by me, please don't take my ad hom personally

[Purple Knight]

I fail to see the connection between your rejecting a fallacy, and it being one.

And I fail to see the connection between someone else claiming it is a fallacy and it being one.

Or, for example...

"You're a so-and-so, and so you can't possibly be right."

It depends on what specific thing a so-and-so is, and if it's relevant to the argument. If someone weighs 700lbs, and they say they've discovered the perfect diet that can make anyone lose weight, they need not be entertained. Until they do lose weight on the diet, that is. And let's say he does lose weight, but it comes out that he lost weight because he had bariatric surgery. Then he's really lost all credibility with his miracle diet.

[JoeyKnothead]

I fail to see the connection between your rejecting a fallacy, and it being one.

And I fail to see the connection between someone else claiming it is a fallacy and it being one.

Fair enough, but I was under the impression the link to which you referred would have you supporting the idea that an ad hom is not a fallacy.

But then...

It depends on what specific thing a so-and-so is, and if it's relevant to the argument. If someone weighs 700lbs, and they say they've discovered the perfect diet that can make anyone lose weight, they need not be entertained. Until they do lose weight on the diet, that is. And let's say he does lose weight, but it comes out that he lost weight because he had bariatric surgery. Then he's really lost all credibility with his miracle diet.

Okay. I'll concede the point where it has a direct connection to a claimant and their claims. I don't concede where the ad hom has no direct connection.

[Purple Knight]

Fair enough, but I was under the impression the link to which you referred would have you supporting the idea that an ad hom is not a fallacy.

It does. One of the sad things I have to admit is that if someone attacks intellect or capability, that's valid, and it's the most common ad hom.

If someone is really too limited to understand an argument, and someone else tells them that, it's not a fallacy; it's just true. I had to concede that this was the case when someone said that the Koran was perfect, but that perfection would be lost in translation because only the language it was written in was perfect.

Can you refute this asserion?

Arabic is the only complete straight language, any other language is 'Agam which means "not clear or accurate".

Quran is the words of Allah and His words are miraculous, that's why it is impossible for humans to translate it.

...I admit that I cannot refute it.

I can't see a way to defeat this claim.

The best I can hope for is a translation that explains every word used in a way that an English-speaker would understand.

However, if my language itself is that faulty I cannot reasonably ask that I be able to understand anything.

The truth is that if my language is fundamentally flawed, I'm going to see flaws in things that are not flawed, and those are flaws in my own understanding.

Okay. I'll concede the point where it has a direct connection to a claimant and their claims. I don't concede where the ad hom has no direct connection.

Other than the attack on intelligence, I agree with you. But if there's no connection then there's already a fallacy for that, and it's a non sequitur.

[boatsnguitars]

Here is what ChatGPT says:

The question you raise is an age-old philosophical problem of how we know what exists beyond our minds. The solipsistic view that nothing can be known or proven to exist outside of our own minds is a radical form of skepticism that can be difficult to refute.

However, while we cannot prove the existence of water or any physical object with absolute certainty, we can offer evidence for its existence based on our sensory experiences and empirical observations. We can observe the effects of water, such as its ability to extinguish fire, cause rust, or dissolve salt. We can also observe the physical properties of water, such as its temperature, density, and fluidity. These observations provide us with a reasonable basis to conclude that water exists as a physical object beyond our minds.

Furthermore, the fact that others can also observe and interact with water in a similar way as us provides additional evidence for its existence outside of our minds. The shared experiences and observations of physical objects, like water and trees, suggest that they exist independently of our individual perceptions.

While we may never be able to prove with absolute certainty the existence of anything beyond our minds, it is reasonable to believe in the existence of physical objects based on the evidence of our sensory experiences and empirical observations.

[William]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #45]

The color blue can be observed by others and everyone can agree that the thing being observed is the color "blue" but what we cannot know is that the other mind actually sees the same color.

It is the same with whatever objects we all share an experience of and we think of water as "wet" and by that, we each know that water exists, although the water you see might not look like the water I see, this doesn't appear to interfere with how we both use water together, for similar purposes.

This tell me at least that the brain/sensory system of the human form allows for us to see things in a similar manner, and that we can assume we all see the same thing, if indeed or description of that things is agreed upon by others who observing that said thing.

At the same time, none of our bodies are exactly able to do everything all other bodies can do. Brains are different, and some allow for the ability of the consciousness involved with said brain, to do mathematics with ease, or created works of art, or understand fatherhood et al.

Nothing really exists outside our minds, because it is minds which acknowledge existence and so anything which is unknown to us might exist but doesn't exist for us if it is not acknowledged as existing by the mind experiencing it existing.

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #1]

If we cannot even offer evidence that water exists beyond our minds, something we probably interact with daily, why would we expect to demonstrate God exists outside our minds?

God cannot exist anywhere but inside our minds. The very idea of GOD is that it is a MIND.

Put another way, your question can be asked of GOD. "How do you get evidence that anything exists beyond your mind? How do you KNOW that anything really exists outside of your mind?"

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #45]

The color blue can be observed by others and everyone can agree that the thing being observed is the color "blue" but what we cannot know is that the other mind actually sees the same color.

It is the same with whatever objects we all share an experience of and we think of water as "wet" and by that, we each know that water exists, although the water you see might not look like the water I see, this doesn't appear to interfere with how we both use water together, for similar purposes.

This tell me at least that the brain/sensory system of the human form allows for us to see things in a similar manner, and that we can assume we all see the same thing, if indeed or description of that things is agreed upon by others who observing that said thing.

At the same time, none of our bodies are exactly able to do everything all other bodies can do. Brains are different, and some allow for the ability of the consciousness involved with said brain, to do mathematics with ease, or created works of art, or understand fatherhood et al.

Nothing really exists outside our minds, because it is minds which acknowledge existence and so anything which is unknown to us might exist but doesn't exist for us if it is not acknowledged as existing by the mind experiencing it existing.

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #1]

If we cannot even offer evidence that water exists beyond our minds, something we probably interact with daily, why would we expect to demonstrate God exists outside our minds?

God cannot exist anywhere but inside our minds. The very idea of GOD is that it is a MIND.

Put another way, your question can be asked of GOD. "How do you get evidence that anything exists beyond your mind? How do you KNOW that anything really exists outside of your mind?"

Brilliant in its simplicity.

[boatsnguitars]

The question for debate: Can you prove water exists?

You might say, we cannot prove anything absolutely. I agree. Then you might say, we can show evidence for things to justify our beliefs. Right, we can show evidence that water is a composite of hydrogen and oxygen.

But do you have evidence water exists outside our minds? What is that evidence?

As a mental exercise to develop precise language, and have a fun time wrestling with philosophical concepts, this might entertain us for a few moments, but I'd argue there are better things to mull over.

One thing to ponder, while you are wondering if you are a brain in a vat or not, is - if we are brains in vats, or if all things are constructs of our minds, why have so many people chosen to live incredibly boring lives with no magical or supernatural abilities?

When choking on water than went down the wrong pipe, are you wondering - why have I chosen to imagine this feeling?

Showing what water seems to be made of is not evidence it exists outside our minds. You might say, why not stick your head underwater and see if you drown? How would that be evidence that water exists outside our minds?

It could be that we are all living in some very long shared dream or something like the Matrix. In that case, we would all mentally see me drown. I would experience drowning. I have drowned in a dream. The fact I drowned sure doesn't show that the dream water existed outside my mind.

The feeling of coughing, the rasp in your throat, etc. Sure, we could convince ourselves that these are mental constructs, but why? What reason do we have to think that what appears real isn't?

Wouldn't the real question be: is my mind real, or is my mind (what I experience as "me") simply my senses experiencing my body as it senses and does things? Why wouldn't we accept - first - that the physical world exists, and that maybe our mental states are more like we are a passenger in a car. When it turns left, we think "I wanted to turn left - because that's why I turned left."
Kind of like watching a movie: our senses are simply sensing themselves and that's what we feel is "consciousness", or our "self".

Our conciousness = senses sensing their sensations.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20445335

Someone might say, "But I appear to have free will!"

Right, but if we are asking if water exists, why not wonder if FW exists? It's possible that our minds have no control over our bodies, whatsever. Our bodies know how and where to go to get food, and - perhaps - our minds simply record the events.

Yes, even when we are trying to explain things to the police for why we stole a piece of bread - but, remember - the police officer is also just doing what his body does. There is no ability for anyone to change their fate - that their body wasn't going to change at some point anyhow.

Our "decision" to go to college to get a better job was decided by our genetics and environment - not a decision we made. We decide nothing.

This question of course extends to everything. Do we have evidence that trees exist outside our minds?

If we cannot even offer evidence that water exists beyond our minds, something we probably interact with daily, why would we expect to demonstrate God exists outside our minds?

Now if we cannot show evidence that water exists outside our minds, does that mean it doesn't exist outside our minds? If we cannot give evidence that water exists outside our minds does that mean it is unreasonable to believe that water exists outside our minds? i.e. is it unreasonable to believe water exists as a physical object even if we cannot give evidence it is indeed a physical object that exists outside our minds?

So, while these explorations are entertaining - Idealism and Determinism, et al. - it appears the way things work is that we ought to "act as if" water is real and we have some amount of FW.

All great stuff.