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?

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #20]

I am not saying it is imaginary. I am showing that we cannot prove the physical world. We cannot start from the physical. We can start from mind. I know I have a mind, but I do not know I have a body.

This is important because this means that an atheists cannot start from the body and brain and claim there is no life after death because when the body dies the mind does. Says why? I know mind is real because I cannot doubt it for doubt is thought. I can doubt the body. I can doubt all the physical world.

Mind is primary. Now once I know I am a mind, I can use induction to conclude that other minds also exist and we seem to have a shared experience of this world. I can then induce this world might be made of something other than mind stuff.

But because mind stuff seems primary, it doesn't seem to depend on the physical in order to subsists, and thus there could be mind without a body and thus life after death.


Also, when it comes to God, there is no reason for God to make the world made of actual stuff. It could be a virtual world in which case the trees and water are actually instantiations of code, so to speak. We are minds interacting with a virtual world.

[boatsnguitars]

The question for debate: Can you prove water exists?
....
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?
....

Exactly, which is why it's absurd to believe God does exist, if we can't even prove we exist as a creation of said Being.

If it's hard enough to show that the physical world (God's alleged Creation) exists, then positing a creator of such a thing is even worse.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #1]
It is meaningless to discuss proof of anything without establishing a level of proof. We can agree in the abstract that nothing con be proved absolutely.
But to talk about such absolute proof in the real world, the word as we experience it, is meaningless except as an academic or mathematical/philosophical exercise.

In research we have levels of evidence:



In law we have several levels of proof and speak of the 'burden of proof.' They range from 'mere preponderance' [more likely than not] thru 'clear cogent and convincing,' to 'beyond reasonable doubt.'

Even for a case with billions of $Dollars at stake, the burden of proof is a mere preponderance, but to deprive someone of their liberty we use the highest burden, proof beyond a reasonable doubt. These are practical, every day, common sense levels of proof, rather than an ethereal, solipsistic, virtually meaningless 'proof.'

We can prove water exists independently of our minds by every level listed in the graphic above.
We can prove the existence of water beyond reasonable doubt.

We cannot prove the existence of God even by a mere preponderance.

[William]

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?

William: Is there any fallacy with AquinasForGod's argument?

Chat GPT: AquinasForGod's argument appears to be a form of philosophical skepticism, specifically solipsism, which is the belief that one can only be sure of their own mind's existence and cannot be certain of the external world. The argument is that if we cannot provide evidence that water exists outside our minds, then it is unreasonable to believe that it does.

The fallacy in this argument is that it sets an unreasonable standard of proof. AquinasForGod is essentially demanding an absolute, incontrovertible proof that water exists outside of our minds, which is an unrealistic standard. Scientific knowledge is based on the accumulation of evidence and the development of theories that explain that evidence. While we may not be able to prove with absolute certainty that water exists outside of our minds, we can provide an overwhelming amount of evidence that it does, including our ability to see, touch, and taste it, as well as its chemical composition and physical properties.

In short, while it is true that we cannot prove anything with absolute certainty, it is not reasonable to demand such a standard of proof in order to believe in something. The accumulation of evidence and the development of theories is a reasonable and effective way of establishing knowledge about the world, including the existence of water.

William: So what is the name of the fallacy being committed?

Chat GPT: The fallacy being committed in AquinasForGod's argument is known as the "argument from ignorance" fallacy. This fallacy occurs when someone argues that something is true (or not true) based solely on the absence of evidence to the contrary. In this case, AquinasForGod is arguing that because we cannot provide evidence that water exists outside our minds, it is unreasonable to believe that it does. However, the absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence, and just because we may not have certain evidence at the moment does not necessarily mean that it does not exist. The argument from ignorance fallacy is a common mistake in reasoning, and it is important to recognize it in order to avoid making unsupported claims.

William: The topics within the argument allows one to investigate the concept in a mindful manner, but it cannot be known for certain re current scientific device - that I alone exist and have created everything that exists outside of my self, as a type of simulation I created in order to play around in it.

Chat GPT: You are correct that the idea that one's entire reality is a simulated creation of their own mind is a philosophical concept that cannot be definitively proven or disproven through current scientific devices. This idea is similar to solipsism, which is the philosophical belief that the only thing that can be known for certain is the existence of one's own mind.

While it may be an interesting philosophical thought experiment, the notion that we are living in a simulated reality created by our own minds is not currently supported by any empirical evidence. It is also not a scientifically testable hypothesis, which means that it falls outside the realm of empirical investigation.

That being said, the question of whether our perception of reality accurately reflects an objective external reality is a longstanding philosophical and scientific question. Many theories have been proposed to explain the relationship between the mind and reality, but it remains an open question in both fields.

William: In that, it could be argued that this is how "God" created everything and it is only actually "God" that exists and we are created in "Gods" imagination.
That could explain how come we have the ability to think we could be the only mind that exists...and that becomes a type on pinging back and forth between the macro-mind and the micro-mind - like a mirror-effect...

Chat GPT: The idea that we are all created in the imagination of a supreme being or a God is a philosophical and religious belief that has been proposed by many different cultures and traditions throughout history. This belief suggests that our reality is the product of a divine mind, which has created and sustains everything that exists.

While this idea cannot be scientifically proven or disproven, it remains an important topic of discussion within philosophy and theology. It raises important questions about the nature of reality, the existence of God, and the relationship between the individual and the divine.

The suggestion that we are all part of a divine imagination could also be seen as a form of pantheism, which is the belief that God is present in everything and is synonymous with the universe itself. This belief has been influential in many religious and philosophical traditions, and suggests that all things are interconnected and part of a larger divine reality.

Ultimately, the question of the nature of reality and the existence of God is a complex and multifaceted issue that requires careful consideration of different philosophical and religious perspectives. While we may not be able to definitively prove or disprove these ideas, it is important to engage in thoughtful and respectful dialogue in order to better understand these important questions.

William: What would be some of the implications of this concept if it turned out to be truth?

Chat GPT: If the concept that we are all part of a divine imagination turned out to be true, it would have profound implications for our understanding of ourselves, the world, and our place in the universe.

Firstly, it would mean that our entire reality is the product of a divine mind, and that all things, including ourselves, are ultimately part of a larger divine reality. This would challenge many of our conventional notions of selfhood, as we would be seen as part of a larger whole rather than individual, separate beings.

Secondly, it would suggest that our experiences and perceptions of reality are ultimately subjective, and that our understanding of the world is limited by our own consciousness. This would have important implications for science and philosophy, as it would require a new approach to understanding the nature of reality and our relationship to it.

Thirdly, it would have significant implications for our understanding of ethics and morality, as it would suggest that we are all ultimately accountable to a divine reality and that our actions have consequences beyond our individual lives. This would require a new approach to moral and ethical decision-making, and would likely have a significant impact on our social and political systems.

Ultimately, if the concept that we are all part of a divine imagination turned out to be true, it would require a fundamental re-evaluation of our understanding of ourselves and our place in the universe. It would challenge many of our assumptions and beliefs, and would require us to re-think many of the foundational concepts that underpin our social, political, and cultural systems.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to William in post #24]

Here is what happened when I ask the correct questions to chatgpt. You will notice that it actually understands the issue and agrees it is not a fallacy and that no measurement proves water exists outside our minds.

ME: Keep your answer to 100 words or less. 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?


AI: Yes, there is extensive scientific evidence that water exists outside of our minds. This evidence includes direct observation of water in its various forms, the use of scientific instruments to measure its properties, and the study of water on other planets and moons. Similarly, there is scientific evidence that supports the existence of trees outside of our minds, including observation, measurement, and study of their genetics and ecological functions.


Me:
I can also use such scientific measurements and technology in my dream. So if I do science in my dream on some dream water, does that somehow then prove that the dream water exists outside my mind?

AI:
No, performing scientific measurements and experiments in a dream does not prove the existence of the subject of that experiment outside of your mind. Dreams are a product of our own mind, and the experiences and objects in a dream are not necessarily representative of reality. While you may be able to measure and observe dream water in your dream, this does not provide evidence that water exists outside of your mind in the same way that it does in waking reality. Scientific evidence relies on empirical observations that can be independently verified, and dreams do not meet this criteria.


Me:
So how does measuring water now while awake prove the water absolutely exists outside my mind? Is it not possible that we are in some shared dream-like world or in a simulation and thus no measurement of water will demonstrate absolutely that it exists outside our minds? keep your answer to 100 words

AI:
The measurement of water through scientific methods provides evidence for its existence outside of our minds because these methods rely on empirical observations that can be independently verified. While it is theoretically possible that we could be in a shared dream-like world or a simulation, this is a philosophical or metaphysical possibility that cannot be directly tested or verified through scientific methods. Therefore, based on the available scientific evidence and the limitations of our current understanding, we can conclude that water and other phenomena exist outside of our minds in a physical reality that we can observe and measure to some degree.


Me:
So you admit that no measurement proves we are not in a shared dream or simulated world, thus no measurement proves absolutely that the water we measure exists outside our minds. keep your answer to 100 words or less

AI:
Yes, it is impossible to prove absolutely that we are not in a shared dream or simulated world through scientific measurement alone. However, based on the available scientific evidence and the limitations of our current understanding, we can conclude that water and other phenomena exist outside of our minds in a physical reality that we can observe and measure to some degree. While it is theoretically possible that our entire reality is a product of our minds or some kind of simulation, this is a philosophical or metaphysical possibility that cannot be directly tested or verified through scientific methods.


Me:
Was any of this a logical fallacy? Keep your answer to 40 words or less

AI:
No, there were no logical fallacies in the responses provided. The responses acknowledged the limitations of scientific knowledge and addressed the philosophical possibility of a shared dream or simulated world without making any fallacious arguments.

[JoeyKnothead]

So, according to a chatbot, water can only be shown to exist within our minds.

Ya know, like God.

Our problem here is that folks ain't restricting rights and freedoms because the water gets angry. They ain't trying to restrict the cross dressers and the transexuals and the othersexuals and the can't gettemnosexuals, and the wimmins and the 'others' on account of the water gets angry.

Whether water exists or not, trying to legislate based on how water feels about things is just as goofy as legislating based on how God feels about em.

Let's never lose sight of that.

[William]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #25]

Me:
Was any of this a logical fallacy? Keep your answer to 40 words or less

AI:
No, there were no logical fallacies in the responses provided. The responses acknowledged the limitations of scientific knowledge and addressed the philosophical possibility of a shared dream or simulated world without making any fallacious arguments.

Yes - there was a logical fallacy identified in the post argument you made prior to the interaction you had with the GPT. The fallacy in that argument is that it sets an unreasonable standard of proof.

Your subsequent interaction with GPT is different as it comes to an agreement that there is no current way to determine whether we exist within a simulation, which is why GPT identified no fallacies.

_______

My own understanding of the idea that we exist within a simulation is that everything experienced, is done so by just the one mind, and that 'reality' and 'what is real' is simply that one mind, which means that water and everything else which is experienced as real, is able to be experienced as real simply because the one mind which is experiencing all objective experience, is actually the only thing which is actually real.

This means that our objective experiences are not real, but we are, because 'we' are 'mind' and mind is real.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #25]
You failed completely to answer the questions I posed in post #23.
What I found interesting was that when William posed your argument to the AI bot, it answered with a perfect paraphrase of my own response.

"In law we have several levels of proof and speak of the 'burden of proof.' They range from 'mere preponderance' [more likely than not] thru 'clear cogent and convincing,' to 'beyond reasonable doubt.'

Even for a case with billions of $Dollars at stake, the burden of proof is a mere preponderance, but to deprive someone of their liberty we use the highest burden, proof beyond a reasonable doubt. These are practical, every day, common sense levels of proof, rather than an ethereal, solipsistic, virtually meaningless 'proof.'

We can prove water exists independently of our minds by every level listed in the graphic above.
We can prove the existence of water beyond reasonable doubt.

We cannot prove the existence of God even by a mere preponderance."

The central problem which you have ignored by the diversion into the question of "logical fallacies" by posing different questions, is that you are using an unreasonable standard of proof, a philosophical, solipsistic one.

The plain fact is we can indeed prove water exists independent of the mind by every standard of evidence accepted by science, law, and common sense. We cannot prove God exists by any standard of proof, even by mere preponderance, which is good enough to settle questions involving Billions of dollars.

[William]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #28]

The plain fact is we can indeed prove water exists independent of the mind by every standard of evidence accepted by science, law, and common sense.

I do not think that this is a plain fact, as one requires a mind [subjective] in order to interact with and acknowledge anything experienced by said mind re what is regarded as "objective" such as "water".

There is no actual way to prove that anything objective exists, independent of the mind.

The fallacy appears to still be present, because it is not taking into account both options, but simply declaring that the experience of that which is seen to be objective cannot exist independently from the mind which perceives it as existing and as such, "doesn't exist".

The fallacy would be the same, [as far as I can presently tell] if indeed the opposite was held to be true...that the objective would still exist if the mind did not.
___________________________________________________
GPT: You are correct that the argument from ignorance fallacy would still be present if someone argues that the objective world exists independently of the mind because it cannot be definitively proven to exist independently of the mind. This argument would suffer from the same fallacy of demanding an unrealistic standard of proof, and would be subject to the same limitations and uncertainties as the argument that the objective world does not exist independently of the mind. Ultimately, the question of the nature of reality and the relationship between the mind and the external world remains a complex and multifaceted issue that requires careful consideration and open-minded inquiry.

[JoeyKnothead]

Water?

What ya do is, ya find you someone who doesn't know how to swim, and chunk em into the cement pond out back.

Now ya don't fret near as much about water existing in the mind, as you existing in the penitentiary.