5 ms·
Sorry to correct you, but you're actually kind of shy (that is, not really determined): You simply confirm that if 3 persons of human species are exposed to th
by lst 18y ago
Sorry to correct you, but you're actually kind of shy (that is, not really determined):
You simply confirm that if 3 persons of human species are exposed to the same reality (yes, reality, because the impressions may be different, but the reality is well defined and precisely one):
So, if 3 persons of the same species are all concluding more or less different things, then you have the definite answer that none of them is seeing absolutely everything, that is: the whole reality:
So: you can't be God, because:
If you were God, you would know it (together with the exact reality of all things...)
- biohacker42 18y agoEither you're WAAAAAAAAAY smarter then me, or you're babbling.
- lhorie 18y agoFor whatever it's worth, I think your line of reasoning makes more sense. I see the difference between atheism and agnosticism as analogous to the difference between conclusiveness and inconclusiveness. I don't agree with the "refuted yes" idea. In logic, "no" is not necessary equal to "not yes". For example, "not black" could be "white", but also "green". "God" does not have a well defined enough definition: it's very likely that God is not a bearded man on a cloud, but questions like whether omnipotence or omnipresence exist (and their correlations) are a whole new can of philosophical worms :)
- yters 18y agoHe seems to be saying your thought experiment only shows reality is too complex to be viewed the same way by multiple people, and your claim assumes too much.