One simple question

[Purple Rabbit]

IMO, this question is just a restatement of the "what is absolutely true?" question, and the problem with that one is that you can only have a chance in answering it when you've defined the term "absolulety". As long as you can't, you're just aimlessly groping around in the dark. But this shortcoming is not to be regarded as personal failure since even the most succesful human endeavour in trying to solve this, the scientific method, can't answer this one.

Ultimately there is no absolute proof to refute solipsism (there is a practical argument however)
Ultimately there is no absolute proof to refute the brain in a jar idea
Ultimately there is no absolute proof to refute the idea of The Matrix

Be my guest to present these absolute proofs if you have one.

So, with the lack of an absolute proof of ultimate reality, we are left with the second best option and that is to understand the world as we know it assuming it presents itself in some consistent pattern to us. Some call this option science, others might call it vanity.

[Eilonnwy]

My answer to the question is this :

I determine what is real and what's not by what I perceive, what I think I perceive, what I believe, and what I feel. My assessment of what's real and what isn't is based on a combination of all of those things. I trust my physical senses, and my sense of logic, and my emotions and intuition.

And to those who have an hallucination, what they perceive, what their emotions are, intuition, makes their hallucinations "feel right" and believe it's true. Do you not see the problem.

Also, this would be a fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

[Godhead]

Tavarish -

The criteria is if it feels right.

[Purple Rabbit]

So tell me tavarish, how do you answer your own question?

"How do you determine what is real and what is not real?"

[tavarish]

Tavarish -

The criteria is if it feels right.

So it feels right if it feels right?

---

IMO, this question is just a restatement of the "what is absolutely true?" question, and the problem with that one is that you can only have a chance in answering it when you've defined the term "absolulety". As long as you can't, you're just aimlessly groping around in the dark. But this shortcoming is not to be regarded as personal failure since even the most succesful human endeavour in trying to solve this, the scientific method, can't answer this one.

Ultimately there is no absolute proof to refute solipsism (there is a practical argument however)
Ultimately there is no absolute proof to refute the brain in a jar idea
Utimately there is no absolute proof to refute the idea of The Matrix

Be my guest to present these absolute proofs if you have one.

So, with the lack of an absolute proof of ultimate reality, we are left with the second best option and that is to understand the world as we know it assuming it presents itself in some consistent pattern to us. Some call this option science, others might call it vanity.

Actually, I'm not asking that at all.

I'm asking what their method is for determining whether or not something is real. I'm not looking for absolute proof of anything.

[Godhead]

Tavarish -

Yes.

[tavarish]

So tell me tavarish, how do you answer your own question?

"How do you determine what is real and what is not real?"

If something is falsifiable, consistently demonstrable and testable, that gives its existence a bit of credibility, to say the least. I also take into account the primacy of existence.

I compare it to my perception, or model of reality in such a way that bias is all but extinguished, and at the very least - irrelevant.

Example: I have a jar. I can perceive this jar to be real, as it is demonstrable in all aspects of my perception, and can be consistently tested with the perceptions of others. If others tell me that my jar is not real, and I find that it is not consistently demonstrable, I would have to re-examine my initial hypothesis and cast doubt on my own methodology within these parameters.

This is my method, but I don't speak for anyone else.

---

Tavarish -

Yes.

Cool.

Well at least I'll never confuse you for anyone resembling a rational thinker.

[Purple Rabbit]

This is my method, but I don't speak for anyone else.

Your method is not a 100% guarantee. For instance, all tests on the jar cannot absolutely rule out the possibility of a mind in a jar. So how should one go about with choosing between methods? Why is your method any better than the rest?

Your question may be simple, but does it have a simple answer?

[tavarish]

Your method is not a 100% guarantee.

Nor did I say it was. My method is, however, consistent with reality thus far, without drawing fantastical conclusions, irrational elements, or unverifiable constructs. It isn't perfect, as my perception can be skewed. For this, self doubt is a necessary part of the equation.

For instance, all tests on the jar cannot absolutely rule out the possibility of a mind in a jar.

My method doesn't hope to absolutely rule out anything, but it can assess things by way of evidence. Acceptance is constructed upon evidence to support a certain assertion. A disembodied mind would have to be, by definition, a demonstrable element within that jar to be considered part of existence and reality.

So how should one go about with choosing between methods? Why is your method any better than the rest?

I never said my method was any better. I just want to understand the method that theists use.

Your question may be simple, but does it have a simple answer?

There is no right or wrong answer. It's not a trick question. I just want to get to why atheists and theists disagree on such a basic level.

[Purple Rabbit]

Your method is not a 100% guarantee.

Nor did I say it was.

That's correct. And I did not say that you said it was.

My method is, however, consistent with reality thus far,...

That's circular reasoning because you really don't know for sure what reality is. It can only be consistent with your perception of reality. Needless to say that the same goes for me.

...without drawing fantastical conclusions, irrational elements, or unverifiable constructs. It isn't perfect, as my perception can be skewed. For this, self doubt is a necessary part of the equation.

I missed that self doubt in your question in the OP. If there was self-doubt shouldn't it have been stated thus: "How does one determine what is real and what is not real?"

For instance, all tests on the jar cannot absolutely rule out the possibility of a mind in a jar.

My method doesn't hope to absolutely rule out anything, but it can assess things by way of evidence. Acceptance is constructed upon evidence to support a certain assertion. A disembodied mind would have to be, by definition, a demonstrable element within that jar to be considered part of existence and reality.

If by this method you mean the scientific method, your method can only assess things up to a certain point, yes. So we agree it can never reach 100% accuracy. And we might agree that your and mine method not only fails at absolutely and definitely ruling out anything, it also fails at absolutely and definitely ruling in anything.

Who says that disembodiment is part of it. Maybe our bodies are just an illusion and always have been.

You're right that the mind in a jar as of yet is not within reach of measurement. And indeed that is a serious problem with it just as with the god concept. But those considerations are not about ultimate truth, it is nothing but a practical consideration. Even if we are in some Matrix, the reality that we can perceive is all we can make statements about, untill shown otherwise. This is a relative practical principle. Ultimate truth is not involved here.

Your question may be simple, but does it have a simple answer?

There is no right or wrong answer. It's not a trick question. I just want to get to why atheists and theists disagree on such a basic level.

There is no ultimate answer for both atheists and theists. In the end there only is a normative distinction in accepting or rejecting the scientific method.