Position:Home>Philosophy> Does this theory sound a bit valid?
Question: Does this theory sound a bit valid!?
I'm bad at explaining things so this is more then likely sound more idiotic then it really is but here it goes!.
Let's call this person A and every other person B!.
If A does not see or hear of something then that thing does not exsist to A!.
While B knows that it does or does not exsist then to them it is existant or none existant but to A it is exsistant!.
In theory that A's perception is always correct to A then what A see's as true for A is true or exsistant while B thinks otherwise!.
Such as if B see's stealing something as wrong but A thinks otherwise then for A this is the truth!.
If A is a schizophrenic then what A see's he will consider true or exsistant!. In A's view of that subject being exsistant is what makes it exsist!.
______________________________________!.!.!.
To simplify it if a Christian thinks that God exsists although there is no 100% valid evidence of it this Christian will still think God exsists no matter what an Atheists says!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:
Since we are all very diverse people, we will have diverse ideas!. If someone has an idea, is it real!. We can't see the idea unless it is presented in someway!. Belief systems vary, so do concepts of faith!. Faith simply is a choice to believe in something you can't prove!. The IDIC concept is accepted by many people!. It states, "Infinite diversity in infinite combinations"!. That works for me!. Each of us has to determine the validity and truth of our own existance!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
The "theory" is valid!. What we believe and how we perceive the world is "truth" to us!. Unless there is an objective 3rd party (like a god), and unless this objective 3rd party TELLS us what is true, we will not and CANNOT ever "know" what is truth and what is merely our perception!.
WITHOUT an objective 3rd party observer, all we can rely on is consensus" A generally agreed upon set of facts or notions that are considered true by a majority of OTHERWISE objective individuals!.
Clear!?Www@QuestionHome@Com
Truth is that which agrees with absolute reality!.
That being said, the only things we can not prove is how the world was started and when!. All else, we can prove!. God, though, has given us the information of what happened in the beginning because He was the only one there!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Why bother with complicated questions, just find some cush and smoke itWww@QuestionHome@Com
It's seems quite solid!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
truth is a function of the human mind, not of external objectsWww@QuestionHome@Com
Try giving "The Path of the Higher Self," Mark Prophet, and
"The Great Divorce," C!. S!. Lewis, a read!.!.!.!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
I'm really real!. Is that proof enough for you!?Www@QuestionHome@Com
In philosophy reasoning is a normative discipline!.
So the same rules apply to person A as to person B!.
In psychology the science is descriptive!.
That means that they do not concern themselves with the validity of the conclusions of person As rationale but instead attempt to describe that reasoning!.
I am not sure if you could call this a theory because I do not see how it predicts anything!.
Often a person that believes that god exists states that existence is the evidence so that a person that claims god does not exist will not likely be able to provide sufficient evidence that god does not exist because that person already concludes that the reason that evidence exists is as a result of the creation of existence itself by god!.
A person that does not believe god exists does not believe that existence can be used as evidence of gods existence and so the two differ greatly in metaphysics or ontology!.
How ever instead of arguing formally about these topics both persons usually debate evidence and never seem to realize that they each share a very basic philosophical view that will not be resolved by debating about or arguing about the evidence!.Www@QuestionHome@Com