Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

The sky

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

Condition: You are the only person who has seen the sky
-Everyone else refuses or cannot look at the sky or photographs/movies of the sky
-Everyone demands absolute irrefutable evidence

You have seen the sky so you know it's something real. Since you know its real with certainty, is there a way to prove it or share a provable truth about it?

@Kitt phil,

beyond reflections(I'm assuming reflections are restricted as well) I'm not sure.....one could draw pictures(though they would be explained away as imagination, etc.) or describe things one sees which are not familiar anywhere else(like clouds, though such things would surely seem made up). I suppose one could say, "it's where rain comes from". Or simply describe what it's not( ie. solid ). It'd be a difficult task for certain. For nothing offered would fall into the "irrefutable evidence" category necessarily.

@Amperage,

Rain is good as evidence. It is an anomalous occurrence that has to do with both the sky and the ground, though having not observed the sky it would most likely have some explanation conjured up. This adds to evidence for a sky though. With evidence the case becomes stronger.

A point I would throw out there is- Establishment of the probability for something existing above rather than non existence above. I would argue that non existence cannot be experienced buy something in the state of existing.

@Kitt phil,

Teach them all how to fly.
Holding them up is the high.
Holding you down, why oh my.
When its not up it is not sky.

@sometime sun,

sometime sun;131655 wrote:

Teach them all how to fly.
Holding them up is the high.
Holding you down, why oh my.
When its not up it is not sky.

Technology can solve a great deal. If we could build a craft to venture the heavens, ground based limitations in thinking would be dissolved. Though building such a craft is a very high technological feat, cars still require a lot of people to design and build.

@Kitt phil,

'The good is outside the space of facts. You cannot lead anyone to the good, only one place or another.'

-LW, quoted by memory

I guess the ideal teaching would be one that, inevitably, leads the student across a varied and wide terrain, in great and small magnitudes, so that once done, the student has only one place left to look- that being up.

@Kitt phil,

Kitt;131611 wrote:

A point I would throw out there is- Establishment of the probability for something existing above rather than non existence above. I would argue that non existence cannot be experienced buy something in the state of existing.

Which would give more credit to it not existing than existing. It is funny how you are using tangible evidences to try and prove a concept is true. Obviously if there was some shred of evidence for something happening it could be discovered. You might not have ever seen the sky, but as you put it if the rain comes from it, then it points to the skies existence. This is tangible evidence. However the thing you CAN NOT do is say something exists without having any evidence what-so-ever for. There is no evidence for non-existing things, because they don't exist. You are saying that non-existing things can not be pointed to with anything existing therefore non-existing things are alright to believe. You don't find that absurd?

If you don't then the flying pink elephant exists.

@Krumple,

Quote:

"Originally Posted by Kitt
A point I would throw out there is- Establishment of the probability for something existing above rather than non existence above. I would argue that non existence cannot be experienced buy something in the state of existing."

Krumple;131903 wrote:

Which would give more credit to it not existing than existing. It is funny how you are using tangible evidences to try and prove a concept is true. Obviously if there was some shred of evidence for something happening it could be discovered. You might not have ever seen the sky, but as you put it if the rain comes from it, then it points to the skies existence. This is tangible evidence.

What if they said the rain was evidence that "lord sneezes" was urinating on everyone from a distance?

Krumple;131903 wrote:

However the thing you CAN NOT do is say something exists without having any evidence what-so-ever for. There is no evidence for non-existing things, because they don't exist. You are saying that non-existing things can not be pointed to with anything existing therefore non-existing things are alright to believe. You don't find that absurd?

If you don't then the flying pink elephant exists.

I said "I would argue that non existence cannot be experienced buy something in the state of existing."

How did you get the idea that I would propose that NON existent things exist? I feel what I said pointed towards non existent things NOT existing.

---------- Post added 02-25-2010 at 06:07 PM ----------

Expansion on
"I would argue that non existence cannot be experienced buy something in the state of existing."
With the consideration of
-Everyone else refuses or cannot look at the sky or photographs/movies of the sky

Can anyone in existence experience non existence? I believe that they cannot. This suggests that something is their even if it can not be seen, otherwise we would be existing within non existence. Impossible. Even if some one thinks up a concept of an object then that exists in the form of a concept, it is not non existent.

Just because you can't see something with the naked eye doesn't mean it dose not exist.

@Kitt phil,

Kitt;131347 wrote:

Condition: You are the only person who has seen the sky
-Everyone else refuses or cannot look at the sky or photographs/movies of the sky
-Everyone demands absolute irrefutable evidence

You have seen the sky so you know it's something real. Since you know its real with certainty, is there a way to prove it or share a provable truth about it?

Imo this roots in the poor human preception, too much sceptisism will make us denying even what is blatan obvious.
But ofcause sceptisism in itself is healthy, avoiding being manipulated, fooled, and/or jump to conclusions too fast.

I have experienced the very same as your story describes.

I have played ALOT of Age of Kings over many years, but in my early days of Age of Kings, I would often crack down on people who would claim being Inters/Experts, just saying you 3 v me! I would beat people, often enter games and just say 3v5 and gaining a reputation and immense fame by that. Even 1 3v5 game, an ally would drop and I still won, just telling my ally ..just keep your walls! ^^

People would precive me as an high expert, while consider themselfs experts, but I claimed on a scale from 1-10 (10 being the best), I'm but a humble 3, and ur 2 ..at best, unfortunaly they took it as an great offence me judgeing them as being very poor players as they just couldn't imagine that people could get so many steps up the ladder.

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

The sky

Quick Links

My Account

able2know