An Atheist Dilemma

[The Laughing Man]

But is his experience of it any less valid in terms of experience?

Is it any less true for being a different one to that of anybody else? Different, perhaps. But not "wrong".

--A

How can a 3D movie be valid without 2 eyes (required)? All he will see is a bunch of distorted images, and although it is a "valid" perception as far as he can "perceive" the distortion, without the "unknown" value of the other eye, it is pure nonsense, therefore "wrong", and no-one will ever agree with him on what he saw, (except another one eyed man, and you KNOW they are very likely to disagree any way, because they have no "shared value" to describe what they perceived), and his reality remains "incomplete", or lacking". That perhaps is what I mean by "invalidated". And I speak of a "valid" reality in terms of the one we are all capable of agreeing on. Where we start to disagree on what reality means is when we start taking "leaps of logic" that "sound" reasonable, and maybe appear valid, but that which cannot be proven, or validated, using the one tool we have that cannot be questioned, or denied, LOGIC itself. We have it, we use it, it does allow us to accurately describe the world around us, ONLY as long as we obey its rules. And there is a way we can all agree on what reality is, it just requires the "reduction" of our world, not endless "expansions" of more and more intricate "postulations" that just end up making things more complicated, not simple to understand. If we start with what we do know, and follow the known right to the edge of the unknown, or the end of the known, all that is left is the unknown and the unknowable. And since the unknown IS knowable, we cannot call our reality complete, or valid, until all of the known is verified, and the unknown is known, or validated. All that is left is the "irreducible residue", the unknowable, that which is not available to the human awareness to perceive, just "infer" its existence by the void that is left in the totality of reality.