It's all part of the same process. This is why some of us call it faith.
Yes, and that's about as far as you can take it.
Huh? Does that pair of unrelated comments mean something to you?
Remember, as you have been told before, there is belief because of evidence, belief in the absence of evidence, and belief against evidence. The first is not properly called "faith"; the second and third are. The last is, of course, your specialty.
Okay, it's all part of the "belief" process. So, what's the difference? I may in fack "know" something, when another person can only "believe" it.
What I know is not of this world. So, if you wish to understand, perhaps you should consider it from a different point of reference? As Mr. Planck seems to imply, this matrix, exists on the other side of matter, hence the other side of time and space.
And there you go again!
And what if what I believed was based upon what I know? You in fact do not know what I know.
Only if you insist on looking outside of yourselves ...
Whoops. Sorry DD, my mistake ... Condensate ...
So perhaps you could describe this "belief process" for us. How does a belief graduate to being knowledge? Does it require evidence? Logic? Or do you just believe it more strongly?
Well, by all means Iacchus, give it up. Tell us about this empirical knowledge. Prove to us all once and for all that god lives. I can't wait I tell you. Please, stop keeping it all to yourself. What are these attributes or properties that you "know".
Well, if what you believe is based on what you know then it isn't faith based, right? If it isn't faith based then it must be based on some objective evidence, right?
Inside is subjective. Inside is subject to error. Intuition that is not supported by objective evidence is what's known as faith.
I know that I exist, and the sensations that coincide with it. Everything else that I know is merely an extension of this. It's called experience.
Ah, but the only thing that is real, and knows that it is real, is on the inside. This is how I know ... or, at the very least, know where to look.
So, you're another one of those folks who assumes I don't know what I'm talking about, correct?
Yet something must be absolute, otherwise what do we base our "relative" observations on? Isn't this something that Kant said, about the "thing itself," versus our observation of it?
"I" exist in the center of what "I" experience, and that to me, is very much real.
Whether or not matter exists is actually irrelevant to the claims of science. Matter appears to exist; if you emphasize the "appears", you agree with hammegk, and if you emphasize the "exist", you agree with Tricky. If you don't give the south end of a northbound rat, you agree with me. The trick is, the evidence of what goes with what, of what causes what, is independent of the nature of what "what" is. So...while the universe does not "follow any dictated rules or limitations", it is describable by rules, based on evidence. Any claims about the nature of the universe or anything in it must either be consistent with observed evidence or explain fully why the observed evidence is better explained in some other manner.
You have never once questioned your own experience? Too bad, really; there are very real biases in our subjective experience that you could have guarded against if you had critically analyzed your "sensations that coincide with it". If you do not take steps to avoid the biases inherent in human perception, you are likely to take your dreams as reality, and believe in such stuff as, say, numerology...