We Know Just About Nothing Again!

[threewood14]

This is what most people say. But actually, I claimed that these 3 things are law. This means that they do not apply to what they imply. In other words, those 3 laws are the only facts.

[Jung He Fah Toy]

They solved this matter already I think.

[threewood14]

I think that the final outcome of my message is similar to what I had originally said.

[threewood14]

"We cannot know anything."
"We cannot prove anything."
"We cannot disprove anything."

These are 3 statements that one cannot be certain about. This is what I believe though. I believe these statements to be true. Even though there is some doubt in them, I believe them. To me, the doubt is not large.

You can either agree with this statement for the fact that anything is possible. Or you can disagree with it simply because it contradricts itself. In other words, you can accept a 99/100 chance or a 1/100 chance. The choice is yours...

[threewood14]

The Three Laws that Apotheosis and I have agrred on are the following.

1. One cannot predict future events with absolute certainty.

2. One cannot observe reality neutrally. If one tries to, he will have his own perspective on the universe.

3. One cannot conclude with absolute certainty that his prespective of the universe is proportional to reality.

That was me. I want to change and tweak them a bit.

1. One cannot know reality at any point in time from any point in space.

2. One cannot observe reality in a pure form. If one tried, he/she would have his/her own interpretation of the universe.

3. One cannot conclude with absolute certainty that his/her interpretation of reality is proportional to reality or another's interpretation of reality.

Again like in my last post, you can either accept this to be true or not. It is my take on knowledge. Its something I would like to share...

[Apotheosis]

To be frank, I disagee with all of them. But then again, that's just my opinion.

[threewood14]

Indeed...But I was thinking about something. I cannot know anything. How can I know that I don't know anything? Well how can I know that there is a possibility that that I can know something? Well how can I know that there is a possibility that there is a possibility that I can know something? Well how can I know that there is a possibility that there is a possibility that there is a possibility that I can know something?...

The pattern would repaet forever. There would be one encouraging the statement that I cannot know anything and one that says you cannot be certain about it. In other words, there would be an infinite amount of statements about each one. This would result in an infinity clash. Infinity minus infinity equals 0. They cancel each other out. You are left with something. But what? It is neither that you can know something or that you cannot know something.

I think it is therefore a choice someone has to make. I think that there is a 99% chance that you cannot know anything in reality. That is what I think. I believe that there is a 1% chance that we can know things in reality.

[threewood14]

If you believe that we cannot know anything, then you know everything possible thing to know...

[threewood14]

I think it would be more appropriote to list things that you are certain about here...

[Apotheosis]

I am certain that I am a male.

[threewood14]

Explain...why you are absolutely certain that this is reality. You cannot be absolutely certain about reality except for your own interpretations and definitions of the universe. Your definition of yourself is that you are a male, but that is as far as you will ever get in your proof.

[Apotheosis]

Explain...why you are absolutely certain that this is reality.

I am certain that this is reality because I can detect it. I can see reality, I can smell reality, I can feel reality, I can hear reality, and I can taste reality.

You cannot be absolutely certain about reality except for your own interpretations and definitions of the universe. Your definition of yourself is that you are a male, but that is as far as you will ever get in your proof.

What makes you so sure?

[threewood14]

am certain that this is reality because I can detect it. I can see reality, I can smell reality, I can feel reality, I can hear reality, and I can taste reality.

This is no proof that you know with absolute certainty that reality is that you are male. It says that you believe that you are male because your senses have interpreted reality. You cannot say with absolute certainty that your interpretation of the universe is proportional to reality. Now of course you could define yourself as male, but that still is not reality, but your own definitions of reality.

What makes you so sure?

I cannot know with absolute certainty that I cannot know anything with absolute certainty. I believe it though because I believe that we cannot know anything with absolute certainty is the most probable form of reality. I can never be 100% sure, but I can be fairly sure. Now of course you could argue that this entire post is worthless because I can't back it up with solid proof. But there still is a chance that it may be reality. Even though I cannot know with absoltue certainty that the last sentence is reality, there is still a possibility.Even though I cannot know with absoltue certainty that the last sentence is reality, there is still a possibility.Even though I cannot know with absoltue certainty that the last sentence is reality, there is still a possibility.Even though I cannot know with absoltue certainty that the last sentence is reality, there is still a possibility.Even though I cannot know with absoltue certainty that the last sentence is reality, there is still a possibility.Even though I cannot know with absoltue certainty that the last sentence is reality, there is still a possibility.Even though I cannot know with absoltue certainty that the last sentence is reality, there is still a possibility.Even though I cannot know with absoltue certainty that the last sentence is reality, there is still a possibility.Even though I cannot know with absoltue certainty that the last sentence is reality, there is still a possibility.Even though I cannot know with absoltue certainty that the last sentence is reality, there is still a possibility.Even though I cannot know with absoltue certainty that the last sentence is reality, there is still a possibility.Even though I cannot know with absoltue certainty that the last sentence is reality, there is still a possibility.Even though I cannot know with absoltue certainty that the last sentence is reality, there is still a possibility.Even though I cannot know with absoltue certainty that the last sentence is reality, there is still a possibility.

I think you get the point. There is no stopping it because this pattern would continue forever.

I found something similar in math.

What I was trying to say is that man's potential knowledge is boundless.

Boundless: Being without boundaries or limits; infinite.
Potential knowledge = infinity
Knowledge of man (if any) = x

therefore we know this much knowledge as a percentage

x/infinity

x therefore equals just about...0.

therefore man's knowledge equals 0.

[Apotheosis]

You cannot say with absolute certainty that your interpretation of the universe is proportional to reality.

Why not? What is reality in the first place? How do we interpret reality?

Now of course you could define yourself as male, but that still is not reality, but your own definitions of reality.

What makes you so sure that my definition of reality is not reality?

What I was trying to say is that man's potential knowledge is boundless.

Who were you quoting?

[threewood14]

Why not? What is reality in the first place? How do we interpret reality?

Reality is patterns of energy at points in time in the universe. We interpret reality through our senses.

What makes you so sure that my definition of reality is not reality?

I am not saying that you are not a male, but when I say that you are defining yourself as male, it does not make it reality, only your interpretation of the universe. Now of course your interpretations of the universe could and probably are reality, but the fact is you cannot say that with absolute certainty. This is what at least Socrates and Einstein ahve thought. I thought about this for myself and when I heard about these guys saying the same thing, I believed them because they were the same as mine. I would consider Einstein the most brilliant man in this century and the last, so I would go with his opinion. As my neighbor said when I addressed this topic to him, "They are all saying the same thing." What they are saying is tht we cannot know anything.

What I was trying to say is that man's potential knowledge is boundless.

Who were you quoting?

I was quoting you!

[Apotheosis]

Why not? What is reality in the first place? How do we interpret reality?

Reality is patterns of energy at points in time in the universe. We interpret reality through our senses.

However, you still didn't answer my first question: Why can I not say with absolute certainty that my interpretation of the universe is proportional to reality?

Now of course your interpretations of the universe could and probably are reality, but the fact is you cannot say that with absolute certainty.

Why can't I say that with absolute certainty?

I was quoting you!

So you were! lol It was a while ago, but sure enough I said it. And it is my mentality that mankind's knowledge is potentially limitless. However, when it comes to that little formula you came up with earlier, I disagree. When you're dealing with infinity, math doesn't work in the traditional sense. For instance, you could say that man's knowledge is 0, but you could also say that man's knowledge is 100,000,000. For that matter, you could say that the knowledge of mankind is infinite. Proportions and simple algebra don't work the same way when one is dealing with the concept of infinity.

[threewood14]

However, you still didn't answer my first question: Why can I not say with absolute certainty that my interpretation of the universe is proportional to reality?

If you begin with the idea I know something and set out to prove it,
you will realise that you cannot.
If you then begin with the idea I know nothing and set out to prove it,
you will realise that you cannot.

That was Raya a while back.

So you were! lol It was a while ago, but sure enough I said it. And it is my mentality that mankind's knowledge is potentially limitless. However, when it comes to that little formula you came up with earlier, I disagree. When you're dealing with infinity, math doesn't work in the traditional sense. For instance, you could say that man's knowledge is 0, but you could also say that man's knowledge is 100,000,000. For that matter, you could say that the knowledge of mankind is infinite. Proportions and simple algebra don't work the same way when one is dealing with the concept of infinity.

I would agree but it makes sense from a less critical point of view.

[Apotheosis]

I still don't agree. I know I know things. And that is that.

[threewood14]

We decieve ourlseves into thinking that we know things. Try proving to me one thing that is not your interpretation of the universe. I am telling you that you will not be able to. You'll see what I mean.

[Apotheosis]

We decieve ourlseves into thinking that we know things. Try proving to me one thing that is not your interpretation of the universe. I am telling you that you will not be able to. You'll see what I mean.

Of course I can't convince or prove that to you. You will not accept it because you are bent on proving this claim to me. You believe it and you will not deny it when it might not even be true at all...

P.S. - How am I deceiving myself into thinking that I know things? I know things.

[threewood14]

I requested that you try and prove something. Prove you are male for example.

[Apotheosis]

I fit the description of a human male. Thus that is what I am. Need I say more?

[threewood14]

Yes you do.

You have only proved to me that you and others think you are a male. Now in reality, we may not have gender. Everyone may be decived though their senses to think that we do. This does not need a reason from me because it wouldn't matter ehat the reason was. The point is, our knowledge is limited to our interpretations of the universe. Infact, we may not be able to interpret others in the way they really mean things. This is actally done all the time, but I am explaining something more extreme. Misunderstanding. Sure you define yourself as a male and had observed others as calling you a male, but your senses and all of the peoples' senses that have observed your behavior and appearance to call you a male may be feeling, seeing, smelling, tasting, hearing, and thinking the wrong things. There is no way that you can prove to me that you are a male in reality. In order to do that, you would have to observe the universe in a pure way. Now it is possible that you know you are a male and this is probably the case, but you will never be able to know it with absolute certainty.

[primitive]

According to your logic, we cannot know that we cannot know anything. Your belief cannot support itself with a solid foundation.

[Apotheosis]

None of that makes any sense. Of course I can prove that I am a male. I fit the definition of one, thus I am male. I don't see the problem...

[threewood14]

I fit the definition of one, thus I am male.

Yes, but who defined what a male was? Humans of course! We coulod say God but we won't go there, its not the main point.

How do you know that your brain is misinterpreting your senses and making you believe that you are a male? How do you know that everyone knows this but just won't tell you so you can have a good life? How do you know that you understand the meaning of english? You cannot!

Now to clarify something, to know something is automatically knowing with absolute certainty. It is derieved from the word knowledge which means to know facts. A fact is something that is true. The truth is reality. And of course, reality is patterns of energy in the universe in time.

Now why can you not know these things? Because your knowledge is limited to our interpretations of the universe. We cannot prove anything without assuming something first. In this case, you are assuming that you are a male. You are also assuming that your senses are displaying proportoinal things to reality when actually you may be hallucinating. I'm not sure why you still think this. If you fit the desciption of the male for someone else, they may be hallucinating. It is all possible. And since it is possible, it would create uncertainty in your interpretations of the universe; whether they are reailty or not reality.

According to your logic, we cannot know that we cannot know anything. Your belief cannot support itself with a solid foundation.

My claim is rather like a space station than a building. I can believe that I can't know anything. There is no stop to that. But I would agree with you that my claim is not a good tool for building a house. Even though I can never know that I can't know anything, it is still possible for it to be true.

[primitive]

It is all possible. And since it is possible, it would create uncertainty in your interpretations of the universe; whether they are reailty or not reality.

A lot of people do not like this idea I bet, but I would have to agree with you. We are only what we think we are and we can never know that what we think is reality. I found a quote further back in this thread.

Of all things, Man is the measure:
of things that are, how they are;
of things that are not, how they are not.

I think this is what you are trying to say as in our 'interpretations of the universe'.

P.S. You reply rather quickly

[Apotheosis]

We cannot prove anything without assuming something first.

Incorrect. We didn't have to assume anything in the beginning. All we knew was what was given. The only thing that had been given was the universe. We didn't have to assume anything about it. We simply took the things we detected and defined them. No assumptions were made. Furthermore, if we humans base everything off of our definitions, then they must be true. They are accurate depictions of reality. I don't understand how we cannot understand our own concepts. Please feel free to shed some light on the situation.

[threewood14]

We simply took the things we detected and defined them. No assumptions were made.

Incorrect. We assumed that what we were seeing was not hallucinations from our brain. No matter could be persent and our brain would still define what we see. What we see would not even be there and our eyes would not be reacting to any light. Not everyone would describe an apple the same way. They may not even see the apple at all. They may see right through it because their eyes do not pick up any light bouncing off the apple. Therefore, they would define the table on which the apple in reality is on as empty. They are not observing reailty correctly. What they are observing is wrong. If they were to observe correctly, they would see the apple.

Furthermore, if we humans base everything off of our definitions, then they must be true. They are accurate depictions of reality.

If the energy is not even detected, then how can it be accurate? You are still stuck on what you tried debating before. That if we believe something to be true, it is for us. That is what I mean by our own interpretations of the universe. In other words, what see sense and observe in the universe cannot be denied by us.

I don't understand how we cannot understand our own concepts.

There is nothing relativly close in this thread where I was saying that.

[Apotheosis]

Your very concept is faulty. All of your statements are conditional. For example: If this is true then this is true. However, none of your hypothetical, theoretical scenarios have anything to do with the truth. You are not properly differentiating about what really IS happening and what MIGHT be happening. All your claims are based on if something is true, when in reality these things are not happening. I AM seeing an apple on the table. I AM interpreting this object in the same way as 99% of mankind is. They ARE detecting this same object and not a different one. They DO comprehend what it is. Ask anyone and they will tell you this, thus it's real! Finally, the main problem with your logic is that you are assuming what you are claiming is true so you can back up that very initial claim which enabled your proof! The fact of the matter is, you have no proof whatsoever!

Anyways, tell me what you think.

[threewood14]

I AM seeing an apple on the table. I AM interpreting this object in the same way as 99% of mankind is.

I understand. It is possible that we can know knowledge, but we can never know it with absolute certainty.

I ARE detecting this same object and not a different one. They DO comprehend what it is.

Yes it is possible for this to happen, but the fact of the matter is that it can nver be proven that that is reality because our senses may cause us to believe the wrong things.You are still to caught up that knowledge is possible. What I am telling you is that even if we know this knowledge, man is incapable of knowing it with absolute certainty. It cannot be done. Just try to prove something with absolute certainty! You will find that you cannot!

I see an apple on the table. There must be an apple on the table.

That was a basic human model of what we are taling about.

You see nothing on the table. There must be nothing on the table.

This is anothers point of view.

Fact 1 - It is the same table.
Fact 2 - They are both interpreting reality
Fact 3 - There is only one pattern of energy on the table at a time and both are observing the table at the same time.

Of course, at least one person is wrong. It cannot be both because there can only be one pattern of energy at a time. They are both interpreting reality, but the fact is what they are interpreting may not be reality. If the person who does not see the apple reaches and touches where the apple should be, he may be stunned to feel something hard and smooth. Its the apple! His definition of reality was wrong. For our purposes, lets say that an apple was really there. So here is perfect logic.

Fact 1 - The man did not see an apple and therefore believed that an apple was not there.
Fact 2 - Another man sees an apple on the same table and tells the man to reach for it. This man is seeing reality.
Fact 3 - The man who said there was no apple is wrong.

Now I'm still not sure what you are talking about, but I think this is what you mean. The man who sees no apples is still interpreting reality and thereofore what he sees is reality; it is just an interpretation of it. Now I am assuming that most people would see the apple on the table. For this man, his brain may preventing his eyes from vewing different wave lengths of light. However this is possible, it may be. Since it is possible, it creates uncertainty in the world because the man who sees the apple also could not be absolitely certain of his claim. We were just making it the truth in this situation.

[Apotheosis]

Yes it is possible for this to happen, but the fact of the matter is that it can nver be proven that that is reality because our senses may cause us to believe the wrong things.

That is a conditional statement. It's not true. Also, why would our senses be deceiving us at all? Sure, if someone had an illness that affected their sensory input, they might not view things as the majority of people do, but that's a conditional statement as well. I know for a fact that some people have problems with their senses, but a majority of mankind does not. Thus, we all pretty much detect the same things in the same way.

I would also like to add this as well. Since reality is simply matter located in different places at different times, and our senses are the means by which we detect this matter, then why would one not be able to accurately detect this matter and be certain that what he or she is detecting is real?

[threewood14]

That is a conditional statement. It's not true.

Just because it is conditional only means it is dependent upon something else. For this to be true, our senses may decieve us. That is what this is dependent on. Is my claim dependent on something that is not possible? Just because it is dependent on something does not make it false.

I know for a fact that some people have problems with their senses, but a majority of mankind does not.

You do not even know this. You have been raised as a child learning english. But like a said a while back, how would you know you flipped floopped the meanings of toaster and apple but every time you've used the words toaster and apple, it has made sense to other people. This could be for many words. Therefore, you will never be able to tell with absolute certainty that people do not have problems with their senses. This is dependent on a lot, but it is still possible. It cannot be denied.

why would one not be able to accurately detect this matter and be certain that what he or she is detecting is real?

Because what they are detecting may not even be there. ITs like people who see things that aren't there. They are not interpreting reality correctly. For our purposes, reality here is that there are no people that they claim to see but no one else can.

[Mongoose42]

Lets say that the universe is made up of energy patterns in the form of matter that is concrete in the sense that it is there or it is not there. Our senses allow us as humans to interact with the other matter in the universe through an illusion projected in our minds. As the various senses confirm the existence of matter, our minds accept that matter as actually existing and capable of interaction. The purpose that words serve is to define the illusion in such a way that the same sound or image represents the same matter, without a dependence on the same illusion.

To children are born (child A and child B) with a different illusion such that one sees a ball as orange and the other as brown.
From birth the two kids have no knowledge of the words defining their illusions, so when another human picks up the ball and calls it blue both children define the illusion of ball matter as being blue. If they see an orange or brown ocean they will both call it blue.

Thus words, like male, are intangible and mutable but the matter defined by (and this is reality not philosophy) the human race is finite and absolute with a word to define its illusion.

P.S. Saying that everyone sees all matter, but some see things that are not real is defining the parameters without proof to prove your arguement is weak and circular.

[primitive]

The thing about it is that this can never be proven, but only accepted by an individual. It basically does not allow itself to be proved. However, I accept it.

[threewood14]

Consider this. Let us say that we think have some knowledge. We believe that they are facts. If we had to give this value a number, lets say uhh how about 100. Let us say that the knowledge that we think is reality is actually true.

We are trying to find a percentage. So what is the total knowledge we can poseess. THe answer is infinite. We have a potential for infinite knowldge.

What I was trying to say is that man's potential knowledge is boundless.

This means that we would agree on that. (It is possible for man to know everything.)

So the symbol I will use for infinity is a ~. Its kinda close to the sideways 8. We can say that man's knowledge is this...

100
~

I say to you, how much knowledge is left over? Infinite! But we still know some knowledge. However, this infinite amount of knoledge could also be equal to an infinite amount of possibilities. If there are an ifinite amount of possibilities, then that must create some uncertainty in our thoughts. The fact of the matter is that it IS possible to know things, but we can NEVER know them WITH absolute certainty. This is because there is uncertainty in our thoughts. Even though we believe what these things are to be true, we still have uncertainty. Its like a test. You choose False. You are very very sure that the teacher said the opposite of that statement. Therefore, what you think is true. Lets say you get the test back and it is correct. You were right to assume that you knew that answer. Now consider another thing. What if you get hte test back and it is wrong? What you heard in class was not in class at all, but a dream you had the night before! That is a possibility and should create some uncertainty in your decision while taking the test. Although it is not much and usually unnoticed, it still exists and therefore the statement that man cannot know anything about reality except his definitions and interpretations of the universe holds true. Now of course I can never prove it, it I can accept it. When I say it remains true, I exclude that factor of how we can know that in the 1st place. For if you believe it, you exclude it.

It is good and bad to believe this. It is good because it teaches you to be aware of the unobvious. For example, if you hit a tee shot in golf and it is heading for the fairway, but all of a sudden a bird hits the ball and roll into the pond. It is bad to believe this however, because if you let it get to your head, it can do funny stuff with the trust factor.

But those are my thoughts that I will never be able to prove.

If you begin with the idea I know something and set out to prove it,
you will realise that you cannot.
If you then begin with the idea I know nothing and set out to prove it,
you will realise that you cannot.

Thankyou Raya!

[Apotheosis]

Is my claim dependent on something that is not possible?

No, and I never said anything about whether or not it was possible, all I said was that it was based on things that haven't happened yet or are not happening now; thus they are false. You have no proof whatsoever, and according to you, you cannot. Therefore, your entire claim is faulty.

But like a said a while back, how would you know you flipped floopped the meanings of toaster and apple but every time you've used the words toaster and apple, it has made sense to other people.

I have not confused these words with one another. I know what an apple is and I know what a toaster is. A toaster is a device used to turn bread crispy while an apple is an edible fruit. I ask you, how have I confused the two?

Because what they are detecting may not even be there.

Again, that is a conditional statement, not a fact. It cannot be used to prove anything because it hasn't actually been observed or proven. Lastly, I ask you this, why would the thing that they are detecting not be there?

[Apotheosis]

My previous post was in reply to the post threewood made before primitive. This post is in reply to the post threewood made before my previous one.

I don't think you understand the fact that hypothetical situations have not happened, thus they are not true!!! You cannot use hypothetical scenarios as proof, as evidence, or as a foundation to a claim and honestly expect that claim to be true or to hold up against any sort of attack.

[threewood14]

I think I fianlly understand what you are saying. You will not accept this because I cannot prove it. You will not accept this unless I prove it. I can tell you that you will never be convinced then. But if I am wrong, I will keeping trying.

No, and I never said anything about whether or not it was possible, all I said was that it was based on things that haven't happened yet or are not happening now; thus they are false. You have no proof whatsoever, and according to you, you cannot. Therefore, your entire claim is faulty.

Yes, but also according to my claim, you cannot be absolutly certain that these things are not happening! According to my claim, these things are allowed to happen because we are unsure about our world.

I have not confused these words with one another. I know what an apple is and I know what a toaster is. A toaster is a device used to turn bread crispy while an apple is an edible fruit. I ask you, how have I confused the two?

I think you forogt to read my post about this. Ill post it here...

Even though we cannot be 100% sure, there is an extremely high probability that everyone who speaks English uses the absolute definitions. This probability is so high that we know "for sure" that everyone means what he or she means. Ask yourself this: Why would someone use definitions of English words that no one else accepts as true? It would not benefit that person in any way, shape or form. It would just be plain old dumb!


Yes, we cannot be certain to know if everyone is using the same definitions of english words. We know this already. And yes the probablity is so high that we accept that everone uses the same definitions. But this also leaves an extremely small chance that two may misunderstand each other when speaking english.

How can you teach someone to communicate the exact same way that everyone else does. Let us say there is a baby, Jill. How can Jill learn to speak the language english? We could point to an apple and say the words 'apple' to Jill. She would probably over time understand that the word apple represents that object. There is a small chance that she would misunderstand the word apple because she was looking past the apple at a toaster oven. In fact, every time someone tries to point to an apple and explain to her what is is, there might be a toaster oven behind it every time! Although this chance is small and usually ignored, it still exists. Jill would think that a toaster oven is an apple in english. There is an even smaller chance that Jill would misunderstand the meanings of all english words. This could be done for bread, eggs, stoves, pencils, paper, etc...There is also a chance that people would communicate to Jill in a way that she thinks she understand what they are trying to tell her and the responses she gives them always makesome sense to them. This chance is so small, that no one even bothers to think about it. (Except of course for people like us lol). If Jill tried to define words, she could look them up in the dictionary. She does not understand the dictonary completely! This just does not work for english, but also for every way of communicating! THe chance is small but it still exists... This creates an extremely small uncertainty in the way we talk to each other.

As you can see, we cannot be absolutely certain. Plus, I am not saying that you misunderstand english, but merely saying that there is a chance. I, however, believe that you do understand english.Plus, I am not telling you that you misunderstand english, I am saying how would you know that you know that definitions of the apple and toaster with absolute certainty?

Lastly, I ask you this, why would the thing that they are detecting not be there?

I say to you, that I have a friend that has a disease that makes her do this. She sees people and shes claims that these people talk to her. It is really scary. I'm not exactly sure about the science in the brain about all of this, but I'm pretty sure that it exists.

I don't think you understand the fact that hypothetical situations have not happened, thus they are not true!!!

Incorrect. You are hitting the hammer around the nail though. It is not thus they are not true, it should be thus they cannot be proven...

You cannot use hypothetical scenarios as proof, as evidence, or as a foundation to a claim and honestly expect that claim to be true or to hold up against any sort of attack.

You are right, however, I cannot prove it. The only thing I belive is that...there is a greater chance that we cannot know anything except our definitions and/or interpretations of the universe. Even though I cannot prove this, I also believe that there is a grater chance that it is true, and therefore believe it. I trust that you would see that it continues forever...

[Apotheosis]

I understand what you are saying. However, not to be rude or anything, but I think that the entire claim is a logical fallacy. It tries to prove itself based on the assumption that what it is claiming is true. It's just a belief, not a fact.

A few closing remarks:

Lastly, I ask you this, why would the thing that they are detecting not be there?

I say to you, that I have a friend that has a disease that makes her do this. She sees people and shes claims that these people talk to her. It is really scary. I'm not exactly sure about the science in the brain about all of this, but I'm pretty sure that it exists.

I was looking for a reason besides a disease that affects the senses.

It is not thus they are not true, it should be thus they cannot be proven...

Since they cannot be proven they are not true.