Hi Crushing Fist,

I wrote:

For anything to exist it must be perceivable in some manner. This is self-evident since to demonstrate/validate that a thing exists it must be perceived. We cannot demonstrate something exists that is not at least in some manner perceivable because if it cannot be perceived it cannot be demonstrated to exist. Therefore, we cannot demonstrate anything to exist that is not perceivable.

This is the fundamental error from which most metaphysical philosophy begins.

The error is that for us to know something exists it must be perceivable, but that is not an intrinsic requirement of existence.
If your assertion is true please formulate an argument that demonstrates it to be true and you have made no argument that demonstrates my argument to be false. Making a statement without a supporting argument is merely an opinion. My comment was part of an overall argument.

To be perceivable IS a requirement for something to exist. I will clarify my statement because I understand it is not quite clear. For something to exist in the material universe it must have qualities that make it perceivable. If it exists and is not perceivable there is no way to demonstrate it exists. If the phenomenon does not affect the material universe in any way it is non-existent. This means the phenomenon must at the very least affect the material universe in some way that indicates it exists and this affect must be a perceivable. Once the phenomenon is perceived or affects the material universe in a perceivable manner then it can be said to exist.

The context for our knowledge is the material universe. Anything outside that context does not exist within the material universe and cannot be said to exist within this context. To me the material universe is the same as the perceivable universe. If something exists beyond the material/perceivable universe and is one day detected then it was always within the perceivable universe and existed.

When I say the phenomenon must be perceivable or measurable that is not to say that it must necessarily be perceived and measured in order to exist, only have that is must have the quality of being able to be perceived, although since existence is Mind all phenomena that exists is known by Mind because it is created by Mind which in this case is the Universal Mind/Tao/God.

Phenomena may exist that are not perceivable by man, but are perceivable by the Universal Mind/Tao/God. This perception is what gives rise to the phenomenon’s existence. Let us imagine I am a potter. I have an idea about a type of pot I want to make. The pot exists originally in my mind as an idea. Once I make the pot it has material form and is measurable by you and may therefore proven to exist. However, the idea for the pot cannot be said to not exist because I perceived it and it affected me through that perception regardless of whether I created the pot or not. I cannot prove to you I had the idea for the pot until I create it and you can measure it through your material reality. However, the pot still existed within my mind first regardless of whether you believe me or not. The proof of it only comes afterwards. Ideas exist because they affect Mind, the material manifestation exists because it affects Mind AND the material universe.

An example of a phenomenon that was perceivable, but not perceived are x-rays. X-rays were not perceivable until 1895. They affected the environment before their discovery, but they were not known and their effects were not perceived or directly measurable, however x-rays have the quality of measurability because they affect the universe through interaction with other phenomena and therefore they exist. The fact they were not directly perceived until 1895 did not make them unperceivable or un-measurable, only unperceived and unmeasured.

If a phenomenon does not affect other phenomena or Mind it cannot exist. If it affects other phenomena or Mind then it has qualities that are perceivable and/or measurable.

I wrote:

1) Everything that exists is perceivable.

This is the first error.
Again, this is an opinion without support. Please demonstrate my comment is incorrect by supporting your position with argument as I have done for mine. Please demonstrate to me ANYTHING that you can PROVE exists without it being perceivable. It cannot be done.

I wrote:

…and in order for it to be perceivable there must be something to perceive it!

This is the second error, and perhaps the greater one, that which leads to a backwards conclusion. The idea is that without a mind to observe it, the universe could not "exist". This is quite the reverse of reality. If we consider the matter rationally, it is the mind which is last to appear on the scene, not first.
You are incorrect here and you cannot demonstrate your conclusion. You can only demonstrate, although you haven’t, that man came late to the party, NOT demonstrate that Mind does not exist or that Mind is not the creator of the material universe, neither can you demonstrate the material universe exists without something to perceive it.

My argument cannot demonstrate Mind to a rational certainty, this is not my purpose, nor have I intended to claim this. My argument does “infer” Universal Mind/Tao/God through rational argument. Universal Mind/Tao/God is beyond reason and the material universe.

If my assertion that Mind creates all things is true, then reason cannot fully explain it because reason is merely a subset of something greater than reason and this has been part of my assertion. Just as the taste of an orange cannot be rationally argued to demonstrate its existence and just as happiness cannot be rationally argued to demonstrate its existence, neither can Mind. My purpose for using taste and happiness as examples is to demonstrate there are phenomena that we accept as true that cannot be proven through rational argument; they must be proven through direct experience. The existence of the experiences of happiness or the taste of an orange by others is not doubted because we have direct experience of them ourselves. Just as the existence of Mind/Tao/God cannot be proven without directly experiencing the fact for ourselves, so we cannot demonstrate that happiness or the taste of an orange exists without directly having the direct experience.

Just because you tell me you are happy does not “prove” to me you are happy. It is an empty claim without evidence to demonstrate it to be true. Even the measurement of the effects of happiness on the body does not prove that happiness is occurring. I only understand your claims of happiness because I have had the direct experience for myself and I recognize your description as a reasonable equivalent to my own experience. Even then I do not KNOW you are happy, I must take your word for it. My acceptance of your claim of happiness is founded upon faith, with no verifiable proof.

If I have never had the experience of happiness and you describe to me your experience of happiness I must again take your word for it and will have no real understanding of what you mean because it is beyond my experience. Once again, I must have faith in order to accept your claim as true. My acceptance or not of your claim has no bearing on the reality of your experience. It exists because you experience it and that is the proof of it for yourself. It does not cease to exist because I have not experienced it myself and do not believe it exists.

If you state you are happy and I measure the effects of happiness on your body I may “infer” you are feeling happiness in the future by measuring the exact same effects. However, I do not KNOW you are happy, I am only inferring you are happy based upon a coincidence of measurable effects.

We infer conclusions about reality all the time based upon the reports of others. We accept many of them as true because we have had the direct experience for ourselves. We KNOW because we have had the experience for ourselves. I claim the same to be true about Mind/Tao/God. It cannot be rationally argued to a certainty, only inferred by its effects. It can only be proven by direct experience because it is beyond measurement and therefore beyond rational argument to a certainty. My intent here is to infer the possibility of the truth of my claims to others in order to encourage them to investigate directly for themselves.

I have run out of time again. This discussion is getting more an more in-depth and I don't have the time to respond to everything at one time anymore. I will respond to your other comments and respond to you too Shaolin Wookie as my time permits.