You are experiencing what seems like a void. The absence of light means you perceive only blackness. In this void there is a possibility of undefined size (could be 0) that there might be a haystack. The definition of haystack is generally disagreed upon. In the haystack there is a possibility of undefined size (could be 0) that there might be a needle. The definition of needle is generally disagreed upon.

You will attempt to prove or disprove the existence of the needle in the haystack.


How do you proceed?

I just want to leave this here

1 Timothy 2:4
Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

note how it says "knowledge" indicating that Christians know for a fact
based on their experiences and the faith grows slowly over time as you practice it and gain understanding based on the word

the needle doesnt have the ability of interacting with you with a handbook or by prayer or effecting your life in any way

Where is this going? I presume proving the existence of the needle is meant as an analogy to the difficulty in proving or disproving the existence of a deity? In which case I would be tempted to agree, and to note the oddity of someone basing much of their life on the certain belief in the needle's existence.

The first obvious prudent step is to make a cursory attempt at finding the haystack and/or needle. If you do find them, hooray you win.

First, determine the relevance of the needle and haystack. If you don't think it's relevant, get back to looking for the light switch.

lol wtf?

deadest thread starter ever

2nd: Determine whether you smell hay (the scent of which is generally disagreed upon).

'Oddity'?

Yes, oddity.

I don't really see it doing that.

It's more like saying "I have given you a ruler to measure the lengths of objects. Tell me how much a dog weighs."

It could be a reflection on deities, but is not intended as such.

It is intended as a practical example of denying empiricism/positivism/realism/naturalism/idealism, while avoiding to define your concepts and refusing to quantify the meaning of possibility - and using this as strengthening your stated case. Yes, the stated scenario becomes ridiculous... but everything in the stated scenario is exactly what you get when searching for a needle in a haystack... when you reject anything that can not be proved with absolute certainty.

No, not really. There is no ill-suited tool in my stated scenario. It is just a world where nothing is certain and nothing seems discernable, yet you're trying to prove or disprove something.

This world is not very uncommon to see in both theological and philosophical argument.

I don't really follow. It would seem that in your scenario, if someone were to reach out and grab a handful of hay that this person would be certain that there is a haystack. This would seem to be quite discernable. No?

Sure, but then you are essentially admitting that an empirical approach (hypothesize what a haystack is, test the hypothesis via sensory experience) is the best way to prove the haystack.

I think we need to slow down here and I don't think we should split these into two threads. I can't understand exactly what you are pointing at here but I think I am in your head with this. I'm not good with words like empirical though, even when I look them up.

Some of what qualia points to is exactly what you are pointing out, the infallibility of any concept. I don't think qualia can show that tho, but when we understand it we can begin to see it. So qualia used as a concept is somewhat contradictory. I think you would agree there?

In this thread you point that out, we do live in this void, and we have nothing to base our findings on, which is why religions need an external foundation such as god's finger writing the 10 commandments.

So everything has no base, but that doesn't mean we can come to certain conclusions and it doesn't mean that there are no conclusions to come to from that. I think its a very powerful understanding.

So we can't prove a needle or a haystack in any way, nor can we disprove it. But your void is not the actual void, the real one, its is wrong to say the one that 'exists' because exist implies time, but the actual nameless void (which includes your void) happens when we negate all concepts.

So I think part of you is correct in your understanding and part is incorrect. And I'm not here as a teacher but I'm relating what I understand of these things and letting people comment openly.

But that's stepping outside of the bounds that you had just put on it. We're not in a world where nothing is certain.

Also, I don't really agree that your characterization here matches what you started with. We started with the statement that we agree on what a haystack is. So we're not really hypothesizing about haystacks. And I don't think we're "testing" a property of haystacks by grabbing some hay.

I think you're trying to do too much with your hypothetical.

Edit: How did we come to agree upon what a haystack is in the first place?

If it is true that N is possible, then it is necessarily true that N is possible.
But, N is possible iff H is possible.
So, it is contingently true that N is possible.
So, N is not possible.
Therefore, there is no needle in the haystack.

I’m not sure about that, but something sounds wrong with saying that one necessary truth is contingent on another necessary truth. Pretty sure that "if N is possible then it's necessary that N is possible" is a modal axiom, though.

Well, if it was stepping out of bonds... why did you do it?

Well, it was your idea.


...

What about Philosophical Skepticism?

Why would it be noteworthy and/or unusual that an empirical approach (hypothesize what a haystack is, test the hypothesis via sensory experience) is the best way to prove the existence of a physical object?

How would you devise a test when you don't know what you're looking for?

I probably couldn't - if I don't know what I'm looking for, I also can't state conditions that need to be fullfilled if said thing was present. Thus, I can't test those conditions.

What I was getting at is that I took from the OP that while we might disagree what exactly constitutes a haystack (i.e. does it have to be waist-height? More than a mirrion straws of hay?), we do agree that it is a physical object. That doesn't quite fit with the later comment that "nothing is certain", but that seems to be a way of devoiding the OP of any potential meaning: How are you going to prove the existence of something whose identity conditions are entirely uncertain. I don't need to be in a void to find that impossible.

A physical object that might have a size of 0 (although I'm not sure how that can be).

This really does seem to be a metaphor for the deity argument.

you guess, then look. then revise your guess and repeat the process if necessary.

In a void of unknown dimensions, with no light, looking for something that might not exist and if it does could be in any form or any size, including having no size.

That would be some guess.