Villain

Not if we want to consciously question our otherwise accepted and unreasoned assumptions, by concious awareness I mean the position that we find ourselves at our most basic. Not a concious mind that is the sum of the brain or any other cause, purely our self as presented as is. From such a being we form ideas and notions of reality by reason and choice.

Well, what is your starting point to get to testable predictions in the first place, if not from concious awareness?

This need for testable metaphysical predictions is, in itself, a fault with your metaphysical position.

I'd be surprised if many people have heard of it, regardless of their religious status. Are you saying that they're more likely to feel than think?

How is this relevant?

I feel like you're missing the point.

I'm not familiar with this 'shotgun test', could you link something or describe it please.

Ok, but in this 'dream' reality we are either still dreaming in which case we would still be injured or not dreaming, likewise this 'dream' reality has no obligation to act the same as our current idea of a dream.

So when you wake, you can tell that you have been dreaming because you're no longer injured?

Empirical evidence is subject to your metaphysical position. I'm sure you don't consider the 'empirical evidence' that occurs in your dreams to be empirical and I'm sure you could imagine the reality that you're in now as a dream.

What would you base the probability on?

I see I have misunderstood your last post. I am saying that in order to progress to science one first has to address philosophy, otherwise science is merely another form of mythology.

No, science is not necessary to philosophy.

Science and the scientific method wouldn't and can't exist without philosophy.

Yeah, you certainly don't need to study philosophy to do philosophy.

Are you talking about the history of philosophy? Or are you saying that one can do science without knowing why one holds belief in science or have I missed your point completely?

Nice post, there seems to be a worrying lack of philosophical understanding in people who have an interest in science. How they got to science in the first place is anyone's guess.

Did you really expect a different response? It's like going to a Christian forum and critiquing Jesus. As for Dawkins, how someone can make an argument for the non-existence of something and be taken seriously is beyond me, although from some of the posts in this thread I can see how he has an audience.

Read philosophy, I suggest you start with Plato's Dialogues.

Do you mean consciousness or the concept of a soul? Consciousness by definition would imply life, while one could be alive and unconscious, you certainly couldn't be conscious and dead.

The only position based on reason is skepticism, so unless you're advocating that we can know nothing, intuition is a given. Either this is merely your belief or you're being paradoxical, which one is it?

So it's based on happiness or sadness etc. ?

What are feelings?

You're trying to convey a non-sensory experience with the words 'faith, with only feelings as a foundation' and are upset that the meaning is not getting across to others in the way that you expected?

This claim is amazing, you honestly think that you could investigate an extra sensory experience by using the senses that you both have in common? Sometimes we become so intent on being right that being right becomes more important than what is right.