Consider me a psychopantheist, universeness — EugeneW

:rofl:
I consider you a joy to exchange views with!

I would say pyramids are a development of the burial cult stage with developments past animism towards paganism.
Some spiritual traits about pyramids: they are built high to bridge the path between earth and the sun (heaven), the bodies are not burned to get closer to heaven, dead pharoahs may become gods if they reach their path (and get haloes which are just suns over your head), embalming is an understanding of the body and which are most important (which influences early surgery).
So a lot of ethical, scientific discoveries are from this. I think it would be hard to define these meaningfully in terms of fear — Shwah

All interesting points, but I am not convinced that you do not attribute most ancient and even some modern burial traditions with human 'hope' for a further existence after death.
Almost a plea to their gods for more life or renewed life. All the effort put into such rituals were in my opinion, attempts to demonstrate respect and subservience to what they perceived as the wishes of their god(s). Such hope for further existence in preference to oblivion has to be due to human primal fear. If you simply won't accept that then I must accept that your non-acceptance is for reasons you earnestly believe and is not mere philosophical window dressing.

Absolutely not. Even elementary particles — EugeneW

Are you sure your not a secret panpsychist EugeneW?

The gods had a reason creating them. That gives love meaning. Await the final word to be told my fellow Earthling! — EugeneW

Ok, at least you have always sounded pantheist which is my favorite flavor of theism, if I had to choose one.

Flee … he’s probably stoned and here to giggle to himself like an idiot — Joe Mello

I suggest you do your own running Joe. If you drop your disrespectful commentary then I will take my finger off the trigger as well. If you can't do that then run boy run!

It'd be hard to consider those feelings in terms of fear except derivatively for some people. — Shwah

What about the Egyptian Pharaohs are their large memorial pyramids. Do you think they had such built out of aspirational love or primal fear of their ever-impending oblivion, despite their personal wealth and power.

Love would mean nothing without gods having created it — EugeneW

Do you think only humans experience and dispense love as we define the various manifestations of it?
If an animal can experience and dispense love, then does this means god owes them its benevolence as well? Do you think god owes us benevolence if it is responsible for our existence and do you 'believe' that god, as you perceive it, loves us?

Primal fears are logical or are properly consequential or derivable. I wouldn't say primal fears can meaningfully speak about religions in anything less than a shallow sense though — Shwah

But could they be a source for the human need of god as a 'benevolent protector' from primal fears.
Why would such be 'shallow' if they are so deeply felt to earn the label primal as in 'first' or 'important' or 'fundamental.'

I spent some time here looking for a thinker to interact with. I found only one or two. — Joe Mello

Why do you need any such interaction when you receive direct revelations from your god?
Stay Mello Joe, you are displaying too much ungodly emotional content for such a paragon of intellect.

There's some logical reason they believe what they do so — Shwah

Do you reject out of hand that its a response to primal fears?

side example, your grandma says "I love you, do you believe me?" — Shwah

Sorry, I had intended to respond to this side point you made, but forgot to.

Do you compare love between blood relations with a feeling of 'biological loyalty/responsibility,' or 'loyalty based on previous/current acts of nurture such as feeding/clothing etc, a love born of such dependencies perhaps?' Love has many levels and manifestations.
There is of course also the question of what we define as love in comparison to obsession or power over others or love of pain/violence or love as an addiction, etc

My simple answer is that sure, if grandma says she loves me then I will initially accept her word. In a similar way a child might accept being told by a 'loving father' that god exists but If grandma then went on to behave in ways towards me that were not what I consider loving, then I would reject her posit until her behavior changed or as I got older and started to question the logic of daddies god posit and he suggested that god was not to be questioned by me and I must just accept its existence as fact then there would be rejection on my part. So, if people tell me god exists then I need the evidence just like I need the evidence from granma that she loves me.

Thank you for your kind, supportive reply. :smile:

I have nonetheless enjoyed our exchange here. You can take some credit perhaps in that the more I read the points raised by the 'philosophy' angle (for want of a better phrase). The more compelled I feel to take greater care when considering how to form a response to someone on TPF.
I don't mean that I will be less antagonistic to those who I think are being antagonistic. I just mean, any improved understanding of philosophy will hopefully improve my future responses on TPF. If I continue my presence on the forum.
I am an interloper here due to my lack of philosophical credentials but I think I have other credentials of value to threads that have scientific, political or religious aspects to them.

I'll go a bit further and say everybody uses their logic language of choice, even if they don't know it or contradict themselves, so saying "logic is my epistemological choice" is trivial at best. — Shwah

I appreciate that as your philosophical analysis of my statement and I fully endorse the rigor of the scientific method so I can't complain when you employ philosophical studies to critique the methodology I employ to debate theism. I remain respectfully unconcerned about the points you are raising here.

math cannot be material at least epistemologically. — Shwah

I have heard this many times. Mathematics is a logic-based language with very impressive predictive power, unlike metaphysics or metamaths for that matter.

This is an asymmetric relationship where we don't need physics to do math — Shwah

Force=mass*acceleration is as much from the physics world as it is actioned in the mathematics world
A screwdriver and a paintbrush can be considered two quite different tools but you need them both when hanging a new door. I would not call a screwdriver and a paintbrush symmetric, would you? so the idea that maths hand physics might in some philosophical reference frame be deemed asymmetric seems of little consequence in the real world.

As for your comment from 'Frege,' who I have never heard of (but I am not blaming you for that.)
I would say well so what? All such require context. How many/big/small/far etc.

Also physics is very much a philosophical endeavor and was called natural philosophy (as a group name with chemistry, biology etc) until a century and a half ago — Shwah

No, Physics is a scientific endeavor. The fact that it had a less accurate label in the past means little.
Philosophy has sub-headings such as ethics, metaphysics etc and many other sub-divisions that physics has nothing to say about.

Although the exchanges between folks on this forum can be heated at times, the first most important concern is that we all stay as healthy as we can, in mind and body!

soon to be revealed on this forum! The world of philosophy, religion, and physics will shake in its foundations.. — EugeneW

:rofl: A good build-up EugeneW, be careful you don't over-reach.

I appreciate your rigour from the standpoint of pointing out to me, philosophical rules that I must contend with when I make the statements/comments on theism and atheism that I have made so far on this thread. I have admitted to being a philosophical novice at best. I will try my best to respond to the points you have made but please be understanding If I display a frustrating level of command of academic philosophy.

You cannot approach theism from an epistemological standpoint or you simply can't ask the questions you did. In that then it's useless to define theism as belief rather than propositional statements. — Shwah

Logic is my chosen epistemology to begin with, why can I not approach theism using logic. I don't see that belief or 'propositional statements.' have no basis in logic. I think therefore I propose. If the logical deliberations of a physicist results in them proposing a new label such as 'the cosmological constant,' once called a biggest mistake but not so much now. Then why was it illogical for a creature such as a cro magnon to look at the big shiny think in the sky and grunt 'god?'
I don't really care if some ancient or modern recognised philosopher says it is not valid to use logic to question the theistic position. (If that is what you are saying?) Most propositional statements have a basis in the logical thought processes of the thinkers involved in making the proposals.

I don't really care to speak about my religion but suffice it to say that many theistic conceptions are naturalist entirely or idealist (spinoza, aristotle are an example of the former and berkeley and, perhaps, hegel are examples of the latter). I will say science, which is concerned with nature in a particular way, can't ever deny supernaturalist concepts because no supernatural objects etc ever go into its domain — Shwah

I know the story of the life of Spinoza but I haven't read anything by him. I have watched a few YouTube vids about his life and his contributions to philosophy and I view him in a similar way to Christopher Hitchins. He was persecuted by theistic dogma. Science can and cosmologists in partiular, mainly do deny supernaturalist concepts and they will continue to do so until evidence proves otherwise.
Your argument that nothing supernatural can enter the domain of nature gives the supernatural no importance or relevance at all towards the existence or events in this Universe other that the theistic belief that it manifests as god and thus the creator of said Universe. As an atheist, I reject such claims.

The conception of a pentaune god does not require the communication nor livingness of said conception of god to exist. I don't have to worship a pentaune god to develop a thought puzzle around this. This applies towards any science or math field as well (e.g. we can theorize gravitons and what they may do if they exist without being forced to base our physics on it or even insert it at all). We also apply ethical conundrums into thought puzzles. — Shwah

I agree.

In any case the main point is you can't use an epistemological definition for theism to ask this and if you're questioning these things then you necessarily are using an ontological nature to interpret and question these things (you need a framework to do so). — Shwah

I used ontology all the time in computing to categorise variables and data types etc. In philosophy, I get that ontology refers to categorising the metaphysical. I have limited interest in the 'after physics' or 'beyond physics' stuff. I am a naturalist/physicalist/materialist/scientist etc. I do find metaphysical discussions interesting but any conclusions produced by them demonstrate very poor predictive power in my opinion.

That ties more into the point that atheism is not a position one can meaningfully get to without separating atheism from theism and implying atheism is just some random name for a gaming group that has shared likes and dislikes. A huge fall away from all atheist claims and from new atheist claims and from hitchens and all before him — Shwah

Who said it was a random name? It's a valid label that indicates rejection of the posit of theism.
Atheists are not a gaming group as such is entertainment-based. Atheists argue amongst themselves as much as any other labeled grouping of humans.
I have no idea what you mean by your last sentence above. I have as much in common with Mr Hitchens, Mr Dawkins, Mr Harris, Mr Dennett, Mr Dillahunty, Mr Carrier, Mr Atwill and the many other well-known atheists and the ancient ones such as Democritus as I have ever had. I think they are correct and the theists are incorrect.

Don't tell me you don't fear them cause they don't exist! — EugeneW

I have commented to you before about the many times I have personally challenged the god power since I was 15. I almost reached a stage where I quite enjoyed the emotion of fear.
What would convince you that I have no fear of gods or their supporters/enforcers such as Satan and his crew.

I like a quote from a song by crowded house. 'god is just jealous because the devil looks so cool in red.'
I like it when creative people attempt to reduce the ability of the god fable to invoke fear in others.
This is also why I love films like 'The life of Brian' or most of the words in 'Jesus Christ superstar.'

I am much more afraid of what my fellow humans might put me through than I am of gods.
Fellow humans can directly affect my life, gods have demonstrated no ability to do so.
I don't think they exist and that IS a reason for my lack of fear of them but I also despise them if they do exist due to the evil they allow humans to do.

Just listening to the Sean Carroll Mindscape podcast in the background as I work on one of my oil paintings, in-between posting comments on this thread. He was discussing 'time reversal' based on a question he had been asked. It's on the first 20 mins. I think you would enjoy that. He also tells you how to submit questions!

a lot like Alice falling down the rabbit hole and discovering all sorts of characters who don't make a lick of sense. — Joe Mello

The story of Alice in wonderland is another fable, Joe, it didn't really happen!
Have you placed your degree in philosophy next to old pictures of your many cars, numerous old female admirers, your earlier bodybuilding physique, your days in the monastery smiling beside your fellow monks and I am sure, your many other memorable moments and thought about 'what it all means?'
Is your best answer 'god did all this for me!' and after I pass (hopefully a long long time from now Joe.)
I will live with it forever at its place and I won't have to hear these nasty atheists again.
Am I anywhere near your belief system Joe after your 70+ years on this planet, living as a human.

No, referencing something that my adversaries have constructed is not at odds with my non-belief. — Gregory A

Yeah, even though based on the logic that you employ, you should not be doing so.
You have no belief in the spaghetti monster so you cant reference it. It would be illogical for you to do so based on your own application of logic!

No, you are not going to corner me in with words. And I've never believed anything other than the Warren Commision's finding based on the evidence available. All else unsuported by facts. I'm a non-believer in a conspiracy, consequently I have nothing to say about it. Still don't get it yet? — Gregory A

Well, yes, I do see the massive flaws in how you form your belief system, I do get that.
If you lived in Russia right now and you listened to your beloved state TV channel, you would no doubt be singing Putin's praises. The words 'I've never believed anything other than the Warren commission's findings show that. So, you accept the 'magic bullet' theory then?

No problem. I'm embarrassed by your stupidity — Gregory A

Well I'm glad I have the power to embarrass you, even if its inspire by your delusional thinking.

There is no escape for atheism. The 'this is what we've been waiting for' thing that they will try and lay on us if science suggests God is a possibility, will not work. That escape is covered. Naturailsm is not a non-belief in God, but is a 'belief' in Nature, a naturally occurring universe. Atheism, as the term suggests, says nothing about Nature. Miracles? You must be talking about religion? What does that have to do with theism really? — Gregory A

Yeah, keep tubthumping on your tin bath, see if the echo's progress your proposals?

You seem to be showing even more how inaccurate saying "theism is just belief" is or you're showing a worse claim "theism cannot be a purely linguistic claim (as it can lead to issues)" but that latter would apply to anything and never manage to supplant the issues/inaccuracies of using an epistemological position for theism (or any -ism really) and it seems circular anyways ("what is theism? It's belief in God", perhaps god-fearingly so) — Shwah

I think that sometimes, a philosophical approach to the application of logic (as an epistemology) can be too literalist and at other times, not literalist enough and I think this often throws philosophical thinking into circles. I don't struggle with what you are trying to project on to me. I find 'theism is a belief that god exists,' literally or linguistically easy. I don't get 'over excited' by the possible extremity of abuses or human interpretations of the theistic posit which result in maniacal consequential actions. "If you don't believe as we do and don't do and live as we say, then we will kill you." Is a threat that has existed amongst humans since we evolved the ability to think. The fact that a religious or political doctrine is often manipulated to support such, is a distraction. Using statements such as 'I do this in the name of god/an ism or even just because 'I can' or 'because you cant stop me,' is down to the problem of bad human ethics rather than any inaccurately labeled excuse an individual or group might employ for their own nefarious reasons or as a more complicated and clever attempt at subterfuge (eg the invention of the Jesus Christ character).

In any case, religion itself is an application of a theistic claim — Shwah

Yes, it is but do you accept that the tenets/rules of particular examples are most likely solely produced by human musings alone and have zero contribution from anything supernatural?

There is possibly, in the philosophy of religion, a pentaune (five-in-one) God with distinct possible derivations and thought puzzles which may intuit issues or benefits in the triune God vs the unitarian God. Keep in mind that no religion of a pentaune God exists. — Shwah

You are just demonstrating human musings on possible religous manifestations. You are demonstrating what I am talking about. Do you think this pentaune god exists? Did it speak to you in your head and tell you to post about it on this thread? or are you just 'thinking' about gods?

That seems so odd to say that 'positive confidence level' idea. — Shwah

It's just my attempt to calm the disturbance created by the belief/non-belief or believer/non-believer wave machine.

No theism has always been about specific God claims. If theism was purely just the non-starter that is "belief" then why would theists ever disagree with each other — Shwah

I think you are confusing theism with religion. Theism is the belief that god(s) exist. Atheism states there is insufficient evidence for such a claim. Buddism has no gods, you could call it an atheistic religion as it is not theistic.
Religious people argue about name/practices/tenets/dogma associated with the religion they favour but theism is a mere umbrella term for 'There is a god.'

atheists are clearly antagonistic to theists. — Shwah

Well speaking as an atheist, I certainly am when they are antagonistic towards me or atheism.
You are making a sweeping statement which should be judged on a case-by-case basis. I am rarely antagonistic towards the theism espoused by @EugeneW as I can follow his logic, even though I don't agree with him. He is also not antagonistic towards my commentary in support of atheism.
I am antagonistic towards @Gregory A or the even more illogical @Joe Mello as they are antagonistic and insulting, in my opinion to all who disagree with them.

There's no disbelief/ambiguity there but even if there was, that metric wouldn't be enough to describe the situations or what those words have been/are doing for all of human history (or even one moment). — Shwah

Remember that religion(for or against) has been used as a political football to justify power struggles and slaughter since its inception. The god posit cannot be scapegoated for the behavior of crusaders etc. It is humans who have employed the posit for horrific purposes. It's like blaming socialism for the slaughters committed by maniacal cults of personality such as Nazism, Stalinism or Pol Pot(ism). It's just BS to suggest such. Humans behave like maniacs sometimes, that's not god fault or socialism's fault, these are just abused labels of convenient purpose at the time. Many godly folks and all true socialists/humanists are benevolent towards others, don't tar them with the same brush as some maniac popes/priests/imams/gurus/theosophists/autocrats/aristocrats/plutocrats etc.
If I slaughter 50 worshipping Muslims and I shout 'I do this in the name of Jesus Christ the Lord my God.' Does that make those two characters responsible for my actions or is it totally down to me? I'm sure you agree that its the latter. We need to stop accepting the labels that evil people use to justify the evil they do. Nefarious individuals cannot be trusted to 'tell it like it truly is.'

Matt Dillahunty gives a very good explanation of atheism in his gumball machine analogy.

The number of gumballs in a machine is either odd or even.
If I tell you that the number is even, do you believe me?
Theism may say yes they do believe me, without requiring a count.
Atheism does not accept the claim due to the lack of convincing evidence.
This does not mean that the atheist takes the alternate view, that the number of gumballs is odd.
They simply hold the VALID position of 'we do not currently know the number of gumballs.'
Atheism is therefore a completely valid position.

Matt suggests this is the correct definition of atheism, it is a rejection of the god posit but does not state that the existence of god is impossible. But Matt has also assigned a 'positive confidence level' to his rejection of the god posit towards a percentage level similar to my own. This does little damage, in my opinion, to the atheist position that god is not impossible.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Sorry Gregory A, but I am still laughing at your logic.
I will stop now.......:lol: ....sorry!

It is my logic. If x amount of people are on the left, the same number on the right, then given those parameters the Left has only half a chance of being right. The moral of the story, you really should have thought things over before becoming the leftwing extremist that you are. — Gregory A

I am sure that all of the deep thinkers on this forum are duly impressed by the logic or what you have just typed above, or perhaps not. I will leave that for their consideration.

I don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I'm a non-believer in what is an impossibility.
Consequently, I can have nothing to say about this thing I do not believe exists. Got it — Gregory A

No, because you just told me you don't believe in the 'flying spaghetti monster.' Why did you do that is your logic demands your silence on that which you don't believe exists? Got it?

But if on the other hand if I should challenge its 'existence' (something only a dummy could do) I would then give credence to the possibility it may exist. I would be bringing myself down to the same level as those who believe it exists. Got it yet — Gregory A

I don't think you should call yourself a dummy for not believing in the 'flying spaghetti monster.'
I agree with you that it doesn't exist, how's that for common ground! Welcome to our same level. Have you got it yet?

There are many theories and books on the JFK assassination, but only the one assassin, Lee Oswald — Gregory A

Yeah? You don't believe the one about the kill shot coming accidentally, from one of his own security men? or the triangular assassins hidden on the 'grassy knoll' etc. Have you got enough space on your sandwich board to reveal the truth about the JFK assassination as well? Do you still not get it yet?

, he at least could have answered some of the questions I asked. — EugeneW

I was looking at the latest YouTube offerings.
Sean Carroll has this:



This is a 3 hour session where he answers questions submitted to him. He must do this on a monthly basis at the moment. Maybe he has answered your questions here? I would assume they would have responded to your email, even if just to tell you to listen to this podcast for your answers but perhaps you need to ask him your questions via this 'mindscape' initiative. I think he explains in the podcast how to submit your questions. I have not listened to this March episode yet but I will. If your answers are not in this one, perhaps you can get them in the April episode.

The Right has a set of values, the Left a similar but counter set, meaning one thing the Left has only half of a chance of being right — Gregory A

:rofl:

So, this is your logic? The left and the right make a whole. So the left is half of the whole. So the left has at best, half of a chance of being RIGHT. Apart from laughing about your poor handling of the words left and right in "LEFT has only half a chance of being RIGHT."
You conflate ratios with politics to try to make a logical point. We have not to consider the moralities of right-wing or left-wing politics, we have just to consider their 50%, coin-toss chance of being correct.
REALLY?

If atheists don't believe in god/s, and atheism relates to theism, then what possibly would an atheist talk about? What would be discussed at an atheists convention (should it exist) if not god/s, something atheists claim to not believe in. — Gregory A

This skewed logic of yours is pure sophistry and as I have already stated, insignificant. You just string nonsense together and hope you can get near the bullseye on the dartboard. I think you are not even throwing darts in the same room the dartboard hangs in.

What does Matt Dillahunty talk about on YouTube on a daily basis. What do your nemeses such as Richard Dawkins write books about? What do groups like MythVision discuss on a daily basis.
Do you think your silly metalogic invalidates atheism and actually supports the OP title?
I find it very difficult to offer you anything but scorn and mockery.
You type with the thoughts of a character like a sandwich board man with the words 'Atheism is invalid' chalked on either side as you wander aimlessly up and down the high street exclaiming 'atheists should not speak because they are atheist and because they are all leftists and because they.......well....just because......

So anecdotal account can serve as proof. What if every human you meet confirms to you that god exists, would you accept that as proof of god? — L'éléphant

With all due respect, you need to read a response more carefully.

If every human alive stated that god exists then I would not be calling it a fable, because I would believe it too. — universeness

So I have already answered your second sentence above but not under the condition of 'every human I meet' but under the condition of 'every human alive.' The existence of so many atheists and the fact that the numbers are growing is part of what keeps my own atheism affirmed.
Your label of anecdotal evidence is ultimately, a correct one. Such evidence can be enough to convict someone (rightly or wrongly) of murder, especially when the main evidence is based on the witness statements/testimony in court, only. I am 99.99999% sure gods don't exist. I would use a similar percentage for my 'positive level of confidence,' that I exist.
So no, anecdotal accounts are not absolute proof but they can be 'the best that can be achieved for now,' due to the nature of the question being asked.
So 'can you prove humans dream?' I think the answer is no, you can't absolutely prove it but YES, humans dream. I capitalise, to indicate my level of confidence in my YES. I think if you polled this site membership and asked something like 'What confidence level do you have that human's dream?' 100%, 90% to 100%, between 50% and 90%, between 0% and 50%, 0%. The majority would vote for the range 90% to 100%.
Your point of 'but you can't prove it!' Has no more value than 'You can't prove god exists,' or 'You can't prove the Universe has no origin,' etc.
Asking anyone of these often claimed 'big, deep questions are not, in my opinion' so big or so deep as I never hear an accompanying thunder clap or angelic chorus or even a wee drum roll, when such questions are asked. Asking such questions has never been revelational.

He at least could have answered some thing.. — EugeneW

I agree and I hope you do get a response, eventually.
Perhaps he is still reading through other emails, who knows what his workload is?
As I said before, I got responses from Joe Atwill and Dan Dennett but not Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins.

Well, it was good of you to have a look at the article anyway.
Your response to it marries with your views on theism and you already know my views on theism.
ABSOLUTELY no bad feelings EugeneW, I very much enjoy our exchanges!

he at least could have answered some of the questions I asked — EugeneW

I will look online at the ways available to contact Sean Carroll. He certainly does YouTube podcasts where he answers questions submitted to him. Did you send him an email and got no response?

I'd chosen mermaids to avoid the 'out' that tooth fairies allow by being super-natural. Your atheism says nothing about mermaids, unicorns, etc, so we need to believe you accept these as real as you do not protest their unlikely existence (up until now that is)? New species are discovered daily by the way. — Gregory A

Belief is just a 'measure of confidence' that a proposal is true.
I have no problem with your 'positive level of confidence,' that god exists.
A harmless personal faith in a god of your imagination that gives you comfort when you are scared is exactly that, harmless.
I will however continue to fight fervently against any leakage from your theism or any organised theism, into politics, education, societal directives etc.
Reading your posting on this thread in general, I think your analysis of atheism and atheists is contrived and insignificant.

I mean mermaids are not super-natural — Gregory A

So how do you categorise mermaids? Obviously they are not 'natural,' or at least they have never been physically discovered anywhere yet on planet Earth. I categorise mermaids as fictitious, just like god.

I highly recommend the following musings of Sean Carroll, titled

'Why (almost all) cosmologists are atheists'

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/writings/nd-paper/

Scientific hypotheses can have faith-based hypothesis for inspiration — EugeneW

'Can have', yes, 'needs,' no.

If you know the gods you know the universe. — EugeneW

You have yet to provide adequate evidence for your view of the Universe and your view is one of many in existence. There are probably as many posits on the structure and workings of the Universe as there are posits on the structure and workings of god. But no god hypothesis has ever progressed beyond the posit stage. I think that is an important point to consider. Humans create gods, gods don't create
humans.

As such, theism is indispensable for science. "How would the gods have made this particle act?" This question stood at the base for my massless matter fields view. — EugeneW

So why do the vast majority of scientists not believe in god?

"How would the gods have made this particle act?" works perfectly well as "How does this particle act?" Just not for you it seems. You seem to need the god part, the majority of scientists dont.
I agree with @chiknsld right to 'a personal god' but I also fully support @Tom Storm's very fair and balanced critique of theism.

My point of saying that while dreams exist, and people really do dream, we cannot show proof that we're dreaming. Yes, maybe a brain scan of a person dreaming might show some active parts of the brain through imaging, but the imaging wouldn't show the "dream" itself, only that the person's part of the brain is at the moment active. — L'éléphant

If each human you meet, confirms to you (if you ask them) that in their opinion, humans dream, then that is proof enough. Can you PROVE you exist? You have less need to, if I and others confirm you do.
I exist and I think solipsism is utter nonsense, so I think you exist too. If you dream and I dream and we get further evidence from brain scanning and from asking others then that's pretty convincing proof in my opinion. If every human alive stated that god exists then I would not be calling it a fable, because I would believe it to. Do you know of any humans who say that humans don't dream?
No proof is or can be absolute as one can always imagine a circumstance where the conditions are different. All mathematical proofs for example are reliant on the accuracy of their related first principles.

:up:

But unlike faith or belief-based hypotheses, scientific hypotheses can be progressed into accepted fact!