Oh, please, not that old canard. It depends on the logical fallacy of circularity.
No it doesn’t. It’s a way of testing your decidedly New Age notion that “State of mind has everything to do with it.”
Reality most definately is not a matter of state of mind and never was. To presume otherwise is the worst sort of arrogance beaten only by the silly posturing of theology.
Go ahead. Test it. Jump onto the railroad tracks and convince yourself that the locomotive which is barreling down on you is simply a state of mind.
Make yer peace before you attempt this.
By the way, your comment, “Just because you can’t “see” something which is in fact there doesn’t make it any less real.” is exactly what relgionists point out to Atheists when the topics of God or spirituality arise. Excuse me for not recognizing you as a religionist.
Wrong again. The arguement religionists use is the evidence of lack is not evidence of lack, which is a variation of the arguement from ignorance fallacy.
What I’m pointing to is what can be demonstrated to actually being there. Earlier you stated “There are records of aboriginals being unable to see the ship of Christopher Columbus even though it was right in front of them because they had not experienced anything like it before and so could not conceive of anything like it despite its reality.”
Well guess what, the ships were still there!!!!
State of mind was and remains irrelevant to that core reality. Whether or not the aboriginals could conceive of it is equally irrelevant to that reality.
Aside from ignoring the figure/ground comment because you don’t have a response, you are also ignoring the science community’s presentation of alternate universes and the documented evidence of bilocation (being in two places at once). Reality is not as simple as you would prefer to believe.
As for your comment, “The arguement religionists use is the evidence of lack is not evidence of lack, which is a variation of the arguement from ignorance fallacy.”, I’m sure even you can see that it is repetitive and incomprehensible. You may have meant to say “lack of evidence is not evidence of lack” which is cute but not at all what relgionists say. Religionists say exactly what I stated, namely, just because an individual lacks the ability to “see” what religion speaks about, doesn’t invalidate what religion speaks about.
You seem to be operating on the assumption that the limits of your perceptions are also the limits of what there is to perceive. Wrong.
FYI: You do not seem to understand what the argument from ignorance is. Argumentum ad ignorantiam occurs when it’s argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn’t been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn’t been proved true. In the case of religion, religious truth is true because it exists and anyone can find out for themselves if they spend the time to apply the lessons (just like your beloved science). In your case, you are saying that religion is false because it hasn’t been proven true according to your limitations and, therefore, it is you who are committing the error of argumentum ad ignorantiam. You are also disingenuous in attempting to lay that fallacy on religion by misrepresenting religion.