@GeoLibCogScientist

  Firstly, I would like to say that you are very good at forming your arguments. Do not worry that you make simple mistakes because you are obviously a very talented - although, that might not be the right word - debater (Now that I look at it, maybe this statement makes me seem a little arrogant and I apologize if that is the case. After all, who am I to judge who is good at debating and who is not?). 

 I have no idea what your disorder entails so I will refrain from making any comment on that.  With "senses" I am just referring to how we observe the world. The thing is, our observations do seem coherent. We are able to make predictions as well. This means that we are most likely onto something. If our observations were just "wrong" we would not expect to see this coherence.

 It doesn't matter if we are in a simulation or not. Look at it from a phenomenalistic - or rather "first person" - standpoint, we have "senses". It is self-evident that our senses must at least "exist" in some form. Now, think of "vision". It is apparent that this is "something". And, through knowledge, we can predict what will show up in our "vision". It doesn't matter what this "vision" actually is in the "real world" - if such a thing exists. We are still able to succesfully predict what our "senses" will experience. This is how I view science if I have to look at it from a completely blank and personal perspective. 

 If a real world exists, our "senses" could not be completely irrelated to it. If a real world doesn't exist, then it is our "senses" that construct all of reality. In both cases science is still valid. And in both cases our "senses" are not false. 

 Again, can it be completely coincidental that we are able to predict what our "senses" will show? Yes. We might be just making a random prediction and it might be turning out to be true each time. But I think this is pretty improbable.

 We can also extend this reasoning to more complex and abstract thoughts. Because they still follow a pattern. I would suggest you watch this clip of Richard Feynman to understand exactly what I mean (I can't find the original source, the specific lesson containing this clip was deleted from the playlist that has his lectures. This is from a game):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6Qa93JQxg4 

 The black-white part is what is relevant but the second part is also interesting.
 
 

 

 

@Dee

 I think we could generalize the question as: "Why do we think it is logical to reason out the future by considering the past?" 

 The answer is: That is what logic is. We either understand things by learning the rules they abide, or by observing how things operate to reason out the rules by ourselves. If such rules do not exist, then we will have no way of understanding that concept. We look for patterns, it is how we function.

 So, you are asking why logic works the way it does and you are trying to find an answer to this question that is logical. This is why it gets so paradoxical. You cannot get an understanding of logic within logic. 

---

 BUT, I do agree that we might just be seeing patterns that are not actually there. The reason behind why the universe seems consistent to us might just be that we are creating that pattern ourselves. If you ever have time to waste, I suggest you listen to this talk: 
http://ludix.com/moriarty/psalm46.html
 It is about how you will start to see patterns that are not really there if you look into something(anything) deeply enough. This pattern seeking mechanism seems to have been built inside of us. No matter how we look at the world, we see patterns. Everything seems to be related:

 "There is a fundamental error in separating the parts from the whole, the mistake of atomizing what should not be atomized. Unity and complementarity constitute reality." -Werner Heisenberg

 " (...) All the efforts of the intellectual kinds, are to see the connections of the hierarchies, to connect beauty to history, to connect history to man's psychology, the man's psychology to the working of the brain, the brain to the neural impulse, the neural impulse to the chemistry and so forth, up and down, both ways." - Richard Feynman

 Now, this pattern may as well exist. I do not think we have any way of knowing that for sure. I am only saying that there is a possibility for it to not be there at all. But, ironically, I reached that result by pattern-seeking. 
 
 

@ZeusAres42

 Newton's laws are approximately right. But we are absolutely sure that they are technically wrong.  

 Well, it's not really fair to call them all "wrong". The real issue is with the second one: F = ma. I know that laws one and three have some issues as well but I do not exactly remember why.

@AlofRI You seem to be confusing two different definitions of "belief".

"Not believe" means lacking a belief in something therefore you can indeed say that "I do not believe in religion but I am not sure." like you have explained. Because "not believe" is not the same thing as "disbelief".

 But just "believe" means "accept". You cannot say "I believe you but I am not sure." because you would be contradicting yourself. You cannot both accept what someone says and not be sure about it. 

 I think you are mixing up the two definitions of "belief": 
1- accept that (something) is true, especially without proof.
2- hold (something) as an opinion; think.

 We use the second one in our daily speech. But we usually use the first one in philosophy. For example, if you say: "I believe that god exists." or "I believe that the holy book is true." nearly no one will think you are using the second definition. But if you say: "I believe we've already met." everyone will understand that you are using the second definition. 

@maxx I understand what you are trying to say but you have to realize that the view that you can separate your logic from your human nature is just false. 

 "a human concept is an idea that we create among us which has little to do with reality"  well the thing is, everything is a human concept because we are human. The concept of "concepts" is too a human concept. So, the question is not whether a thing is a human concept or not. The question is whether or not that human concept manages to represent reality in a good enough way. 

 You made a stronger argument now that you have explained that justice is just humans trying to find a pattern, but you need to remember that "justice" can also be an idea to suggest that bad people deserve bad futures (it is not obligatory for them to have that bad future, they just deserve it). When trying to debunk an idea, you need to go to the core of the idea and show the contradictions in there. I agree with you on this topic but I am just trying to say that you did not make an actual argument against the idea of "justice".