Reality from the view point of theists

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

why I keep saying this over and over again is because while the theists have a point , about reality , the thing is though , a theists reality of their perspective is lacking in Ancient History reality hence they lack a deeper understanding of gods' history once theists delve deeper into the history of their " god " they will find information about their god more profound than they knew , and this is important why ? because their god was not alone

Quote:

I don't understand why you keep saying this. Some "theists" are world renowned experts in the field of Ancient History. What makes you think theists are singularly unable to understand and have a reasonable perspective of Ancient History?
Quote:
do they mention anything about the multiple existence of gods ? and if they do , in what context , and then finally why the mono - god thinking ?
Quote:
And why would a perspective of Ancient History have any influence whatsoever on whether or not gods exist?
because thats where the gods first appeared and had influence on our behavior

0 Replies

Sorry. UK bedtime.

General point for those like Frank clinging to "independent objective reality".

It took courage for Einstein to make statements in physics like (paraphrase)

"Forget about Newton considering gravity as a force. Think instead that space tells matter how to move, matter tells space how to curve".

He was not talking about "layman's reality", he was talking to physicists involved with predicting the behavior of light as a stream of subatomic particles (another contentious concept at the time).

Einstein was correct in the sense that his model was predictive and Newton's was not. But it makes no sense to ask "which is the reality ?" The space program was entirely dependent on Newtons laws even though the computer circuitry at Houston relied on (even) post Einstein physics.

0 Replies

Or take Einsteins famous point that "time" depends on your motion reference frame. In layman's terms this means that events which are simultaneous on a train would not be simultaneous to an observer standing by the track. Agian it makes no sense to ask "which is the reality ?".

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

Or take Einsteins famous point that "time" depends on your motion reference frame. In layman's terms this means that events which are simultaneous on a train would not be simultaneous to an observer standing by the track. Agian it makes no sense to ask "which is the reality ?".

Once again...as you have throughout...you are talking about perceptions of reality rather than REALITY. The REALITY is what is...the perceptions of reality are what those people may or may not perceive.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Is it objective though? You'd never make a linesman, good groundkeeper though.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

Is it objective though?

Yup, it is.

On the question, for instance, of whether or not there is any carbon-based life on any planet circling the nearest five stars to Sol—there either IS or there IS NOT. That is an OBJECTIVE REALITY...and no discussion or agreement or anything else will alter the fact that it IS THE OBJECTIVE REALITY.

Quote:

You'd never make a linesman, good groundkeeper though.

I suppose this means something to you. It doesn't to me. If you want to explain it, I will listen.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

A linesman is the assistant referee who checks to see whether or not a goal is scored, the groundsman is responsible for the upkeep of the ground. He should move the goalposts, the linesman shouldn't.

I thought you'd, in theory at least, accepted the notion of an objective reality where there could be both sentient life and no sentient life of the same planet, what with dimensions and all that. Now you've changed your tune again, or have you?

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

I thought you'd, in theory at least, accepted the notion of an objective reality where there could be both sentient life and no sentient life of the same planet, what with dimensions and all that. Now you've changed your tune again, or have you?

I have not changed my tune at all, Izzy.

If there are several dimensions, the REALITY may well be that in some dimensions there is life on those planets...and in other dimensions, there is no life. The fact that the REALITY might be different in different dimensions does not alter things any more than the fact that the REALITY might be different for different planets or different stars in this dimension.

Not only have I accepted "the notion of an objective reality where there could be both sentient life and no sentient life of the same planet"...I embrace it...I am arguing it...it is the basis of my argument.

The "objective reality"...no matter what it is...IS THE OBJECTIVE REALITY.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

No ! According to youyou think the question "did those events happen together or separately ? " can be answered "yes" or "no". Einstein showed that it depends on who you are.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

No ! According to youyou think the question "did those events happen together or separately ? " can be answered "yes" or "no". Einstein showed that it depends on who you are.

I have no idea of what you are talking about here, Fresco. Could you flesh out your thought until it becomes comprehensible.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Einstein showed that what we call "time" depended on the relative movement of your reference frame.
An observer at the middle of a long very high speed train presses a button at 3 oclock which makes two lights flash, one at the front of the train and one at the rear. Because he is in the middle the two light signals reach him simultaneously at a fraction of a second past 3. At the exact time of receipt by the train man, he passes a man standing at the side of the track who does not see two simultaneous flashes according to the physics: he sees them separated in time. If the men cannot communicate, the question of whether the lights flash "simultaneously" or not can never be answered and never arises. All we can say is that for the train man his "reality" gave him simultaneous events. And the "reality" for the man on the track was that they were not. Neither reference frame has priority.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Those are simply references to descriptions of reality, they are not references to reality, per se.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Calling them "descriptions" of reality begs the question of the existence of "reality" independent of its description. The constructivist account is that the act of observation brings forth a contextual reality. The fact that we can predict the results of observation to a greater or lesser extent, gives the the impression of ontological independence of reality, because we naturally discount ourselves as a component of the perceptual process.

2 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

Calling them "descriptions" of reality begs the question of the existence of "reality" independent of its description.

But you are one of the people doing this, Fresco. In fact, it is almost unavoidable to do it.

EXAMPLES:

Your first comment on this issue began,

Quote:

“The significant difference between the two respective views of "reality" is that for a theist…”

http://able2know.org/topic/185542-1#post-4914641

You were not talking about REALITY, Fresco—you were talking about the perspective of reality.

Your second comment began,

Quote:

“All discussions of reality are by definition…”

http://able2know.org/topic/185542-1#post-4914654

Once again you were addressing a perception (discussion) of reality…not the REALITY.

Both these posts, by the way, seem to refer to an actual OBJECTIVE REALITY about which the observers are offering considerations or perspectives.

That is interesting.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Sorry Frank, you've lost me there.

Quote:

All discussions of reality are by definition conducted in a common language and subject to agreed "evidence". These social contraints provide the limitations of usage of the word "reality". Obviously, two theists may have different constraints to those of two atheists.

Perhaps I should have put the first"reality" in quotes, but I am clearly talking about the negotiation process leading to a shared consensus, and absolutely not about a concept of an objective reality.

(NB You will not find any inconsistencies in the constuctivist account per se. The difficulties arise at the level of how to account how consensual abstract mathematics leads to observation. At that point you get into a secondary topic the ontological status of mathematical entities).

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

Sorry Frank, you've lost me there.

Okay, let me take it more slowly.

You were charging that by calling certain comments “descriptions of reality” rather than "reality" Setanta and I were begging the question.

I was trying to show you that YOU actually called them descriptions of (or views of…or discussions of) REALITY…rather than actually talking about the REALITY itself.

I offered examples (complete with links) where you did this.

Neither Setanta or I were begging the question. (Set, sorry to appear to be speaking for you here. If you disagree with my characterization I know you will correct any inconsistencies I have made.)

Fresco, I also observed that in the linked quotes, you seemed to be acknowledging that there WAS an objective reality which was “being discussed” or about which “views” were being given.

Bottom line, Fresco…is that whatever IS…is the reality. I do not care what is discussed or viewed or agreed upon…WHAT IS…IS.

That is the objective reality.

All the rest is subjective considerations about the objective reality.

1 Reply

@fresco,

So much chin music. I used the example of Juan Fernandez earlier precisely because the nature of reality is indifferent to the observer, and had independent existence with regard to the observer. Hundreds of men died because the Royal Navy's description of Juan Fernandez was horribly flawed. Juan Fernandez itself was and is indifferent to the quality of any description of it. Referring to "contextual reality" is a word game which ignores the fact of the reality--knowing an aspect of reality well enough can be as beneficial as not knowing it can be lethal.

You were also playing a word game in your description of what Einstein wrote. I'm sure you'd like to think that you can enlist him in the cause your word games, but you can only do so by a false characterization of what he wrote. He was talking about relative observational conclusions based on how the observer is circumstanced--he was saying that the reality which any observer describes differs, but that the descriptions differ.

You can have your own silly philosophical word games--but you don't get to have your own reality. Doubtless you will never suffer from the potential consequences of this, because unlike George Anson and his men, you will doubtless never really go in harm's way. Do not doubt, however, that a distinct, objective reality exists, and that misjudging it can kill you.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Next !

0 Replies

Yes, it would be interesting to see what game you try to play next.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Either answer in a civil manner, which is the courtesy I gave you, or take a hike.

0 Replies

Reality from the view point of theists

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know