Reality from the view point of theists

My reply to Cyracuz in a similar thread:


To say that it is mysterious, in the very word mysterious, you are/end up reporting to the problem of knowledge, just as similarly, when you say IT IS (mysterious) you are reporting and a priori assuming REALITY !

I would love to believe we are having a REAL DEBATE here which necessarily requires some sort of subtract reality for it to occur...how come people think they can do away with it without noticing the contradiction and the trap they fall into ???

"Objectivity" is over-rated. The word itself was only devised by Gottlieb Frege in the late Victorian era. The reason so much is made of it nowadays is because of the presuppositions that scientific philosophy has about 'reality'. Now there's 'begging the question'!

This goes back to the distinction of 'primary and secondary' qualities. The 'primary' qualities are what are supposed to be 'really there', whereas the 'secondary qualities' - color and the like - are 'in the eye of the beholder'. But this view is impossible to defend against Kant. Objectivity is never absolute - what we decide to include, what we reject, the connections and inferences we draw on the basis of what we see - none of this can be understood in terms of 'primary qualities' and 'what's really there'.

..begging the question again...you are referring to the problem of categorizing stuff with certainty, which can only be put forward if assuming stuff exits in the first place...

I hate to be more presumptuous than necessary, Fresco, but it occurs to me that there is no more chance of getting you to see what has to be seen here in order to deal properly with the issue at hand, than there is of getting a religious devotee to see what has to be seen in order to deal reasonably with the questions religion attempts to navigate.

You have, for better or worse, simply decided that REALITY is subjective—a compound derived from negotiation and agreement between people. As with a religious person, you will twist and contort words and logic in order to arrive where you want to end up…rather than truly assess what is available for consideration and arrive wherever those considerations lead. You’ve not given any reasons for your claim that it is so…other than to cite the difficulties humans have in understanding and communicating ideas about REALITY.

You see, instinctively, that “the mind” is important to existence in some indefinable way…but you don’t search for the reason it is…you simply treat your assumptions about the issue as something that must be taken on faith.

In effect, you have “faith” that REALITY is nothing more than the result of negotiation and agreement between thinking entities, because you see that humans can only deal with REALITY through words…and you see the considerable limitations inherent in that. But the fact that we cannot understand or communicate notions about REALITY is not the end all that has to be explained by “THEREFORE REALITY IS THE RESULT OF NEGOTIATION AND AGREEMENT”…any more than existence has to be explained by assuming existence to be a “creation”…and then announcing that THEREFORE THERE HAS TO BE A CREATOR.

MY GUESS is that the damage to your “faith” has already occurred; too much of too great a value has already been said in this thread for unraveling not to have begun. You simply have not realized it yet. (I hope the realization does not come while you are repairing a roof, because it is going to be a mother when it strikes home!)

And make no mistake about it, the implications of “what is…is” will hit home. The fact that no matter how you deal with the problem, it is obvious that whatever you imagine as the ultimate REALITY…if correct…will itself become THE objective REALITY. The REALITY…no matter what it is…HAS TO BE objective. Even if something as absurd as “all reality has to be subjective” were shown to be true…then “all reality has to be subjective” WOULD BE THE OBJECTIVE REALITY.

That axiom is a logical black hole for you and your arguments.

Okay, now for the good part: If you finally put that mind of yours to work on it, you might be able to dispute philosophers in ways that will win you whatever the equivalent of a Nobel Lauriat is in philosophy. You could show the logical inconsistencies of the philosophers you’ve quoted to us. Hey, moderns have shown Augustine and Aquinas to be hacks.

As for this thread and this argument—you knew you should have abandoned it a long while back. Twice you’ve actually said you were abandoning, but each time you were drawn back. What you should have done, if I may be so bold, is to have acknowledged that the conversation has given you reasons to further consider your position…and that since your position took a long time to develop, reaffirming or altering it will take some time also. And then…you should have abandoned ship.

That option is still open to you…and it is by far the best option for you.

not in the least. You have to have a compass in this debate, otherwise you end up hugging white horses on the streets of Turin, and being carted off to the insane asylum for the rest of your life. Anyway, I have long since retired from A2K, I only dropped back in because I found one of my old debates, that is it from me, be well.

Frank,

I have specifically stated that the "subjectivity/objectivity dichotomy" has nothing to do with our day to day usage of the word "reality", except by protagonists of a particular view.

End of message.

Frank

is reality better expressed by hieroglyphics ?

I didn't say we have no access to objective reality. However, i'm sure that you are excited to have what you believe is a debating point to leap on, bo help yourself. I am simply acknowledging that we might not be able to accurately describe objective reality, which is not evidence that it does not exist. I am not seeking universal consensus--you, however, continue to ignore that what Farmerman has referred to certainly has all the hallmarks of universal consensus, which arrived unsought. I have asked for you comment on his posts several times--your silence has been deafening.

If you suggest that one cannot "see through to reality," without being able to state it to a certainty, and provide your basis for that statement, then you are indeed begging the question.

There is no such thing as an objective reality. And that is seen in quantum physics. We cannot observe nor measure nature without interferring with it All experimental results have to be tied back to the observer to make sense of them.

I'm not sure you can site quantum physics as an objective fact of reality while claiming that objective reality doesn't exist.

...any sort of denial of objective reality is left floating on air as the denial itself cannot be objectified...what else should be needed to make a case for the insanity of such reasoning's I wonder...

Think about that statement for a bit, kyrani.

If it is correct...it is incorrect, because the OBJECTIVE REALITY would be that there is no such thing as an objective reality.

I am now convinced that the statement "there is no objective reality" is self-defeating.

Think about it.

In order for the statement to be correct...it would have to be the OBJECTIVE REALITY...which is self-defeating to the argument.

As for quantum physics...I suspect you are confusing being able to identify and quantify...rather than with the REALITY.

You are late to this discussion, but if you want to explain how you can be correct that there is no such thing as "objective REALITY" without "the absence of objective reality" being the objective REALITY...I'd love to hear it and discuss it with you.

This reminds me of other great minds {scientist} of the past not agreeing with each other or people like Galileo and Einstein. Some people would go as far as to call them fools when they were not able to understand the other person's understandings.

This also reminds me of how theist can not understand how I see God and Satan as merely man made concepts.
Every letter and every word that we type have been agreed upon, "by us to have a meaning, even the word "IS" is agreed to mean, "what it is.
Surly we are very clever but just how clever do we think we are? when we start trying to say what reality is or what it is not as if we absolutely understand what reality is.
It seems that theologians and atheist alike do this.

I think there is no disagreement in accepting that descriptions of reality are incomplete and inaccurate to an extent...the problem arises when people refer to a non state of affairs with the characteristics of a state of affairs...
...now you tell me how insane is that ???

Can you Give this example another go around? Please be more specific.

I like the way you compare yourself to Gallileo and Einstein. I wonder if anyone else has noticed the similarity.

Are you here trying to score more points?

No, just making you aware of some of the things you suggest. I don't think you know you do it. If I can see it, so can someone else. I don't feel like arguing today.