Reality from the view point of theists

@izzythepush,

Keep believing whatever you want to Izzy, I like you just the way you are. 2 Cents

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

...the sort of comment like, reality is not real, clings to the meaninglessness of the statement...do you get it now or do you want me to make you a draw ???

0 Replies

I am ever more convinced that what we have here is a plain genotypes war for supremacy and not a honest open hearted philosophical discussion...from my perspective a war between anarchists against order like people...against Philosophy itself...the bunch of guys who always take a short cut and the sort of guys who always do the hard work and bind on their word...that simple!
(...if we care to do all the psychoanalysis on the true matter at hand here its not hard to come to that conclusion...the guys who hate maths n logic against the guys who love it...dumb against clever, the extinct against the fittest...loosers n winners...)

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

...oh n by the way the usual silly comment that puts so said "creative s" against "squares"...always brings to my mind the idea that maths n Logic need creativity while to make a mess one only needs the 2 law of thermodynamics...so said creative´s are mess masters, nothing else !...

0 Replies

I am amused that Fresco thinks his "physiology" claim answers FM's post. For that to be true, it would be necessary for there to be an objective reality, because otherwise his feeble appeals to culture, consensus and language would trump that physiology. As always, he doesn't see the contradictions of his position, because he is dogmatic. His reference to physiology is an attempt to be evasive, not an answer to FM's post.

0 Replies

what now ?

I'm confused on who to answer to

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

Quote:

Frank, I wonder, is it not best for us just to be agnostic regarding Reality as you are with the idea of God? Are we not GUESSING that the logical constraint to assume Reality's objective existence (no matter its nature) is itself a foundation for privileged knowledge? Can't I "guess" with equal authority (or lack thereof) that our logically driven ontology of Reality is not purely our construction?

JL...I am being agnostic on this question.

The fact remains that SOMETHING exists. If only me...I know that something exists. Cogito, ergo sum. There is no logical way I can say to myself...I do not know if I exist, because I am thinking. I know there is at least me...so I know SOMETHING exists.

IF something exists...then whatever it is...that is what IS.

There is no getting away from that.

Any constructs we have about it are subjective...BUT WHATEVER EXITS...(however it exists and whatever it is, even if just one thought)...THAT IS WHAT IS.

That ultimate REALITY is an objective REALITY...even if it is only a single thought shared by us all. EVEN IF THAT THOUGHT ITSELF is a subjective thought.

That would be the objective REALITY.

Unfortunately, this is going nowhere. Some people have too much of self invested in the tenet that there is no Objective REALITY and my guess is there will never be acknowledgement of what is a definitional requirement.

There are no non-agnostic elements involved in what I am saying.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I would go a step further then this...I don´t know if I can refer to the "I" as existing...but I surely am certain that the experience of the "I" exists as an X something on the phenomenological world from where we can derive the necessity of an ontology...the attribute of somethingness if not the "I" which is more restrict is inescapable from any form of debate and dispute...its dismissal is the undoing of the debate itself...(this is a question on set membership)

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

That is why I say "SOMETHING exists"...despite the use of the "cogito, ergo sum."

SOMETHING EXISTS...(and I must acknowledge a tendency to think of it as "I exist")...but whether it is "I" or not...SOMETHING EXISTS.

And if SOMETHING EXISTS...then whatever it is...IS. That is the objective REALITY...whatever it is.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

...exactly !
...the problem of categorizing with certainty comes second to the a priori acknowledgement that X exits at least...

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

You and Fresco have the same problem here. You say the world is constructed by language. That's not true. The world is there whether or not we discuss it. What we construct is a description of the world, a description of realtiy--for better or worse, of varying degrees of accurasy. But that we use language to describe reality is not evidence that reality only exists because we discuss it.

Correct and incorrect... The world may be there whether we discuss it or not, but if we are not there to discuss it, as will some day be the case, then it does not exist... Our existence is the essential element of all being... It may well be, as many things are- with or without our attention; but our being gives all that is its meaning... And meaning is the essence of our being... A galaxy on the far side of the cosmos may certainly weigh more than the meteor falling toward the Earth, but the meteor has much more meaning, and so, more being- because it is far more likely to affect our lives ...

2 Replies

@Fido,

Idiot

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

You need to think, period. Was there no world before humans existed to describe it? Will there be no world when humans cease to exist? You really don't at all canvass the contradictions and the just plain silliness of this thesis of yours. I don't dispute what you have to say about ontological perception, but you have no basis upon which to allege that human cognition is the only reality--and you never offer any substantiation for that usually implicit and sometimes explicit claim.

I note that you have still failed to respond to Farmerman's post.

You need to think... Being, existence, reality, truth are all forms of meaning, and without people and life, there is no meaning.... That is why Schopenhaur could say: The world dies with me... You are on the same level as those murderers who shoot up a mall thinking they will be famous... What they are is dead, and fame has no meaning to the dead... So whether there was or was not a world before the existence of humans to describe it is an irrelevant question... What we describe is meaning, and that is also the function of math and language- to convey and communicate meaning, which is something living beings share with living beings......Meaning certainly grows out of being, if what we are considering is our own being; but all other being is irrelevant... Sans life, sans everything...

Look, reject; when you see individuals struggle with the meaning of their lives it is because they have lost touch with themselves and their lives as part of an organic whole... Primitives understood that the life of their community resided in them, and in their bodies -to be passed on along with culture... Our individual creation metaphysic which is really unnatural, even anti-natural robs all of humanity of that sense of their individual life as a part of all life... This fact more than every other is responsible, in my opinion, for the mass neurosis so common in modern mankind as to color our who existence, and make the death wish our defining quality... We cannot conceive of life, and instead are handed misconceptions of life that rob us and all life of meaning... And why am I bothering??? I know you are not intelligent enough to get it...

2 Replies

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

Quote:
unless you believe that you would like to have a meatloaf sammich.

Meatloaf does make an excellent sandwich.

Meatloaf never made a sandwich, excepting the performer, but many a sandwich was made with meatloaf... and more than a few heads, in addition...

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

You might note that I have stated, either here or elsewhere, that "existence" requires "an observer" (not necessarily "a human one"). Heidegger on the other hand suggested that Exitenz only had meaning with respect to a Dasein (loosely a "self") which contemplated itself.

Your responses here clearly indicate that you are not (or no longer) here to "bait theists". You have started thinking from different perspectives, which might give you an understanding of how theists might view the concept of "reality". In particular, I suggest that we "atheists" need to account for our own satisfaction,why such a significant number of humans hold "a deity" to be "significant", and why some of them are clearly of above average intelligence. The constructivist account which I have outlined, leaves room for "a deity" for those who have need of it.

You are correct in that eixtence, or being, or reality, or truth are all meanings and meanings are values and judgement of people, made by people in relation to their own lives which to them are all of meaning...Consider, that when we communicate, we share meaning; so, what is the meaning that one could share who may some day be the last of humanity??? What is meaning to one without another??? Meaning is the essential element of being, and if you remove the meaning you have robbed anything that today exists because of meaning of its existence... If you look at our forms, everything that can be described with numbers, that is, physical objects can be said to have meaning and being... If you look at moral forms you see qualities having only meaning... Does that mean that Justice, or liberty do not exist because they have no being??? So long as we give forms like Justice, or Liberty meaning they will have in meaning the essential element of being... Ask if Anti matter, or nothing exists... So long as they have meaning they will have being, though that being is nothing other than our own by virtue of another moral form: our lives...

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
But that we use language to describe reality is not evidence that reality only exists because we discuss it.

Set, I think this sentence is so important, I want to repeat it:

But that we use language to describe reality is not evidence that reality only exists because we discuss it.

We can discuss nothing without giving weight and value to our words, and so, out of the store of meaning that is our lives we have given meaning to something that has no being; but whether it has being is secondary as a question... Being is a certain meaning, but how much of our lives, and even our lives entirely do we give to uncertain meanings that out of their meaning, which is our own meaning - seem worth many lives??? People do not die for the properties of salt, or the effects of gravity... They willingly sacrifice their lives when their lives are all they may be said to possess for ideas, and opinions regarding ideas, and when they do so, how can they say their ideas, their meanings without being were less real than they were themselves...Life is the most impossible and unreal thing, and it is out of that unreality that we judge things real though reality is only a meaning...

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Idiot

Clown.

You know; your mind is not able or agile enough for the conversation you are attempting... Go read the dictionary and stay out of adult business...

Watching you in the process of thought is like seeing some one try to pick a pocket with a fork truck...

2 Replies

@Fido,

You confused me originally with the expression "moral forms" but we are clearly on the same ontological page. You have my best wishes in carrying on "the good work".

0 Replies

@Fido,

Quote:

Correct and incorrect... The world may be there whether we discuss it or not, but if we are not there to discuss it, as will some day be the case, then it does not exist...

How do you KNOW this…or is this just a guess about what really is?

And if this is what really is…does that make it an objective REALITY?

Quote:

Our existence is the essential element of all being...

How do you KNOW this…and if you are just guessing, why would you possibly guess that way? And if you are correct, is it not an objective REALITY?

Quote:

It may well be, as many things are- with or without our attention; but our being gives all that is its meaning...

How do you KNOW this? And if it is correct, can we say that it is an objective REALITY?

1 Reply

@Fido,

Quote:

You need to think... Being, existence, reality, truth are all forms of meaning, and without people and life, there is no meaning....

Where do you folk get this stuff from? How can you say this with such certainty? And if you are positive of it…is it not the objective REALITY?

Quote:

And why am I bothering??? I know you are not intelligent enough to get it...

That is the ultimate cop-out, Fido...and has no place in this discussion.

1 Reply

Reality from the view point of theists

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know