Reality from the view point of theists

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
why though ? what has objective reality have to do with this thread ?
The question of an "objective reality" was raised on page 1 of this thread...and has been exhaustively discussed on EVERY page of the thread. Now you are asking me what objective reality has to do with it? In any case, it is the only issue in this thread that continues to hold my attention...so I am pursuing it. And although our feelings about an Objective Reality apparently are the same, there are many here who disagree completely with us. Just trying to find out why...and to discuss it, of course.

well let them bring it on then

because the Universe is not in any way subjective

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, it is logically obvious--but also intuitively obvious--that there is an "objective" reality. Otherwise we would not be having this conversation. But aside from the fact of its ontological status, reality's protean character includes, from my perspective at least, the process of social construction of meaning. There is no contradiction between our stated metaphysical suppositions. You talk about the ontology of reality; I talk about its character, Fresco talks about its dynamics. There is room for all.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

Whether or not we know what reality consists of does not constitute evidence of the existence of objective reality.

It seems that Setanta is getting philosophical on us.

2 Replies

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

Quote:
Whether or not we know what reality consists of does not constitute evidence of the existence of objective reality.
It seems that Setanta is getting philosophical on us.

the troubling thing is that he makes no sense , oops thats the point

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

idiot

knob

1 Reply

anyway back to the OP

what do theists know about the Ancient History of their god ?

nothing really

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Jesus H. Christ, Frank... ARE you losing it...

Not at all, Fido. I am trying to understand what you are saying (or almost saying).

Let’s try this again:

Are you saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE for there to be an OBJECTIVE REALITY?

Please stop telling me what you think REALITY is…or what you think we can or cannot conceive of it…or what Kant said about it.

There is a REALITY of existence.

Something is going on here…we all know that. Existence is here. Whatever is “going on here” is the REALITY of existence...whatever it is.

I am asking you if you are saying, “It is impossible for that REALITY to be an OBJECTIVE REALITY?”

I do not consider that to be a stupid question; an inappropriate question; a question that casts doubt on my sanity or intelligence…

…it is a reasonable question for this thread. It is being asked in earnest and with respect.

Is there some reason why you cannot answer it without all that heat I just heard?

There are no objective infinites... If you say there is existence which touches on everything in the cosmos, and that when we are talking of reality we are talking about that part for which we have some verification, and if we examine that small fraction of existence we can actually verify to a degree we are talking of truth... Even truth, the smallest fraction of reality and existence it is an infnite, more than a single mind or all our minds can comprehend, or conceive of... Truth does not stay the same in place or time... It is as if we could say that South is a cardinal direction... True; but at the north pole it is every direction... What is truth at any moment depends upon an infinity of other circumstances, and in all time it is infinite circumstances... There is no objective reality because we cannot conceive of reality as an object...We can no less consider it as a subject, and subjectively since we cannot say exactly what we are considering to begin with...There is a lot of elastic in most minds... I would not waste all of yours trying to get it around all of reality...

3 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Frank, it is logically obvious--but also intuitively obvious--that there is an "objective" reality. Otherwise we would not be having this conversation. But aside from the fact of its ontological status, reality's protean character includes, from my perspective at least, the process of social construction of meaning. There is no contradiction between our stated metaphysical suppositions. You talk about the ontology of reality; I talk about its character, Fresco talks about its dynamics. There is room for all.

Given one of the things people have discovered about the universe, its size, along with the speed of light, it is possible that the light from distant galaxies is reaching us long after they have lost their light and died... Now; are they objectively real because we can see where once they were, or are they not real though we can see where once they were... We presume a certain situation to exist at any given moment, objectively, but realistically, and as Einstein proved, it is all relative...

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

Quote:
Whether or not we know what reality consists of does not constitute evidence of the existence of objective reality.

It seems that Setanta is getting philosophical on us.

If so he will soon be floundering... Find a life jacket... He has escaped from the wading pool...

0 Replies

@Fido,

Fido:

I asked the following question:

Quote:

There is a REALITY of existence.

Something is going on here…we all know that. Existence is here. Whatever is “going on here” is the REALITY of existence...whatever it is.

I am asking you if you are saying, “It is impossible for that REALITY to be an OBJECTIVE REALITY?”

Your response was:

Quote:

There are no objective infinites... If you say there is existence which touches on everything in the cosmos, and that when we are talking of reality we are talking about that part for which we have some verification, and if we examine that small fraction of existence we can actually verify to a degree we are talking of truth... Even truth, the smallest fraction of reality and existence it is an infnite, more than a single mind or all our minds can comprehend, or conceive of... Truth does not stay the same in place or time... It is as if we could say that South is a cardinal direction... True; but at the north pole it is every direction... What is truth at any moment depends upon an infinity of other circumstances, and in all time it is infinite circumstances... There is no objective reality because we cannot conceive of reality as an object...We can no less consider it as a subject, and subjectively since we cannot say exactly what we are considering to begin with...There is a lot of elastic in most minds... I would not waste all of yours trying to get it around all of reality...

Honestly, Fido...I am still not positive if this is a "YES" or a "NO."

Since you wrote There is no objective reality because we cannot conceive of reality as an object......I am coming closer and closer to thinking you are actually saying that it is an impossibility for the REALITY of existence to be an OBJECTIVE REALITY. The only reason there is still doubt, is that it would have been much easier to simply say, "Yes, I am saying that."

So, considering all this, let me try one more time using a different trajectory:

Am I correct in assuming that you are indeed saying there is no possibility of an Objective REALITY?

ASIDE: I really do not understand why you and Fresco (when he was here) are making this so difficult. Either you are of the opinion that there is no possibility of an objective reality or of the opinion that there is a possibility of an objective reality.

Why not just come out with it?

1 Reply

@Fido,

Like always Fido you bring extreme value to a discussion.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I copied and pasted these quotes from your last post

Quote:

Honestly, Fido...I am still not positive if this is a "YES" or a "NO."

Fido's quote

Quote:

There is no objective reality

Quote:

Why not just come out with it?

Come on Frank how obvious does it have to be?

1 Reply

@Fido,

Fido, you refer to the undoubted fact that the starlight we see today may be from stars that no longer exist. This fact, that we see light from non-existent stars, IS part of what Frank refers to as Reality. Your comment says nothing about the ultimate ontology of Reality, but it is what I am referring to as an aspect of Realty's "character." We must keep in mind that when we use the term, "reality", we often mean something different. The result is that we sometimes end up talking past one another and from there we sink into the exchange of insults.

2 Replies

@Fido,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Jesus H. Christ, Frank... ARE you losing it...
Not at all, Fido. I am trying to understand what you are saying (or almost saying). Let’s try this again: Are you saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE for there to be an OBJECTIVE REALITY? Please stop telling me what you think REALITY is…or what you think we can or cannot conceive of it…or what Kant said about it. There is a REALITY of existence. Something is going on here…we all know that. Existence is here. Whatever is “going on here” is the REALITY of existence...whatever it is. I am asking you if you are saying, “It is impossible for that REALITY to be an OBJECTIVE REALITY?” I do not consider that to be a stupid question; an inappropriate question; a question that casts doubt on my sanity or intelligence… …it is a reasonable question for this thread. It is being asked in earnest and with respect. Is there some reason why you cannot answer it without all that heat I just heard?

Quote:

There are no objective infinites...

yes there is energy and matter are objective infinities

1 Reply

@Fido,

Idiot

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

Quote:

The result is that we sometimes end up talking past one another and from there we sink into the exchange of insults.

We surly do not need to be insulting each other just because we do not agree or we can not see the other persons view point.

I share frank's point of view myself about an objective reality but I do like to step into the shoes of other people who think differently than me and try to be multi- sided in my search for truth.
What purpose is there in being correct "if we are correct about there being an objective reality because there is so much more to reality than anyone could ever imagine. Reality does seem to be an infinite and I do not know how an objective infinite will behave a few trillion light years from now, or how reality may be behaving in other far away places, that are a few trillion light years from planet earth.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

Quote:
The result is that we sometimes end up talking past one another and from there we sink into the exchange of insults.
We surly do not need to be insulting each other just because we do not agree or we can not see the other persons view point. I share frank's point of view myself about an objective reality but I do like to step into the shoes of other people who think differently than me and try to be multi- sided in my search for truth. What purpose is there in being correct "if we are correct about there being an objective reality because there is so much more to reality than anyone could ever imagine. Reality does seem to be an infinite and I do not know how an objective infinite will behave a few trillion light years from now, or how reality may be behaving in other far away places, that are a few trillion light years from planet earth.

sure thats interesting , but not really

the galaxies are

1 Reply

@north,

Would this be what you were referring to when you talked about ancient aliens?

0 Replies

When I speak of the "objective" nature of Reality I am referring to no more than its "facticity." When I did and cease to exist it will continue, but it is always changing in terms of the forms it takes (for example the change that will accompany my death).
But by objectivity I am not referring to its "out there-ness", as opposed to my "in here- ness". The objectivity of Reality includes my (and your) subjectivity. As Searle insists subjectivity is an objective fact of (the content of) Nature. My dearest, or most fundamental, intuition is that, as Krishnamurti put it, I am the world, and so are you.

0 Replies

When I speak of the "objective" nature of Reality I am referring essentially to its "facticity." Nevertheless, when I die and cease to exist Reality will continue, but it is always changing in terms of the forms it takes (for example the change that will define my death).
But by objectivity I am not just opposing subjectivity; I am not referring to its "out there-ness", as opposed to my "in here- ness". The objectivity of Reality includes my subjectivity. As Searle insists subjectivity is an objective fact, part of the content of Nature. My dearest intuition is that, as Krishnamurti put it, I am the world, and so are you.

0 Replies

Reality from the view point of theists

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know