Reality from the view point of theists

Which is why I didn't use it.

I seemed to have gotten that a little late myself.

Fresco, if you are unable or unwilling to even acknowledge the illusion of the sun moving across the sky...when in fact "the illusion of the sun moving across the sky" is caused by the spinning of the Earth on its axis...

...I guess it is best to quote a wise piece of information:



Try it, Fresco. Try moving on from the refusal to see the obvious. Then you will be able to move on to see that the substance of your arguments here is, for the most part, nonexistent.

And it should be easy for you, because the quote is from your favorite philosopher...a philosopher I enjoy from time to time myself--although at time he is rather exasperating.

illusion


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion

Although the Sun appears to "rise" from the horizon, it is actually the Earth's motion, not the Sun's, that causes the Sun to appear. The illusion of a moving Sun results from Earth observers being…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunrise


Even though the stars' motion is an illusion caused by our own motion,

On-line astonomy course text

http://cseligman.com/text/sky/skymotion.htm

Two I found in a one minute search. I am sure dozens up0n dozens of other examples could easily be found in major astronomical texts...and probably in some philosophical texts also.

The notion that "the word "illusion" is totally inappropriate"...is itself inappropriate; a bit desperate; and a lot humorous.

C'mon, Fresco...you are often scholarly...correct in so many things, acknowledging that you are totally out in left field on this issue should not be so difficult.

Holy ****, RL...we are on the same track.

I was looking from a different perspective, but we both got about to the same place.

This only shows how misinformed most of society is Frank. I was wrong as well.

Did you do a thorough research of the definition for the word illusion?

Well I had an interesting conversation in the pub with two atheists the other night and they were both being sort of condescending and asking me why I believe in a 'god' or 'creator' and I said it was actually very simple.
I said, 'We have here sitting at this table three fairly intelligent people - all of us would be considered 'clever' or above average in terms of our ability to function and create and even if we all brought in all the cleverest people we all know or had read or heard about, even if we put all our brain power and creativity together and concentrated very carefully - we'd still not have been able to have created or even completely explain or even understand after the fact - the reality that is ours.

The sum is more than the parts. In my mind that points to something else.
Neither one of them could refute what I said.
Their conversation ended- and they just nodded and said, ' Actually that's not something that anyone can deny.'

Plain and simple.

Apisa ! Wake up at the back !
Write out the etiology of the word "fact" from facare (Latin: To make or construct) one hundred times !

IMO
If you can say that your belief serves only the intellectual function of "accounting for existence" (ontology), then you come up against the infinite regress problem of accounting for the creator.

If on the other hand you admit that your belief functions as a psychological comfort, or gives direction to "self", then logically you should separate those "functions" from the shaky ontology argument.

Now I quite like Frank, and I quite like Fresco, but which one is right? There's only one way to find out.......

Not a complete one, RL...I've got a dozen items on Nancy's HoneyDo list to complete before she gets home from work...and I was out to a work conference of my own for a couple of hours.

I am confident that most people would agree that using "illusion" the way I used it is appropriate.

Is that a clip ?

Now you are on to something. When you are on the losing side of an argument but you do not want to acknowledge that you are on the losing side...

...change the subject.

Good move. And damn near as good as an outright acknowledgement, Fresco.

Finally...something on which we agree completely.

I was going to ask the same question of Izzy.

But to be fair, it's also not something that proves anything either (or even indicates anything).

OK. You stick with "most people" and I'll continue to research the "big brains" !

No, it's a still, I'll find you a clip.

Probably so, and I would have been one of them because I never did a thorough research of the word.

An illusion is a distortion of the senses, revealing how the brain normally organizes and interprets sensory stimulation. While illusions distort reality, they are generally shared by most people.[1] Illusions may occur with more of the human senses than vision, but visual illusions, optical illusions, are the most well known and understood.

or....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur5fGSBsfq8