Reality from the view point of theists

@JLNobody,

Quote:

No doubt our general intellectual orientations influence what we specifically consider to be the ontological status of reality, but I think that they have little to do with the physical survival of our species: we have survived either (in part) because or despite many stupid worldviews and ideologies. Some institutions have (regarding the survival value of behavioral and ideological institutions or the persistence of their residents), "eufunctional" value and some are "dysfunctional" (leading to revolutionary changes in social organization). Most, I suspect are functionally neutral: they neither support nor undermine the survival of populations or their forms of social life.

If that is true, than it is not the majority, Or Neutral people who change things...But it is the ones who challenge it for the good or bad..."eufunctional" or "dysfunctional" as you have called it...

Which would mean, that CY was right, accepting morality, and changing, or altering it...Is what constitutes what reality itself, is....

0 Replies

...if there is one thing that can be said about functionality is that it is never neutral, it has impact, whether direct or indirect it always contributes for the processes of change and evolution at large, be it in things, individuals, groups or systems...so said neutrality of certain functions is no more then claiming a butterfly has no absolute relation with the weather in Japan due to lack of processing power...a statement of "neutrality" is a matter of what contextually we are aiming at in the extent of what we can know and can only be applied in such contextual frames, at large, there´s no such thing as neutrality, impact is just not traceable in the system.

In the concrete case can be said that any ideology fits better the group it supports or that supports such ideology, and even those institutions that claim to accept all ideology´s forms and belief systems certainly don´t accept those groups who believe one particular ideology or system must be followed say for instance just for the purpose of being amusing, not religion but scientific method...what would be of an institution that equally accepts scientific method and magic as valid processes of inquiry ?... Laughing

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

...Institutions by Nature are Ideologically biased...in some rare cases that is not necessarily a bad thing...

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

All humans can agree on what reality is to a certain extent. How much do we really know? And how much is derived and deduced from that knowledge? I think there is a basis of our impressions of reality that we can all identify with simply because we all share the same conditions (human mortality). But beyond any experiment that can be empirically verified, we have no means of comparing information, in fact, we have no means of sharing information without it becoming altered in the sharing.
We simply do not at present possess the language or communication method necessary to reach a consensus on what "reality", in the broadest meaning of the term, means.

True if you can get beyond the first line, where I would insert uncertain for certain...

1 Reply

@Fido,

...the damage of uncertainty it is vague to say the least when it comes on how we all act and behave on practical but real daily life matters, in fact we can go further and aim at whatever goes on the extent of our lives...it comes to mind as a joke that we all, at least those who survive and can tell the tail, when seeing a car heading in our direction agree to step aside, and if we don´t, we can agree that those would did n´t, did so out of knowing its consequences...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...the damage of uncertainty it is vague to say the least when it comes on how we all act and behave on practical but real daily life matters, in fact we can go further and aim at whatever goes on the extent of our lives...it comes to mind as a joke that we all, at least those who survive and can tell the tail, when seeing a car heading in our direction agree to step aside, and if we don´t, we can agree that those would did n´t, did so out of knowing its consequences...

If you look as I do at life, as the most certain of uncertainties, you may also notice as I do how few people act aware of the consequences... The thread on Cheney makes me want to compare him to a serial killer... Some of those people destroy life and it does not matter how many times they take life, and rip people open to look inside, they will never get it, or come close to understanding life at an emotional level, never relate, never figure out the pain of life or gain any sympathy, not for themselves or for any others... They study people, know what to say and how to act; they blend in, but the essentials of being human are lost on them... Consequences are the thing that separates us from machines or computers... If you never live, you never die....

2 Replies

@Fido,

Wonderful post, Fido. You are a frequent breath of fresh air (when I understand you that is).
It seems that the role of politician is dehumanizing. The framework of the successful professional political lifegame REQUIRES that one contribute to the murder of young soliders and "enemy" foreigners.
Cheney reminds me of the Lion who lacked a heart. Now for the first time he has one, but it's not really his.

0 Replies

@Fido,

I agree with your criticism but not on how you relate it with uncertainty, far fetched to say the least...the problem to me seems more related with stupidity as if I remember it well has been described as the the 3 force responsible for change in the landscape of our globe...and of course where there is weakness there always are predators...

0 Replies

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

Hmmm...seems like a lot of activity in this thread over the last few days. i think you can expect me to post a characteristically long response, but it may have to wait a day or two (i've got some irl stuff to deal with.)

(BTW, i apologize for the walls of text i sometimes generate. i know that they can be laborious, but i feel that they develop my argument better than random post exchanges manage to do. i still sympathize with the bored, tho', and i sympathize with your skipping them. Ha!

(PS: While I take many an adversarial position on this forum, i do not mean to impugn my adversaries, or their contrariness. I merely disagree with a lot of people, sometimes on very superficial grounds; and on a philosophy forum -- technicalities matter, otherwise the issue would be moot. Basically, what I am trying to make clear, right now, is that when I argue against the position made by my interlocuter, regardless of my vehemenence, i do not mean to proffer personal insult...)

My wall of text is forthcoming, but i thought that i would at least contribute this tonight:

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

I wasn't saying I think he is technically correct, because I feel so...It was to make him feel better...

Well, what you said was:

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

If you want me to admit your right due to technicalities...then you are...I will say this to make you feel better...

That is a bit confusing, and it mostly feels as if it were pandering. I you think matters are differently, then say so; if you "feel" differently, then say so. If pandering is your objective then go to a political forum, otherwise say what you think...

0 Replies

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

Sorry for the incomplete reply above...there was a login issue that resulted in a partial double post, i apologize for the partial replication:

Hmmm...seems like a lot of activity in this thread over the last few days. i think you can expect me to post a characteristically long response, but it may have to wait a day or two (i've got some irl stuff to deal with.)

(BTW, i apologize for the walls of text i sometimes generate. i know that they can be laborious, but i feel that they develop my argument better than random post exchanges manage to do. i still sympathize with the bored, tho', and i sympathize with your skipping them. Ha!

(PS: While I take many an adversarial position on this forum, i do not mean to impugn my adversaries, or their contrariness. I merely disagree with a lot of people, sometimes on very superficial grounds; and on a philosophy forum -- technicalities matter, otherwise the issue would be moot. Basically, what I am trying to make clear, right now, is that when I argue against the position made by my interlocuter, regardless of my vehemenence, i do not mean to proffer personal insult...)

My wall of text is forthcoming, but i thought that i would at least contribute this tonight:

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

I wasn't saying I think he is technically correct, because I feel so...It was to make him feel better...

Well, what you said was:

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

If you want me to admit your right due to technicalities...then you are...I will say this to make you feel better...

That is a bit confusing, and it mostly feels as if it were pandering. If you think matters are differently, then say so; if you "feel" differently, then say so. If pandering is your objective then go to a political forum, otherwise say what you think...

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

Without a conscience, there is no such thing as reality on any level...

Would the world still go on, etc? yes, but it would not make a difference at all...and if no one was smart enough to have a conscience to observe, and discuss these concepts than "it" really is existence, but there certainly is no such thing as reality....

Reality, would consist of doing things...But not even understanding why, or in any way to change the effects of it...therefore it would be the same as non-existence...

If you mean that self-consciousness necessarily develops a conscience, i would agree. And i would also agree that the development of conscience is a verification of self-consciousness. But i would not agree that reality is the result of self-consciousness. Many things happen that do not require consciousness (self- or otherwise.)

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

Reality comes, when something is created with the intelligence of understanding a conscience, and or questioning it, and or observing, and altering it, or accepting it in a way so that there are things that are understood and agreed upon...

That does seem to be putting the cart before the horse, doesn't it? How is an event to be judged before it happens? That is to say, if reality is taken to be as some sort of ultimate, or limit experience, then it must occur prior to its evaluation. And if the evaluation is the determinative event, then doesn't that event take place before a conscience (as understanding) can develop? Which is it?

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

Without it, it would not really matter much at all...So much so, we would not even realize there is a such thing as existence even though we would exist....and truly there would be no such thing as "reality"...

If you call that reality, than I guess I could say you and north are right...to me, that is not a reality...That is just being....

Reality comes when there is some kind of accepting, and understanding of what reality itself is...When that is achieved, than there is reality...without it, there is no such thing as reality...

Zing..."being" does precede "existing" in this context. Thus, in the understanding of most of the participants of this discussion: being precedes "existence"/self-consciousness = conscience. "Reality comes when there is some kind of accepting... of what reality is" is entirely distinct from reality, to the detriment of understanding.

i am not saying that there is no such thing as conscience, but that conscience proceeds from the reality, and evolves with it...

Its natural contrast is against expectations or statistics...

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

I can respond hopefully somewhat simply but really it is not a simple question.

Reality for a theist is not limited to an object posited to exist in space. Those objects are natural objects and their reality is one that is supposed but never experienced because, for example, the same experience could be an illusion so what distinguishes an illusion from a reality is not in the experience. But experience is. This can be seen directly by the fact of sensation or consciousness of any kind. It is therefore real.

Theists directly experience the impossibility of a cause in existence for existence. That the universe can contain its own explanation is discounted by several methods. For simplicity you can just think that physical law as it is, however it is, didn't need to have been that way and may, should the homogeneity of time break down, even change in the future. So theists are acutely aware of the lack of explanation in any scientific explanation and the dependence of science on experience itself. You can see it in the fact that all scientific theory is based in experiment ultimately or at least that any claim that a scientific theory be true must come from experiment. The experiencing that occurs during experiment shows that the validity of scientific theories does not come from the theory but from reality itself. I could say much more but it would no longer be simple.

Now comes the hard part. Most scientism-ists accuse theists of positing therefore some contingent entity called God outside of nature, and claiming that that entity in fact exists. They critique that position by saying it is based on lack of evidence. This is a strawman as theists (other than fundamentalists) do not in fact do that. Instead they have experience directly of the Being that is at the foundation of science. In a sense the fact that science requires experiment means it is dependent on something, some reality, to determine its theories. Theists have experienced that reality absolutely and call it - sometimes Him as in the case with personal religions - God. It is not natural as it has nothing to do with what is. Nor is it some posited object that could have either existed or not but in fact does. Rather the conclusion is necessary once experience is. Even if no person were one plus one would be two and the fact that no one was would be true. That is sufficient grounds for theism understood properly.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Many people think now that the earth "really" orbits the sun and not the other way around.

Of course that is nonsense. Motion is relative and if one body orbits another the other will surely orbit the first.

I was told once that this fact was well known at the time of Copernicus.

But which motion are we talking about. The revolution of the earth on its axis or the orbit of the earth around the sun. It does not actually matter. Einstein has shown how a description of a rotating earth with static stars is equivalent to a description of a non-rotating earth with rotating stars. In fact for the earth to rotate relative to the stars the stars must rotate relative to the earth.

So what is it we experience when we look over and see the station pull away? What did we experience just before we realize that it is us on the train that is moving. And what is it we experience when we know we are driving north then suddenly see a sign or landmark that indicates we are moving south. What is this "sense of direction" a sense of? Our senses of motion and direction are not objective. We didn't realize anything. Still we realized... well what shall I say?....what word shall I use for that something that is not anything but a pure experience of direction or motion? Some will say we only experienced our brains. Ha!

1 Reply

@justintruth,

I think it is very simple, but is still difficult to express rationally... We should try to remember that this was the same problem that silenced Galileo...He dared to mock the metaphysics of the Pope, who was rather in the right according to his beliefs... If you accept a supreme being creator, you accept that this being does not have to follow your understanding of order, and that he/she/it has the power to make reality different in different places and times as suits them...Science correctly rejects this idea which is incompatible reason and observation and intuition...From my perspective it is not foolish to wonder, or to study, or to apply ones observations of the near to the far... Until we can say with certainty it is rather pointless, and science pushed too far beyond knowledge in the quest of unfounded certainty is as useless as dogma pushed beyond its primary focus... We need to explain what is before us... WE do not need to understand or explain everything...

0 Replies

@justintruth,

The apparent movement of the sun, moon, and stars across our sky is an illusion...a function of the fact that the Earth rotates on its axis. There are subtleties of motion, gravity, and physics that influence this a bit...but the fact is that the apparent motion of those bodies across the sky is an illusion caused by the rotation.

Whatever other point you were trying to make escapes me.

BOTTOM LINE ON REALITY: Whatever the actual REALITY is...that is what IS.

3 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

The apparent movement of the sun, moon, and stars across our sky is an illusion...a function of the fact that the Earth rotates on its axis. There are subtleties of motion, gravity, and physics that influence this a bit...but the fact is that the apparent motion of those bodies across the sky is an illusion caused by the rotation.

Whatever other point you were trying to make escapes me.

BOTTOM LINE ON REALITY: Whatever the actual REALITY is...that is what IS.

And to say: that, what ever it is; is not sufficient information upon which to form a conception... We have to settle for building up a notion of reality from the bits and pieces of it we have come to know...

1 Reply

@Fido,

Quote:

And to say: that, what ever it is; is not sufficient information upon which to form a conception... We have to settle for building up a notion of reality from the bits and pieces of it we have come to know...

I am not talking about any concepts of REALITY...and I never have been. On several occasions I have actually mentioned that.

REALITY...IS what IS...whether we can understand it; know about it; or conceive of it. Whatever is the REALITY...is the REALITY.

But apparently that is not something easily conceded by some people here.

So be it.

My guess is that a human being trying to gain comprehension or appreciation of REALITY...is like an ant trying to gain comprehension and appreciation for quantum mechanics.

But give it a shot.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, I agree.
Knowing everyday or ordinary"reality" is when one is realistic, when one is free from delusion. Knowing "Ultimate--or Absolute--Reality" is something else; it is what is "ultimately" the case, but essentially unknowable (except as it manifests (is refracted) in ordinary reality; it manifests to us in ways relative to our nature*. People who claim that they KNOW ultimate/absolute reality are probably delusional. The only thing I claim to "know" about Ultimate/Absolute Reality is that it IS (or that I believe it is) and that I am one with it. It is a mystery and, Frankly, Smile

I like it that way, but I do not want to be "mystified" regarding the knowable aspects of relative reality.

*I have used your "ant" metaphor often, claiming that our perceptual and conceptual limitations reflect our physiological nature. Like ants with their physiologically constituted inability to understand our concerns we cannot understand the nature of Ultimate/Absolute Reality--except for the perceivable fact that we are It.

0 Replies

I dont usually get into drawn out posts but here goes ; look the reality from the theists point of view is from two ways the first is from the bible , the next is that this god is omni present in the Universe from the bible first; the bible is a condensed version of Ancient History Anceint History ( the Summerians and Akkadians ) talks of multiple gods , and actually not even gods but calls them " lofty ones " by the Akkadians , this is all written down in the form of cuniforms , not spoken history , stories , to verbally handed down , but written down Ancient History go back far enough , 6000yrs ago , the travel forward in History we find that when we reach the bible , the " lofty ones " become gods , then , these gods become " mono " god so the Anunnaki 6000yrs ago were the gods , of the time extraterrestrials , if you disagree look it up second; god is omni present ; I have always thought that each atom( and even quantum)has the potential create life IF in combination with other elements in the periodic table , a molecule , notice that the molecule has a geometry , and that geometry has an energy that flows around the molecule , whether this energy flows in a circular shape or takes a more complicated route , a zig-zag , for example life will take hold anywhere it can , but it needs a place that is stable , to take hold , such as our planet sure it might take hold on other less stable places , moons etc. but for life to grow to the point that these living beings evolve to the point of thinking , questioning , inventive , discovering , observing , understanding , abstract , in all its facaulties takes a special place not just any place , our planet now once this has happened , we think of some sort of god is responsible for this , theists do any way but theist don't take into account is that , if any god , any omni god is in fact responsible for our actual existence that means that this omni god is fact indifferent to the good -bad , evil - god , polarity since both exist the Omni god has no particular preference , either way , from the view point of an atheist

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

If reality is not a concept, and I agree that is true, then the word: reality is a label for ignorance.

1 Reply

@Razzleg,

Quote:

That is a bit confusing, and it mostly feels as if it were pandering. If you think matters are differently, then say so; if you "feel" differently, then say so. If pandering is your objective then go to a political forum, otherwise say what you think...

I think if you scope it down basically microscopically, life, that exists without a conscience... there is existence, without a conscience...but it is being, not existing, nor any reality...I think that existence without a conscience is not a reality at all...it is just being...

It is easy to see this is clear...Because if we did not understand existence, and reality...than we clearly are able to do it now, and look in hindsight, and say these concepts...But if we were not capable of inquiring about the very principals...there would be no real existence other than being...and we certainly would not understand a reality....

Quote:

If you mean that self-consciousness necessarily develops a conscience, i would agree. And i would also agree that the development of conscience is a verification of self-consciousness. But i would not agree that reality is the result of self-consciousness. Many things happen that do not require consciousness (self- or otherwise.)

But does that = reality? What are some of these things?? I bet they are all inanimate things?? Therefore, they are being, not existing, or a reality...

Because if we were not here to understand, observe, change, alter them...Then they would just be...If you call that existence, and a reality, then I can not argue that...But that is not existence, or a reality to me...the point at which a reality is a reality...Is when something understands what reality is...and in effect observers, changes, alters, accepts "it" If things do not, and nothing can, then it is just being, and the "proof" is it would not matter if they exist at all, or not...therefor, there it is the same as no existence, and there is no reality...

Quote:

That does seem to be putting the cart before the horse, doesn't it?

No, Not any different than looking in hindsight, and saying that life forms not smart enough to understand that reality comes at the point of understanding it, and questioning it...= reality...and still existing, and having a reality, or understanding what either are...And it is completely true, (think about it)

Quote:

How is an event to be judged before it happens?

God...

Quote:

That is to say, if reality is taken to be as some sort of ultimate, or limit experience, then it must occur prior to its evaluation. And if the evaluation is the determinative event, then doesn't that event take place before a conscience (as understanding) can develop? Which is it?

No, because if a God is real, then there are both...There is an ultimate, a life, is a limit experience...and there is no estimate of a decisive event (only by a skeptic)....Which throws things out of balance, although they do not see this...and it does neither, take place before, or after, but is constantly ongoing....Always was, and has been, and will be....

Quote:

Zing..."being" does precede "existing" in this context. Thus, in the understanding of most of the participants of this discussion: being precedes "existence"/self-consciousness = conscience.

Zing, By your very math, then the equation could be: Conscience = Self Consciousness / "existence"

Quote:

"Reality comes when there is some kind of accepting... of what reality is" is entirely distinct from reality, to the detriment of understanding.

Why do we all still have a conscience? Self-consciousness? If it is entirely distinct from reality? And to the harm or loss of understanding?? ( by you listing below)

Quote:

i am not saying that there is no such thing as conscience, but that conscience proceeds from the reality, and evolves with it...

Read above, If God is real, then the conscience came Before, existence, and reality...To the point where if God himself is real, then they were always one...and If a God is not real...without a conscience to understand existence itself, or reality...There would be none...and if it makes you feel better...there would be existence of things...Which I call being....But they would not understand what a reality is...or what reality means...We can do this, and say this, by looking back, and using hindsight...This shows we NEEDED a direct link or correlation to the line of a conscience to "understand" existence, and reality....If we did not ever have it, How could we say we existed, or had a reality, when we do not know what they are, or mean?? This shows, that the point existence is existence, and reality is reality, is when we knew, and understood, what they mean, and were, and are...If we never did, we would have never known...So much so, It would not even matter if there was The Universe, Time, Space, Sun, Moon, Planets, Water, Oxygen, etc...

Quote:

Its natural contrast is against expectations or statistics...

Zing!...That "proves" it is a NECESSARY REQUIREMENT to understand what existence, and reality are!

2 Replies

Reality from the view point of theists

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know