Reality from the view point of theists

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...Or we would be, but not really exist, nor have a reality...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....God...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 conscience was needed first, when being came...(I think we kinda agree, just have it flipped a bit from the 2 different ends) 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...I would consider that a first...not after...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...

I would say that God's being and presence...(his conscience, made up existence, and reality....)

They always were...It depends on how you slice your apple...

I believe they were always one, and came as one...With a conscience being the factor between "true existence" and a "reality" but I do not believe in just being is an evolutionary way that "existence" without a "conscience"...is "reality"...

What does the relativity of motion mean and what do you think of the relativity of motion?

One other thing, Frank, it turns out that you are mostly right that when viewed from a vantage point in space fixed relative to the average motion of the stars most of what we see as motion of the earth is due to the earths turning.

But it turns out not all of it is. Most stars are moving away from each other. Also many are often orbiting the centers of galaxies. Some are even in binary pairs orbiting each other. That motion cannot be explained as apparent motion due to the rotation of the earth. Also, if you look very closely over a year you can see some motion of the stars that is due to the fact that the earth goes around the sun not due to the fact that the earth spins on its axis.

Also there is planetary motion. The planets wander around when viewed from the earth because they, like the earth orbit the sun.

What do you think of the fact that the earth spins on its axis but also travels around the sun. Check out stellar parallax!

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

A guy that thinks like you will enjoy it!

Check out this too!

http://library.thinkquest.org/26038/low-tech/en/classical_relativity/1/1.html

With the wikipedia old farts like us can become geniuses! Remember to send them some sheckles if you use them all the time!

I am a genius! I read a wikipedia article!

Best Regards

None of that argues effectively against Frank's point that the apparent motion of celestial bodies is only an illusion preicated upon a fixed, unmoving earth. His point sustains his claim that there is a reality independent of our perceptions.

I don't know if that is necessary. REALITY is a label for reality. It is what actually is here in this mysterious EXISTENCE. The fact that we seem unable to comprehend it does not seem to me to be a reason to equate it with ignorance...to consider it a label for ignorance.

It is a bit of a laugh that we humans think we are so intelligent we should be able to understand (to one degree or another) what the REALITY actually IS. It is even more laughable that many of us think we actually have figured it out...and can reason out the true nature of REALITY.

Somewhere in this vast universe there may be sentient beings who are to Homo Sapiens what we are to Australopithecus...and it is quite possible that they do not know what the REALITY is either. Maybe it is beyond comprehension in any meaningful form.

So we can enjoy the search for the truth...and we can continue the search as earnestly as possible, but for now, we ought all be able to at least acknowledge that the true nature of REALITY (whatever it happens to be) probably is hidden from us.

There are people here in this thread who seemingly cannot do that. They cannot even agree with what is essentially a tautology.

Whatever the REALITY IS...it IS.

I read a lot of that stuff also...it is very interesting. But as Setanta pointed out, none of that impacts on what I was saying about the apparent motion of the sun, moon, and stars across our sky. The effect is an illusion created by the rotation of the Earth on its axis.

The argument is simple. In order for the earth to rotate "really" and the stars to remain fixed "really" then it must also be true that the earth "really" stays still and the stars "really" move. Try to imagine one without the ability to imagine exactly the same situation the other way. The difference between the two apparently different situations is not the motion but how it is looked at or imagined. All motion is relative.

Just imagine two identical baseballs passing each other. Is one stationary and the other moving? If that is so then look at it differently and the first that was stationary is now moving and the other that was moving is now stationary. You can see that by the symmetry of the question.

The point is that the "stationary-ness" of some object is not "independent of our perceptions". The objective fact is that all motion is relative. What is stationary is what does not move relative to the observer. Therefore it is not independent of our perceptions.

Frank are you suggesting that the Universe is rotating ?

...Time f u.meds North...

just asking Frank a question

I'll let Setanta speak for himself...but I think you are missing the point.

The effect of the sun, moon, and stars moving across the sky is an illusion created by the rotation of the Earth on its axis. This is true despite the fact that there are whales in the ocean...birds that fly...insects that bite...liquids that solidify...or anything else irrelevant.

Will you point out what I said that causes you to suppose I am suggesting that?

By the way, I have no idea if the universe is rotating...or even if it has an axis around which it can rotate. I am just interested in what I said that caused you to ask that question.

I read a lot of that stuff also...it is very interesting. But as Setanta pointed out, none of that impacts on what I was saying about the apparent motion of the sun, moon, and stars across our sky. The effect is an illusion created by the rotation of the Earth on its axis.

It is rotating. Apparently, it thinks that if you run around a tree fast enough while you are naked, you will eventually **** yourself.

At no time did i state or imply that the stars are "fixed." What you have there is the fallacy known as a straw man. Have fun ranting against your imagination.

What does my comment about the rotation of the Earth have to do with whether or not the universe is rotating???

The universe is rotating? You know that? Where is its axis?




What is that about?

An attempt at humor. Not your brand of it apparently.

I don't really think the universe is rotating. I have no opinion.
All motion seems to be relative to the motion and location of whatever we gauge motion against.

Cool... you have a label for something you cannot grasp, cannot measure, and have only the smallest fraction of knowledge of, if it is only one single thing which we cannot with certain knowledge say, and you think you have something... I think you have a name...