18
   

Reality from the view point of theists

 
 
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2012 01:08 am
@XXSpadeMasterXX,
XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

razzleg wrote:
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....

razzleg wrote:
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...


Well then, a large part (although perhaps not the most vital portion) of our disagreement seems to be semantic. i think of "being" as a more vague and "abstract" concept. What you think of as "existence" is what i think of as "being", and what you regard as "existent", i regard as "historical" / or "subjective". i'm not interested in a semantic argument, so i'll do my best to lay those aspects of my argument aside, and conform to your nomenclature.

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...

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


XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:
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)


razzleg wrote:
How is an event to be judged before it happens?


XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:
God...


razzleg wrote:
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....


Well, the question of god's evident existence does seem to fit this thread's basic theme, but its certitude has not been proven in my reading of it. You seem to regard god as, at the very least, an observer, and i am not sure that this is verifiable. Being does not seem to require an observer. (Although i would refer you to Bishop Berkeley as a resource for your own point of view.) What if being occurred without a transcendental observer? Then existential life would only have access to hindsight without a definite guarantor. "Reality" would then be the product of a subjective consciousness, not an omniscient one. That would not make it "be" any less, by your standards, but it would make reality more tenuous.

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:
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)


Well, by our new, shared vocabulary, i wouldn't say that "conscience" is distinct from "reality", i would say that it is product of it (and while its presence verifies its contingent "reality", it does not guarantee it as a verifiable reflection or containment or definition of that "reality").

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


XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:
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...


razzleg wrote:
Its natural contrast is against expectations or statistics...


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


By my model, individual consciences are possible without an omniscient consciousness. There is no necessary point to individual consciousness, and consciences are results (not predetermined goals.) Existence (or reality) may continue without evidence, or certitude, or faith in a god. Your last point that understanding is a "necessary requirement" of "existence" might actually be true, for homo sapiens, but that does not make it a "proof" of divine activity.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2012 04:04 am
@Cyracuz,
Quote:
An attempt at humor. Not your brand of it apparently.


My bad.

Just thought you might have gotten angry at something I said and I could not figure out what it was.

0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2012 04:07 am
@Fido,
Quote:
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 have a label for many things I cannot grasp, cannot measure, and have only the smallest fraction of knowledge of...and I suspect so do you.

I do know that whatever the REALITY of existence IS...that is what it is.

I do not have to know a thing about it in order to know that.

Quote:
I think you have a name.


I do. It is Frank Apisa. Are you meaning something else with this comment?
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2012 06:48 am
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

It is rotating. Apparently, it thinks that if you run around a tree fast enough while you are naked, you will eventually **** yourself.
I once drove to work so fast that I got there before I left...
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2012 06:59 am
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

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.
People who know the facts of the matter still say sun rise, and sun set... We all live in the apparent world, but think in the evident world... Did you ever see any of the proofs offered by Galileo??? For example; He could drop a cannon ball off a tower, and it would seem to fall straight down, but he would show it was falling in the same direction as the earth was traveling with the momentum given to it by the moving earth... The reasonable expectation we have for things to behave in relation to others as though one were fixed, and the other is not is from the begining, skewed... Everything is in movement, and everything effects everything else...
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2012 07:07 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
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 have a label for many things I cannot grasp, cannot measure, and have only the smallest fraction of knowledge of...and I suspect so do you.

I do know that whatever the REALITY of existence IS...that is what it is.

I do not have to know a thing about it in order to know that.

Quote:
I think you have a name.


I do. It is Frank Apisa. Are you meaning something else with this comment?
All that is fine, Frank; as long as we do not **** ourselves that by having a name that we have anything significant besides...Consider that some Bhuddists give a great care to the proper names of things... Why??? We talk about using the name of God in Vain, and it is pretty much a secret, and why??? We have myths, like how the hypo got his name, and stories like the one of Rumpelstilskin, and facts about primitive peoples never giving you their name...Every true concept has a name... But moral forms have names as well...The difference is that moral forms are names only, pointing towards infinites of which we can have little true knowledge; and true forms and concepts are knowledge...
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Thu 29 Mar, 2012 08:23 am
@Fido,
Quote:
All that is fine, Frank; as long as we do not **** ourselves that by having a name that we have anything significant besides.


I have never made a claim of that sort, Fido. In fact, I have gone out of my way to acknowledge that my comment is nothing more than a tautology. I have also acknowledged that I do not have any idea of what the REALITY actually is. I have also noted that I am not addressing what the REALITY is...or whether or not we can understand it or appreciate it.

But at this point, we cannot even get people to acknowledge that WHAT ACTUALLY IS...IS.

I've stopped talking about REALITY. Now, the conversation is about how frustrating it is to have conversations with people who will not even accept a tautology...and who actually make a case for why it makes sense to refuse to accept it.
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Mar, 2012 04:31 am
@Frank Apisa,
not to change the subject, but it seems as though Frank would not even mind a breath of fresh air...

Frank I am sure you seen, Tiger won last week?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Mar, 2012 04:56 am
@XXSpadeMasterXX,
SpadeMaster, it was a great win for the Tiger. I hope he is back...if only because of his positive effect on the game of golf. I also hope his attitude changes. It certainly would not hurt him to acknowledge and smile at a few adoring kids in the fan base once in a while.
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Mar, 2012 06:12 am
@Frank Apisa,
lol, agreed!
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Mar, 2012 06:17 am
@XXSpadeMasterXX,
XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:
Frank I am sure you seen, Tiger won last week?


has he started banging Perkin's waitresses again, good for him
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Mar, 2012 06:17 am
@Frank Apisa,
What actually is, is not... All of reality is in a state of flux, nascent, in the process of becoming something other, and we are ourselves changing at the same time... There is nothing fixed, and nothing that is as we would like to consider what is, that is, -as a thing, solid, frozen and unchanging...

You should not feel alone, Frank... Most of the people in the world seem to want to feel exactly as you, that they have some safe harbor, and some pier they can moor to in the shifting currents of life... Time, space, matter, and more importantly, even our lives and relationships are all dynamic and never static... People seek the unchanging in the midst of change, and for that reason seek God, and build social forms... It is all illusion brought on by the great insecurity of life, out of necessity for peace and stasis, but ultimately pointless... Change is the only constant, and that too is inconstant...

I do not mind some tautology if it has some truth in it, but as they go, yours is very obviously a poor one...
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Mar, 2012 06:28 am
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:
Frank I am sure you seen, Tiger won last week?


has he started banging Perkin's waitresses again, good for him

There once was a fellow at perkins
Who always was jerkin his gurkin
the waitress said perkins don't allow no jerkin
your gurkins for furkin not jerkin-

so he took out the waitress from perkins
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Mar, 2012 08:53 am
@Fido,
Fido your statement, that
.... All of reality is in a state of flux, nascent, in the process of becoming something other, and we are ourselves changing at the same time... There is nothing fixed, and nothing that is as we would like to consider what is, that is, -as a thing, solid, frozen and unchanging..."
reflects the essential contributions of Heraclitus, Neitzsche and zen Buddhism, the tripod of my worldview.
But I do think that Frank's principle, while "poor" in its "truth" content, is nevertheless logically "valid."
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Mar, 2012 01:15 pm
@Fido,
Quote:
What actually is, is not... All of reality is in a state of flux, nascent, in the process of becoming something other, and we are ourselves changing at the same time... There is nothing fixed, and nothing that is as we would like to consider what is, that is, -as a thing, solid, frozen and unchanging...


Amazing that you pretend to know that to be a fact. I think you might not…I think you might be just making a blind guess in that direction.

In any case, even if your guess is correct…then THAT IS THE REALITY. THAT IS…WHAT IS. The state of flux and the change…IS what IS.

Quote:
You should not feel alone, Frank... Most of the people in the world seem to want to feel exactly as you, that they have some safe harbor, and some pier they can moor to in the shifting currents of life... Time, space, matter, and more importantly, even our lives and relationships are all dynamic and never static... People seek the unchanging in the midst of change, and for that reason seek God, and build social forms... It is all illusion brought on by the great insecurity of life, out of necessity for peace and stasis, but ultimately pointless... Change is the only constant, and that too is inconstant...


What you want, Fido, is to feel superior. You are not. In any case, I am not looking for a safe harbor or pier. If the REALITY is a shifting reality, I am content with that. But whatever it is…it is.

Quote:
I do not mind some tautology if it has some truth in it, but as they go, yours is very obviously a poor one...


If that makes you feel better about yourself, Fido…go with it.
north
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Mar, 2012 02:06 pm
Frank

I understand what you are trying to get across

I have been through this before , that there is a fundamental reality , so many times over the yrs

very few have the imagination to understand

you are in a tough position although completely reasoned

so in your defense , I 'm with you here , so far there are just two of us that get nature of the Universe

perhaps a better way putting all of this fundamental reality discussion is to say that the Universe has limits , not anything is possible

cheers

0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Mar, 2012 04:22 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank; if I say change is the only constant because all I have ever learned suggests that it is true, that does not mean any of us has the knowledge to either assert or deny that as fact about all reality... It is pointless to talk of what you do not know, so why bother?... And it has nothing to do with my obvious superiority to say so.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Mar, 2012 04:33 pm
@Fido,
Quote:
Frank; if I say change is the only constant because all I have ever learned suggests that it is true, that does not mean any of us has the knowledge to either assert or deny that as fact about all reality... It is pointless to talk of what you do not know, so why bother?... And it has nothing to do with my obvious superiority to say so.


This comment is garbled and has no meaning. Take your time...think out what you intend to say...and then actually say it.

When I understand what you are trying to say, I will respond.
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Mar, 2012 04:47 pm
@Fido,
Quote:
my obvious superiority to say so.

Or is it possible that it is just a huge superficial ego??

Your superiority is not obvious to me?? How come??

Am I beneath you as well?
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Mar, 2012 06:21 pm
Reality can get people at each others throats at times. I like how this person views reality. I wonder how many people can bear to watch it all.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/20/2019 at 05:38:34