Reality from the view point of theists

Futurama fan eh?

Sounds like a plan to me, Fresco.

As soon as you find a "big brain" who says it is inappropriate to consider "the sun and stars crossing the sky" as an illusion, you let us know.

But there has to be a time limit...and I think five years is more than generous.

So go to work...and within five years, come back with a comment from a "big brain" who thinks "the sun moving across the sky" is not an illusion.

And so that you do not get the wrong idea about this, I think this discussion has been a delight so far. I do thank you for persisting.

You have to love philosophy.

Okay...I gotta admit that I liked your entry better than Izzy's...

...but I am a Monty Python fan, so I am prejudiced in the matter.

Funny bit!

Izzy has been infected by RL. He can't get through the day without spamming us with vids . . .

Don't bloody start that. I posted a still image, Fresco suggested a clip. In any event it followed your rule about being short.

Frank, here's my take on John Searle's statement about subjectivity and objective. I've always like it, but right now, with my raging tooth ache, I'm not sure I can do it justice.
I think of all of us right now sharing subjectivities. To the extent that we share much of our subjective life, living as we do in the same culture, we feel like we are banging each other around with objective arguments based on facts. I see us as contrasting ideas rooted in our personality systems (consisting mainly of interests, drives, and values). Our experienced world is itself a moving on-going phenomenal field shaped by the interaction between "objective" environmental conditions and our equally objective physiological and culturally constituted make-ups.
I think Searle was acknowledging something like this in his statement. But then he called it all an objective fact. He was convinced, as I am, that subjectivity is a fact. I believe in an objective Reality, but that reality contains subjective states, you and I are in them right now. Nevertheless, I not a solipsist: when my urologist said oops! while doing my vasectomy I crunched up to ask him what happened with a strong sense of his objective reality. But this is philosophy where the reality we take for granted in everyday life is, thank goodness, ontologically problematical.

You are correct in your thinking frank.
Many words have more than one meaning, but you have to admit that it was fun playing with an allusion.

Havin' a bad day, Boss?

I was actually, my daughter's late home and there's a sex offender that's been active in the local area. She's just texted me to say she's fine, but for a bit she wasn't answering her phone.

Funny story, JL...and well told.

Reminds me of the doctor saying, "Uh oh!" while checking out a guys heart...and when asked says, "I just remembered I was supposed to drop my wife's car off for an oil change today--and I forgot."

I will respond to something other things in your post in a minute or two.

JL,

It can reasonably be argued that “there is no objective REALITY” is a definitional impossibility. If there truly is no objective REALITY…then that IS the objective reality. No amount of subjective considerations can change that.

Let me see if I can make my point about the objective reality this way:

If the question at hand is, “Is there sentient life on any planet circling the nearest five stars to Sol?”…we can sit around and discuss the issue for as long as we want; we can introduce probability using the Drake equation or the Rare Earth equation; we can “philosophize” from here to Hell and back; we can use the opinions of common folk or scientific wonders…and can, by arm twisting and persuasion, arrive at a consensus as to whether there is or not.

But…there is an objective reality about the answer. Either there is sentient life on one of the planets circling the nearest five stars to Sol…or there is no sentient life on any of those planets...and no amount of agreement between the people discussing it can change that objective reality in any way.

That is the REALITY of that issue.

When we speak of the more general REALITY of existence…that same things holds. What EXISTS…exists; what IS…is. It may be that “what is” is that each of us has a separate REALITY; that the REALITY is like a quantum particle that changes as it is being observed; that it is static and the same for everyone; or that it is different for everyone.

But ultimately, whatever exists...is what exists.

Apparently nobody is going to change his/her mind here…and that is just fine. We are here to discuss stuff we probably cannot discuss in our non-cyber life, because the conditions for such discussions do not present themselves easily or readily.

I’m enjoying it…and I hope everyone participating enjoys it also. We are not going to resolve anything…I think we all know that. But I hope each of us is getting what we can out of the interplay.

This seems to be what religion exploits. About all we can do here is try and use logic. What are the probabilities of such things happening?

Do gingerbread men have souls that end up in heaven after we eat them or do they end up in the toilet? I do realize that that sounds completely stupid but what makes it any more stupid than us going to heaven?

No, it doesn't sound stupid. I think that gingerbread souls go to gingerbread heaven of toilets. Trouble is, human Heaven falls short of ideal because it has no toilets by which to receive gingerbread cookies.

We participate on A2K for similar reasons: it's a gas, and a kind of gas we are not permitted to enjoy in normal life. I think your argument regarding Reality is just as reasonble as mine, and I don't think either of us--or anyone alive--has come close to "deconstructing" either it or our conceptions of it. But do keep in mind that our use of the construct, objectivity, is laden with subjective power...and that may be an objective fact which I enjoy and understand subjectively.

I normally do not tell you that you should watch a video but I do think that if you have a love one that you really do care about you should watch this one.

I found this video that talks about life, consciousness and people, I am sure that many of you already heard something very similar to this before, believe it or not this guy is an atheist who normally never says anything emotional but in this video he lets it all out.

Atheism and Suicide.

No, it doesn't prove anything, but I wasn't being asked to prove anything.

But yes, I think it does indicate that there had to have been something 'other ' (or bigger or more powerful), than what is present in the reality we can all see. Because if we were only to rely on the reality we can all see - we'd not have the reality that we have, would we?
And the two atheists had to admit that when presented like that, it indicated something to them too. They didn't know what to call it, but they admitted it indicated something.
I mean, do you know any group of sentient beings - people, animals, insects, birds- whatever- who could have created the basis for the reality we have?
I think there was something 'other' - something 'else'.
Call it whatever you want.

Funny, I don't see it as a 'problem' accounting for a creator. I see it as a logical and fairly obvious given. I mean - if this wasn't created (at some point) where did it come from?
All that exists was created - wasn't it? From something? At some time?
If it hasn't been created - that means it doesn't exist and that it's not here - doesn't it?

In terms of giving psychological comfort, yes, nature does do that for me. All of the beauty I see around me comforts me every day. I don't see why I have to separate that from my belief that people (at least as I know them) couldn't have created the natural world I see so that logically (to me) it follows that there is something else.

And in terms of my view of reality - I think even if you stick to the things that can be measured - you'd still be struggling (as atheists) to convince me that there is not something unable to be explained and measured that had to have had a hand in all of it.

I just like to give credit where credit is due and I don't think there's any person in the history of the universe who could have come up with the basis for the reality we have had and continue to have. I think there has to have been something more. I choose to call that 'god' or 'creator'- you can call it 'mystery' or even 'nothing' if you want.

The prime mover argument is logically invalid based on the following reasoning (a version of Russell's Paradox).

1. Everything must come from something
2. That something is a creator.
3. The creator must come from something.

If you argue that even one thing (the creator) does not need to come from something then why would anything need to come from something?

Note that in the field called "second order cybernetics" (the observation of observation) , the option of open or closed "nesting" can be applied. The closure option has been identified with the religious belief.
http://thehope.tripod.com/Bernard_Scott/Observer.html

Unless that creator is not of this reality -as we know it.
And then the parameters of the rules of logic of this human reality do not apply.

That's what I'm saying. I believe there is something outside of or other than what you or I can see or measure in this reality, because I see proof of that all around me.
If something 'other' didn't create it, something not bound by the rules of logical creation of this reality - who did?
I'm saying I can't find any reasonable explanation within the realm of the human reality we can all see and measure.
There has to be something else.



URL: http://able2know.org/topic/185542-6#post-4916427