there is a fundamental reality

So according to that, the failure of descriptions of "God" does not constitute evidence that there is no God, or indeed does not rule out equating that "God" with "ultimate/fundamental/objective reality". (?)

Cy!... Nous sommes d'accord

Certainly not--nor have i ever denied that there is a god. However, as usual, you carry things much farther than the argument supports by equating your "god" with reality. However, if that gratifies you, help yourself.

Not my "God" and not my "fundamental reality". Both are equally dysfunctional and meaningless as far as I am concerned.

Then why do you bring them up?

Because my argument throughout has been that those claiming a "fundamental reality" are philosophically equivalent to "deists without a deity". Secular absolutism is just as logically flawed as religious absolutism.

Only to the extent that people who allege that there is cognition or perception are philosophically equivalent to the religiously absolute. If one claims that reality is only what one perceives, whether or not one is willing to amdit it, one has assumed a burden of demonstrating that perception is possible, and defining in what perception consists.

Set, my intention was not to try to put words in your mouth, just to be clear.

I see the whole issue of fundamental reality as a variation of the god issue.
An atheist may reject god, but if he proceeds to embrace an idea of fundamental reality, all he's really done is redesign the concept, removing the aspects of anthropomorphism, thereby making the concept an acceptable belief. He hasn't really broken free of anything, just redefined his prison...

Your post just made mine superfluous.

Both you and Fresco ignore that naturalistic science provides metrics for testing phenonema, which can be replicated by people from different cultural and linguistic heritages. This cannot be said of theism, and, in fact, differences of cultural and linguistic heritages often, usually, define the distinctions between theistic "theoies." Concepts such as angels, demons, transubstantiation and a host of other theistic concepts are not subject to any metric which people from different cultural and linguistic heritages can apply to test those theistic concepts. It is simple-minded and absurd to equate theistic beliefs to theses and theories of naturalistic science.

Once again, i don't deny that any god exists, because i don't know that to a certainty. However, absent a metric for testing the hypothesis, absent any replicable evidence, i don't believe that there is. If you cannot demonstrate a phenomenon with a replicable metric, you have no claim to make about reality.

Phenomena, ba dee dee dee dee
Phenomena, ba dee dee dee dee

That is true, but though their cultural and linguistic heritages may differ, simple facts that are not set in relation to other facts tell us relatively little. To get a bigger picture we need to put facts in relation to each other, and in that process, cultural and linguistic heritage will influence the outcome.

I am curious how the big bang theory would have been formulated if it had been proposed by a man of eastern culture and heritage, rather than a european priest. That european priest had a cultural heritage which demanded a beginning , and so he sought to arrange the facts so that he got what he wanted. A man of eastern cultural heritage would not be constrained by the same assumptions as a man of the west, and would therefore likely create a very different theory from the same facts.

You're offfering a distinction without a difference, and you're contradicting yourself in the process. If there are "simple facts," then upon what basis do you allege that we may know what they are?

As for a "big bang," whether or not it was promulgated by a Belgian priest is irrelvant in the face of the conditional* acceptance of the thesis by men "of eastern culture and heritage," by those of any culture or heritage anywhere who accept and apply the methods and metrics of naturalistic science.

*Additionally, it is not known if the so-called big bang was a beginning, or simply the farthest point back in time which we are capable of identifying. It is possible that the singularity erased any evidence of something which might have preceded it.

Upon the basis of naturalistic science. Facts are uncovered, but theories are created.
Take E=MC2 for instance. The equation is sound enough, but if we want to use it to form a theory, it is likely that we will carry our assumptions about energy, mass and movements with us. The result will be something we can relate to, but even though every single fact that supports the theory checks out, that is no guarantee that the theory itself is valid.

Ptolemy devised a system that can be used to navigate the oceans with pretty good accuracy. The system he devised is fundamentally flawed, since he believed the earth to be the center of the universe. The usefulness of his system indicates that it is a correct description of the movements of stars and planets, though we know today that it is not.

Similarly, usefulness is often the criteria by which we judge the success of our efforts. But we know from history that it is no guarantee that we don't have most things wrong...

Ptolemaic astronomy was debunked centuries ago by Tyco Brahe's observations because it does not accurately describe the motions of celestial bodies. You have completely failed to address the subject of how one ascertains the "facts" to which you have now referred again. Theory has a very specific and rigorous definition in naturalistic science.

And yet his system works. That could be an indication that our own modern knowledge, even though it works, is wrong.

That could be an indication that you don't know what you're talking about. Latitude can be found using instruments such as an astrolabe, or even something so simple as the notched sticks used by Norse seamen. But Ptolemaic astronomy never predicted the motions of celestial bodies well enough to find logitude. Longitude can be found by observing the moons of Jupiter, which the ancient astronomers were not even aware exist. Predicting the motions of most stars visible to the naked eye is a relatively simple business because they are sufficiently remote that they appear to move in relation to the earth--which is to say, they don't contradict a geocentic system. I'd interested to know what source you have for a claim that Ptolemaic astronomy was used for navigation. The astrolabe was probably invented by Hipparchus. Ptolemy used such a device (an inclinometer) to determine the positions of celestial bodies--which is not at all the same as saying his geocentric astronomical system was used for navigation.

This figure shows the position of Mars relative to Earth for a 10 year period if you use Ptolemy's system:



The loops in the figure show instances in that 10 year period where it appears Mars is moving backward. Would this be satisfactory to you, Cyracuz?

Regarding your perception/cognition comments the view of recent cognitive scientists is that "reality" is a two way interaction between observer and observed. Neither has ontological status without the other, despite the fact that descriptions of reality for everyday purposes tend to ignore the observer side of the interaction ( but note also that has ceased to be the case for quantum mechanics). It follows from this view, that "reality" is in essence species specific, since (minimally) the physiology of the observer will delimit the interaction. And the problem then is that any concept of "fundamental reality" involving say "the set of all species interactions", is essentially an oxymoron since that set is potentially infinite and therefore NOT "fundamental".

Fundamental is not my term. Nevertheless, you fail to define adequately and demonstrate cognition and perception. Essentially, you want to place a full stop at a certain point after cognition/perception, while inferentially insisting that cognition/perception be accepted without the necessary definition and demonstration. Which is your problem and not mine. Like Cyracuz' "facts," you apparently expect your claims to be accepted with less rigor than you apply to the question of whether or not there is an absolute reality.

Isn't there a logical fallacy that covers a sentence like that...AND...are you not addicted to that particular fallacy, Fresco?