@mikeymojo,
What you call OBVIOUS needs careful analysis.
You don't need a view of "reality" which is objective or absolute. The necessary requirement is simply "agreement". We use words like "I" and "you" as
loose indicators of communicator and correspondent but consideration of those
entities indicate they are constantly changing and influencing each other (like the states of the board in a board game). The
you or
I of yesterday is never equivalent to the you or I of today, except in broad social terms like "social responsibility". As one writer put it, the major thing that holds us together is
our name which indicates relationships with others. Even the body is constantly changing, and people change their names in different social situations (like here)
In short contrary to lay thinking, "reality" is actually a term used when we
negotiate agreement(....was the accused in his right mind on that day.....was that a rock or a boulder.....etc) and the hopeful conclusion is
agreement about what works.. It is in this sense that I argue that "the reality of God" is
what works for a community of believers who constantly reinforce each others states of belief by the use of the language of belief. An atheist is one who may see this for what it is. An agnostic is one who doesn't understand the social nature of the term "reality" and wants to hold open his position in a futile search for so-called "objective evidence".
And from this it should also follow, contrary to the lay view, that "existence" is never absolute. It is always relative.
For me, debate is about "what works" (pragmatism) as opposed to what "is" (realism).
