[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] A problem at the bottom of reason

[True Scotsman]

The problem arises when you really start questioning reality. When I became self aware, I did not question reality, I fully believed it was absolutely objective. Only when I started to question reality does the assumption that reality could possibly be false arise.

I'm suggesting this assumption is not necessary, one can just reject the assumption and continue believing reality is absolutely objective. However, many atheists base their reasoning on this assumption about reality, which means they constantly go back to it in order to justify their reasoning. This causes a problem in their reasoning.

I think that there really isn't any difference between assuming and believing. Belief is the acceptence that a proposition is true or that a thing exists. If you assume something exists or is true this is equivalent to accepting that it exists or is true. There really isn't any difference.

 

[Chriliman]

"Reality" in the definition that I offered?

Yes

Are you asking me whether I regard it possible that my consciousness is all there actually exists?
This assumption doesn´t make much sense to me.

Good, so since it doesn't make sense, is it more reasonable to believe that reality exists even when you're unconscious?

It doesn´t seem to be workable, handable; I wouldn´t know how to proceed from there - apart from the fact that I don´t see a good reason for holding that assumption.
Thus, even though certainties are not my kind of thing, I really don´t have much inclination to obsess myself with what appears to be a useless and unfounded merely academic possibility.
But, by all means, feel free to show me the merits of this assumption, and I will look further into it!

Or "reality" in the way you seem to define it: "Reality as perceived by me"?
I´m assuming that *reality as perceived by me* ceases to exist when my perception and processing thereof (i.e. my consciousness) stops.

Do you believe my consciousness continues even when you become unconscious?

Or did I misunderstand your question completely? In which case I would kindly ask you to reword it for me. May I remind you that giving a clear definition of the keyterms used would make understanding your questions much easier?

I think you're understanding my questions just fine. I'm using the key terms in the most reasonable way I can, I can't control how you interpret the terms, so just interpret them in the most reasonable way you know how.

 

[madera23]

So with all of your awareness, do you still get angry?
Have you seen that reality?
All the words explaining reality means nothing if your reality has not freed you from all of your fallen natures.

 

[quatona]

Yes



Good, so since it doesn't make sense, is it more reasonable to believe that reality exists even when you're unconscious?

As I said: practically, I wouldn´t know how to work around that assumption.

Do you believe my consciousness continues even when you become unconscious?

I see no reason to think otherwise.

I think you're understanding my questions just fine.

No, I don´t, and I am going to do your work for you only so far.

I'm using the key terms in the most reasonable way I can, I can't control how you interpret the terms,

I don´t ask you to control it, I am asking you to do your best to make yourself understood.

so just interpret them in the most reasonable way you know how.

Oftentimes the way you use terms doesn´t leave me with a reasonable way of interpreting them.
That´s why I ask. If you don´t want your questions to be understood, that´s ok with me, as well.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The point I'm trying to make is if our reasoning as a whole is based on the belief that reality is objective, why then assume reality is objective?

Because it is natural to do so. Even as a toddler, you learn that you have to navigate the world, and that the world doesn't automatically conform to your wishes. Reasoning is a natural response to this sort of elementary insight.

Doesn't this suggest that it's more reasonable to believe reality is objective rather than to assume reality is objective since our reasoning as a whole is based on the belief that reality is objective?

Reasoning is no less based on the assumption that reality is objective. There doesn't have to be an explicit belief.

I recommend that you consider the simple reasoning of someone only a few years old. There is no need for the child to be a philosopher in order to reason.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[madera23]

As I said: practically, I wouldn´t know how to work around that assumption.





I see no reason to think otherwise.




No, I don´t, and I am going to do your work for you only so far.

I don´t ask you to control it, I am asking you to do your best to make yourself understood.

Oftentimes the way you use terms doesn´t leave me with a reasonable way of interpreting them.
That´s why I ask. If you don´t want your questions to be understood, that´s ok with me, as well.

 

[Chriliman]

So with all of your awareness, do you still get angry?
Have you seen that reality?
All the words explaining reality means nothing if your reality has not freed you from all of your fallen natures.

I think what you're asking is if I'm a born again Christian and yes I am. I do my best to take every thought captive and make it obedient to Jesus. So I am very slow to anger and very quick to try and understand

 

[madera23]

What a waste of energy on such small talk.

 

[madera23]

I think what you're asking is if I'm a born again Christian and yes I am. I do my best to take every thought captive and make it obedient to Jesus. So I am very slow to anger and very quick to try and understand

I don't believe you.

 

[Eudaimonist]

What a waste of energy on such small talk.

No one is forcing you to read this thread.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chriliman]

Yes. Most atheists that I talk to are skepticists. Many are solipsists and every other variant of subjectivism. This just goes to show that even though atheists don't believe in gods, that doesn't necessarily mean they will automatically adopt a rational philosophy. They get really upset with me because I'm not a skeptic, I do think that some certainty is possible in knowledge. I'm an objectivist. I don't believe there is such a thing as subjectively objective. Sure we are all subjects of consciousness and we are aware of objects, but that does not make our reasoning subjective. Objectivity is the recognition and consistent application of the primacy of existence principle. If you are not familiar with this principle, it has to do specifically with the relationship between consciousness and reality. This is the most fundamental question in philosophy. What is the proper orientation of this relationship? Do the objects that we are aware of exist independently of our consciousness or do they depend on consciousness for their existence in some way. whenever we are aware, we are aware of objects. These objects, whatever we are perceiving or considering, exist independently of any conscious activity such as wanting, wishing, liking or faith. This is born out by every single observation we make every moment of our lives. This relationship and its orientation is directly observable. So there is no question that existence holds primacy. Objectivity is achieved by always keeping this recognition in the forefront when reasoning.

I agree with all of this.

On the Christian view, which affirms the primacy of consciousness, there is no objectivity. Reality is the product of a conscious mind and can be altered at any time by an act of conscious will. That is metaphysical subjectivism plain and simple. It's not surprising that Christian epistemology, faith in revelations, is also subjective. A Christian can not consistently uphold the primacy of existence, therefore what we have is a mixed metaphysics with the primacy of existence being affirmed and denied at the same time. This is why I am not only an atheist, but a strong atheist. This also gets me into trouble with other atheists but so be it. If existence has primacy then there is no such thing as the Christian God and if one makes a commitment to reason as their only method of obtaining knowledge then one must reject the concept of gods.

The God I worship is not restricted to time or space, He is timeless and massless. In that sense He cannot make choices in the way we make choices and He is not visible in the way we understand vision. He was and is and is to come, He simply "is", this is why He says "I am". This concept is very hard to grasp simply because we are restricted to time and space. The God I serve is timeless, but also able to interact with us who are restricted to time. He can't learn because He already knows everything at all times. If you want access to His knowledge you must first believe he exists and I can give a sound reason for my belief in Him. If you value reason, I hope you pay attention

 

[Chriliman]

I don't believe you.

Well, that's a first. Why don't you believe me?

If you have a way of discerning who is a true Christian and who is not, please use it on me to determine the truth.

 

[True Scotsman]

I agree with all of this.



The God I worship is not restricted to time or space, He is timeless and massless. In that sense He cannot make choices in the way we make choices and He is not visible in the way we understand vision. He was and is and is to come, He simply "is", this is why He says "I am". This concept is very hard to grasp simply because we are restricted to time and space. The God I serve is timeless, but also able to interact with us who are restricted to time. He can't learn because He already knows everything at all times. If you want access to His knowledge you must first believe he exists and I can give a sound reason for my belief in Him. If you value reason, I hope you pay attention

I'm not going to believe in something that contradicts reality precisely because I value reason. How would anyone ever know, objectively that the God they worship is not restricted to time or space? I can certainly imagine such a thing but one of the corollaries to the primacy of existence is that there is a fundamental distinction between the imaginary and the real.

 

[Chriliman]

I'm not going to believe in something that contradicts reality precisely because I value reason. How would anyone ever know, objectively that the God they worship is not restricted to time or space? I can certainly imagine such a thing but one of the corollaries to the primacy of existence is that there is a fundamental distinction between the imaginary and the real.

How is it unreasonable to believe that an entity can exist outside of time and space, but is also able to interact with time and space in someway? How does this belief contradict reality? Do you find this entity to be impossible? If so, why?

 

[dlamberth]

Your reasoning is based on one of the two statements below:

1. I assume reality is real, therefore I accept the truth of reality.

2. I accept the truth that reality is real.

Many will say that our reasoning is based on the assumption that reality is real. To this I pose the question: Were the first self aware humans capable of basing their reasoning on an assumption about reality? Do you think they were even intellectually capable of even considering reality to not be real?

Or is it more reasonable to think that they based their reasoning on the belief or acceptance of truth that reality is in fact real? If this is the case then our human reasoning as a whole is not based on an assumption, but rather based on the belief that reality is real.

Or do you think making an assumption about reality is the same as accepting the truth about reality?

Reality for most of human existence was of a communion with nature type of experiential reality. That was their reality. There were no assumptions or beliefs about their reality. They lived it and were immersed in their reality. Today though, in our materialistic world we have moved away from a communion with nature type of reality and have moved towards a reality that is based on mental concepts, beliefs and what we see on TV. We have grown away and separate from a communion with reality and live in a kind of dream land. And personally, I think that's why there is so much mental illness and drug use these days.

 

[ScottA]

Whether or not the fly is conscious, it is still true that it is going 60mph. If flies were self aware like us humans, they would eventually figure out the truth, but I don't see any flies acting like scientists, so is safe to say they are not self aware or at least capable of achieving the level of our intellectual self awareness.

But...are you aware of the statement that all makes about scientists?

 

[Chriliman]

But...are you aware of the statement that all makes about scientists?

No, what statement?

 

[Chriliman]

Reality for most of human existence was of a communion with nature type of experiential reality. That was their reality. There were no assumptions or beliefs about their reality. They lived it and were immersed in their reality. Today though, in our materialistic world we have moved away from a communion with nature type of reality and have moved towards a reality that is based on mental concepts, beliefs and what we see on TV. We have grown away and separate from a communion with reality and live in a kind of dream land. And personally, I think that's why there is so much mental illness and drug use these days.

I agree. My point is as soon as one becomes self aware, they immediately have to accept the truth that they are self aware. Meaning we have no choice but to "believe" something about our awareness of reality. Assumptions come after this fundamental belief of reality.

 

[ScottA]

Reality for most of human existence was of a communion with nature type of experiential reality. That was their reality. There were no assumptions or beliefs about their reality. They lived it and were immersed in their reality. Today though, in our materialistic world we have moved away from a communion with nature type of reality and have moved towards a reality that is based on mental concepts, beliefs and what we see on TV. We have grown away and separate from a communion with reality and live in a kind of dream land. And personally, I think that's why there is so much mental illness and drug use these days.

Those all look to self to define reality, while the only true reality only includes us within it. Just as people once thought the sun revolved around the earth, many have yet come to see our reality as more than revolving around self.

 

[dlamberth]

I agree. My point is as soon as one becomes self aware, they immediately have to accept the truth that they are self aware.

I don't think that's a true statement. We don't just wake up after birth being aware of our self-awareness. It's an awareness that we evolve into.

Meaning we have no choice but to "believe" something about our awareness of reality.

When we are one with our reality, it's not a belief, it's more like a communion. I think only when we are separate from our reality that it becomes a "belief".

Assumptions come after this fundamental belief of reality.

In today's world, when we do not live in communion with the natural way of things, I agree. But it takes time for a person to mature to a place where they even begin to wonder what reality is. For instance, my 5 year old grand-daughter gives herself to life. She has very little awareness of reality beyond what happens at the moment. At the same time and on the other end of the scale, my 16 year old grand-son is trying to make reality fit his own self-interest. And here I am, a grand-parent, exploring reality as a conscious awakening in the form of an evolutionary process of the universe that is heading towards a Cosmic Christ type of consciousness.

.