Presuppositional apologetics

[The happy Objectivist]

So maybe relationship is primal.

Which is what a Biblical worldview would attest to.

The Biblical worldview attests that the relationship is one of the subject of consciousness holding primacy over the objects of consciousness. Essentially "wishing makes it so".

 

[Tone]

The Biblical worldview attests that the relationship is one of the subject of consciousness holding primacy over the objects of consciousness. Essentially "wishing makes it so".

How so?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

How so?

Because it says that everything that exists was created by an act of will, is maintained by an act of will and can be altered by an act of will.

When I use the phrase "wishing makes it so" I'm using a common phrase to explain a philosophical principle that is not commonly known by most people. It's just a way of maing the primacy of consciousness understandable. The reason that the phrase "wishing doesn't make it so" is true, is because reality does hold primacy over consciousness. If the primacy of consciousness view of the Bible were true, then the statement wishing doesn't make it true would obviously be false.

 

[Tone]

Because it says that everything that exists was created by an act of will, is maintained by an act of will and can be altered by an act of will.

When I use the phrase "wishing makes it so" I'm using a common phrase to explain a philosophical principle that is not commonly known by most people. It's just a way of maing the primacy of consciousness understandable. The reason that the phrase "wishing doesn't make it so" is true, is because reality does hold primacy over consciousness. If the primacy of consciousness view of the Bible were true, then the statement wishing doesn't make it true would obviously be false.

Reality is only what is agreed upon by those in relationship...no?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Reality is only what is agreed upon by those in relationship...no?

No, Reality is what it is. It is an absolute. Think about what it would mean for reality to conform to what one group or another agreed upon. What if another group of people agreed that it was something different. Do we now have two realities? No. There is only one reality and it's the standard of what's true. It does not conform to the wishes, desires, wants, demands, thoughts, dreams, etc. Rationality means recognizing reality for what it is and not what we'd like it to be. And wishing it were different won't make it so. This is the fundamental principle underlying truth, knowledge, reason, and science and logic, because it is a corollary to the law of identity. If the subject of consciousness (the conscious knower) identifies some object of consciousness as something other than what it is, then the object does not change to fit the subject. It remains just what it is.

I'm going to link to a lecture By David Kelley on this subject but I'm going to give you a warning. If your faith is important to you, I recommend that you don't watch it and that you don't look into this issue any further. Once you learn this you can't unlearn it and it may make believing in certain things impossible for you.

Here's the link: And my warning is for any and all that are reading this thread.

 

[Tone]

No, Reality is what it is. It is an absolute. Think about what it would mean for reality to conform to what one group or another agreed upon. What if another group of people agreed that it was something different. Do we now have two realities? No. There is only one reality and it's the standard of what's true. It does not conform to the wishes, desires, wants, demands, thoughts, dreams, etc...

The reality we have on this earth is that the "absolute" reality is for the ruling group to decide.

And when it comes to groups battling over whose reality will be absolute, they are all wrong, since none have exhaustive knowledge.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

The reality we have on this earth is that the "absolute" reality is for the ruling group to decide.

So here you are affirming the primacy of consciousness view of reality. There's three versions of it. The one you affirm is the social version where reality conforms to the decisions of a group or society. Is your statement true because you want it to be Tone?

 

[Tone]

So here you are affirming the primacy of consciousness view of reality. There's three versions of it. The one you affirm is the social version where reality conforms to the decisions of a group or society. Is your statement true because you want it to be Tone?

Well, I actually had Elohim in mind when I said, "Reality is only what is agreed upon by those in relationship...no?"

I affirm the primacy of the "Godhead's" relationship.

 

[Tone]

Is your statement true because you want it to be Tone?

Well, think about it, could you exist, or anything else apart from relationship?

* You don't really think the Biblical worldview is in conflict with objective reality do you?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Well, think about it, could you exist, or anything else apart from relationship?

This does not answer the question. It's yes or no.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Well, I actually had Elohim in mind when I said, "Reality is only what is agreed upon by those in relationship...no?"

I affirm the primacy of the "Godhead's" relationship.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

 

[Tone]

This does not answer the question. It's yes or no.

No, I don't want that statement to be true, but isn't that what we observe?

 

[Tone]

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

What exists outside of relationship?

Nothing, right?

So, the first relationship is prime.

The Bible describes God as the first relationship.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

No, I don't want that statement to be true, but isn't that what we observe?

That's two. This does not answer the question? It's yes or no. Why the reluctance to answer? Just please answer the question and we can move on.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

What exists outside of relationship?

Nothing, right?

So, the first relationship is prime.

The Bible describes God as the first relationship.

Is this God conscious?

 

[Tone]

That's two. This does not answer the question? It's yes or no. Why the reluctance to answer? Just please answer the question and we can move on.

I'll tell you what, rewrite the question so I know exactly what you are asking.

If it's what I think, I've already said "no".

My whole point is that reality is not based on any mind or existence, but on relationship, which would include multiple minds and existences.

 

[Tone]

Is this God conscious?

He is a Person.

*Having every aspect of being you have, but on a waaaaayyyyy higher order.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I'll tell you what, rewrite the question so I know exactly what you are asking.

If it's what I think, I've already said "no".

My whole point is that reality is not based on any mind or existence, but on relationship, which would include multiple minds and existences.

You made a statement that affirms the social version of the primacy of consciousness. Is your statement that reality is decided by some controlling group true because you want it to be true or is it true regardless of anyone's thoughts to the contrary. I want to see if you can remain consistent with the metaphysical position you have affirmed.

 

[Tone]

What relationship does reality depend on?

Read my signature...the Names in red...that relationship.

As far as our realities as individuals--they depend on the relationship of our parents.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

He is a Person.

*Having every aspect of being you have, but on a waaaaayyyyy higher order.

I see. What is the relationship that this God's consciousness has with the things it is aware of. Is it one best expressed by the primacy of consciousness or one best expressed by the primacy of existence. Let me make sure you know what each of these options means.

Primacy of consciousness: Reality is dependent in some way on consciousness.

Primacy of existence: Reality exists and is what it is independent of consciousness.