Hi mcc1789,
Very interesting. I believe the theist would agree (in most cases) they're independent of our consciousness, though not God's. Of course I've also heard of philosophical idealism which apparently can take a non-theistic form and also holds the contrary view (like some New Age and Eastern ideas). How would you answer them saying that, while it may be true any person who states "this is a fact" relies on there being an objective reality, it does not apply to God (in their view, the only fully existent thing)? That is, there's nothing wholly independent of God and what he wills (everything apart owes its existence to him, they say)? Or what of a skeptic, who might simply deny we know any facts?
Yes, this is the typical attempt to sidestep the issue, but they are attempting to straddle the issue and have it both ways. They can't do that, not in reason. They do not absolve themselves of subjectivism by doing this, they only move the issue to who's consciousness has primacy. You can't solve one contradiction by embracing another. Plus they're stealing concepts. Their problems multiply like mushrooms after a rainstorm.
What would I say to a skeptic who denies that we can know facts? Come back to me when you do have some facts. Any attempt to attack man's mind refutes itself by retorsion.
Very interesting. I believe the theist would agree (in most cases) they're independent of our consciousness, though not God's. Of course I've also heard of philosophical idealism which apparently can take a non-theistic form and also holds the contrary view (like some New Age and Eastern ideas). How would you answer them saying that, while it may be true any person who states "this is a fact" relies on there being an objective reality, it does not apply to God (in their view, the only fully existent thing)? That is, there's nothing wholly independent of God and what he wills (everything apart owes its existence to him, they say)? Or what of a skeptic, who might simply deny we know any facts?
Yes, this is the typical attempt to sidestep the issue, but they are attempting to straddle the issue and have it both ways. They can't do that, not in reason. They do not absolve themselves of subjectivism by doing this, they only move the issue to who's consciousness has primacy. You can't solve one contradiction by embracing another. Plus they're stealing concepts. Their problems multiply like mushrooms after a rainstorm.
What would I say to a skeptic who denies that we can know facts? Come back to me when you do have some facts. Any attempt to attack man's mind refutes itself by retorsion.
