(January 9, 2012 at 1:54 pm)amkerman Wrote: Reality: something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily.
Merriam webster.
Do you believe reality exists?
The statement "reality exists" is axiomatically true. The statement "reality doesn't exist" is self-refuting. Asking for agreement on this is like asking for agreement on "circles are round".
(January 9, 2012 at 1:54 pm)amkerman Wrote: Even if it couldn't be perceived, even if it could be found nowhere, even if it couldn't be proven, wouldn't it nevertheless exist by definition, because it NECESSARILY exists?
Of the three conditions you cited, only the first one makes any sense.
Reality would exist without anyone's perception of it because perception requires a) the senses to perceive and b) a consciousness which does the act of perception. As reality exists independently of any consciousness, it is not dependent on perception. This is the axiomatic truth called "primacy of existence".
The second condition "even if it could be found nowhere" is nonsensical. Reality is the sum total of all that exists. There is no "where" where it cannot be found.
The third one, regarding proof is also nonsensical. Proof is justification of knowledge. Knowledge requires existence of something to know about. And that something would necessarily be a part of reality. To speak of proving reality would be circular since proof itself depends upon that axiom.
(January 9, 2012 at 1:54 pm)amkerman Wrote: By definition, too, isn't it original to itself if it is not derivative or dependent of anything?
As a whole, no. Parts of reality are derivatives of other parts of reality.
(January 9, 2012 at 1:54 pm)amkerman Wrote: Is everything that exists a derivative of reality?
No. Everything that exists is a part of reality. A derivative would imply something arising from and separate from reality. Nothing that exists is separate from reality.
(January 9, 2012 at 1:54 pm)amkerman Wrote: If reality contains all thought, all knowledge, is it not omnipotent?
No. Potency implies a capacity to act with intention. Which implies presence of consciousness. Reality as a whole does not have a singular consciousness. Therefore application of idea of potency to it is invalid.
(January 9, 2012 at 1:54 pm)amkerman Wrote: If reality contains within it all time and all things is it not omnipresent?
Finally got one thing right.
(January 9, 2012 at 1:54 pm)amkerman Wrote: If reality is dependent on nothing is it not infallible?
No. Fallibility implies capacity to make error. Error means deviation from intended action and intention requires a consciousness behind it. If fallibility were a property assignable to reality then reality would be dependent upon consciousness. it is not - by definition.
Therefore, of the properties commonly attributed to "god" - omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omni-benevolence and infallibility, we see that only one is common. So in order to rationally equate god with reality you must discard four out of five defining qualities.
And you say that the dictionary does not do justice to the definition of god.
