Posts: 1211
Threads: 38
Joined: July 15, 2010
Reputation:
21
RE: Reality.
January 9, 2012 at 4:21 pm
(January 9, 2012 at 1:54 pm)amkerman Wrote: Do you believe reality exists? No.
Reality can be tested and falsified and it has proven its existence reliably for a measured 13.7 billion years or so.
(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? If there was a reality that couldn't be perceived, located, studied, proven, then the question of whether or not it exists because irrelevant.
At best, the question of this reality becomes academic but unless it is perceptible, then dealing with it is pointless.
(January 9, 2012 at 1:54 pm)amkerman Wrote: Is everything that exists a derivative of reality? Whta definition of reality are you using? It seems to change with each question. This question is nonsensical.
(January 9, 2012 at 1:54 pm)amkerman Wrote: If reality contains all thought, all knowledge, is it not omnipotent? Your question isn't internally logical and again I don't know what definition of reality you're using anymore.
If you're referring to the universe and our existence wherein, then no. The universe has shown no signs thus far being concious or capable of limitless ability as defined by true omnipotence. The universe has a limited amount of energy contained wherein.
(January 9, 2012 at 1:54 pm)amkerman Wrote: If reality contains within it all time and all things is it not omnipresent? The universe isn't god.
(January 9, 2012 at 1:54 pm)amkerman Wrote: If reality is dependent on nothing is it not infallible? The universe isn't god.
If today you can take a thing like evolution and make it a crime to teach in the public schools, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in the private schools and next year you can make it a crime to teach it to the hustings or in the church. At the next session you may ban books and the newspapers...
Ignorance and fanaticism are ever busy and need feeding. Always feeding and gloating for more. Today it is the public school teachers; tomorrow the private. The next day the preachers and the lecturers, the magazines, the books, the newspapers. After a while, Your Honor, it is the setting of man against man and creed against creed until with flying banners and beating drums we are marching backward to the glorious ages of the sixteenth centry when bigots lighted fagots to burn the men who dared to bring any intelligence and enlightenment and culture to the human mind. ~Clarence Darrow, at the Scopes Monkey Trial, 1925
Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first. ~Ronald Reagan
Posts: 3188
Threads: 8
Joined: December 9, 2011
Reputation:
31
RE: Reality.
January 9, 2012 at 5:04 pm
(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.
Posts: 2254
Threads: 85
Joined: January 24, 2010
Reputation:
29
RE: Reality.
January 9, 2012 at 5:47 pm
(This post was last modified: January 9, 2012 at 5:47 pm by Welsh cake.)
(January 9, 2012 at 1:58 pm)Vaeolet Lilly Blossom Wrote: Everything exists. A necessarily true statement if ever there was one.
Quote:Nothing too.
Except that. ^^ We don't know what "nothing" is. Even the void of space isn't nothing.
The closest we can get to nothing is the state of oblivion, when our consciousnesses are gone and we're no longer self-aware.
Posts: 1473
Threads: 20
Joined: November 12, 2011
Reputation:
26
RE: Reality.
January 9, 2012 at 5:50 pm
(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?
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?
By definition, too, isn't it original to itself if it is not derivative or dependent of anything?
Is everything that exists a derivative of reality?
If reality contains all thought, all knowledge, is it not omnipotent?
If reality contains within it all time and all things is it not omnipresent?
If reality is dependent on nothing is it not infallible?
Haven't we already had this conversation? And you said you can't prove anything exists?
You are currently experiencing a lucky and very brief window of awareness, sandwiched in between two periods of timeless and utter nothingness. So why not make the most of it, and stop wasting your life away trying to convince other people that there is something else? The reality is obvious.
Posts: 10660
Threads: 15
Joined: September 9, 2011
Reputation:
119
RE: Reality.
January 9, 2012 at 6:46 pm
(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?
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?
By definition, too, isn't it original to itself if it is not derivative or dependent of anything?
Is everything that exists a derivative of reality?
Everything that exists is reality.
(January 9, 2012 at 1:54 pm)amkerman Wrote: If reality contains all thought, all knowledge, is it not omnipotent?
Unless it can do anything it wants, it's not omnipotent. No evidence it can do anything it wants, universal constants suggest otherwise.
(January 9, 2012 at 1:54 pm)amkerman Wrote: If reality contains within it all time and all things is it not omnipresent?[/quote}
THAT, I'll give you.
[quote='amkerman' pid='226109' dateline='1326131667']
If reality is dependent on nothing is it not infallible?
I am part of reality. I am fallible. Therefore, reality is not infallible.
Posts: 4234
Threads: 42
Joined: June 7, 2011
Reputation:
33
RE: Reality.
January 9, 2012 at 7:02 pm
Philosofapper strikes again!
Trying to update my sig ...
Posts: 281
Threads: 11
Joined: December 10, 2011
Reputation:
4
RE: Reality.
January 12, 2012 at 1:10 am
(This post was last modified: January 12, 2012 at 1:41 am by Perhaps.)
(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?
Do you accept the axioms of existence is perhaps a better question.
(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?
Simply use the first premise of your question: even if it couldn't be perceived it necessarily exists.
(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?
Reality's existence is. A more direct question could be asked, such as: Does reality have a cause? or, is it possible for reality to come into existence from absolute nothing?
(January 9, 2012 at 1:54 pm)amkerman Wrote: Is everything that exists a derivative of reality?
The question does not serve your intended purpose. As was stated earlier, reality is everything that exists. You could ask: is there a cause for everything which exists? and follow with, does reality - the state of existence - itself have a cause? (a more metaphysical approach would be to exchange the word 'have' with 'necessitate').
(January 9, 2012 at 1:54 pm)amkerman Wrote: If reality contains all thought, all knowledge, is it not omnipotent?
If reality contains within it all time and all things is it not omnipresent?
If reality is dependent on nothing is it not infallible?
These were addressed earlier in the thread. Create a foundation with questions, then add supplemental questions to further strengthen your perspective. Have the person you are asking define the terms first, then build upon their own definitions.
Brevity is the soul of wit.
Posts: 5389
Threads: 52
Joined: January 3, 2010
Reputation:
48
Reality.
January 12, 2012 at 10:19 am
What is real?
That which can be measured.
![[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo112%2Fpussinboots_photos%2FBikes%2Fmybannerglitter06eee094.gif)
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.
Posts: 4234
Threads: 42
Joined: June 7, 2011
Reputation:
33
RE: Reality.
January 12, 2012 at 10:51 am
Trying to update my sig ...
Posts: 15755
Threads: 194
Joined: May 15, 2009
Reputation:
145
RE: Reality.
January 13, 2012 at 5:18 pm
(January 12, 2012 at 10:19 am)Zen Badger Wrote: What is real?
That which can be measured.
Including the length of an imaginary penis? 
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
|
