6 Proofs That God Exists

[ding]

By virtue of the second law of thermodynamics matter and energy must have a beginning.

By virtue of the First Law of Thermodynamics ENERGY has no beginning or end. You have NO knowledge if the SLoT.

We've been over this before.

Yes and your OWN video says "nothing" consists of equal parts negative ENERGY, not a nothing, and positive ENERGY, also not a nothing. You should have watched your own video before you posted it.

Not to the scale that was produced during creation. More like virtual particles popping into and out of existence rather than the mass creation of 2 billion times the matter of the universe occupying the space of a proton. It's that whole quantum mechanics thingee.

 

[ding]

I am the Bread of Life (John 6:35)
I am the Light of the World (John 8:12)
I am the Door (John 10:9)
I am the Good Shepherd (John 10:11,14)
I am the Resurrection and the Life (John 11:25)
I am the Way and the Truth and the Life (John 14:6)
I am the Vine (John 15:1,5)

I am the offspring of Lucifer. (Rev 22:16)

Rev 22: 16 I, Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

KJV - Lucifer 1; 1
Lucifer = "light-bearer"
1) shining one, morning star, Lucifer

The Apocalypse, or Revelation to John, the last book of the Bible, is one of the most difficult to understand because it abounds in unfamiliar and extravagant symbolism, which at best appears unusual to the modern reader. Symbolic language, however, is one of the chief characteristics of apocalyptic literature, of which this book is an outstanding example. Such literature enjoyed wide popularity in both Jewish and Christian circles from ca. 200 B.C. to A.D. 200.

This book contains an account of visions in symbolic and allegorical language borrowed extensively from the Old Testament, especially Ezekiel, Zechariah, and Daniel. Whether or not these visions were real experiences of the author or simply literary conventions employed by him is an open question.

This much, however, is certain: symbolic descriptions are not to be taken as literal descriptions, nor is the symbolism meant to be pictured realistically. One would find it difficult and repulsive to visualize a lamb with seven horns and seven eyes; yet Jesus Christ is described in precisely such words (Rev 5:6). The author used these images to suggest Christ’s universal (seven) power (horns) and knowledge (eyes). A significant feature of apocalyptic writing is the use of symbolic colors, metals, garments (Rev 1:13–16; 3:18; 4:4; 6:1–8; 17:4; 19:8), and numbers (four signifies the world, six imperfection, seven totality or perfection, twelve Israel’s tribes or the apostles, one thousand immensity). Finally the vindictive language in the book (Rev 6:9–10; 18:1–19:4) is also to be understood symbolically and not literally. The cries for vengeance on the lips of Christian martyrs that sound so harsh are in fact literary devices the author employed to evoke in the reader and hearer a feeling of horror for apostasy and rebellion that will be severely punished by God.

The lurid descriptions of the punishment of Jezebel (Rev 2:22) and of the destruction of the great harlot, Babylon (Rev 16:9–19:2), are likewise literary devices. The metaphor of Babylon as harlot would be wrongly construed if interpreted literally. On the other hand, the stylized figure of the woman clothed with the sun (Rev 12:1–6), depicting the New Israel, may seem to be a negative stereotype. It is necessary to look beyond the literal meaning to see that these images mean to convey a sense of God’s wrath at sin in the former case and trust in God’s providential care over the church in the latter.

The Book of Revelation cannot be adequately understood except against the historical background that occasioned its writing. Like Daniel and other apocalypses, it was composed as resistance literature to meet a crisis. The book itself suggests that the crisis was ruthless persecution of the early church by the Roman authorities; the harlot Babylon symbolizes pagan Rome, the city on seven hills (Rev 17:9). The book is, then, an exhortation and admonition to Christians of the first century to stand firm in the faith and to avoid compromise with paganism, despite the threat of adversity and martyrdom; they are to await patiently the fulfillment of God’s mighty promises. The triumph of God in the world of men and women remains a mystery, to be accepted in faith and longed for in hope. It is a triumph that unfolded in the history of Jesus of Nazareth and continues to unfold in the history of the individual Christian who follows the way of the cross, even, if necessary, to a martyr’s death.

Though the perspective is eschatological—ultimate salvation and victory are said to take place at the end of the present age when Christ will come in glory at the parousia—the book presents the decisive struggle of Christ and his followers against Satan and his cohorts as already over. Christ’s overwhelming defeat of the kingdom of Satan ushered in the everlasting reign of God (Rev 11:15; 12:10). Even the forces of evil unwittingly carry out the divine plan (Rev 17:17), for God is the sovereign Lord of history.

The Book of Revelation had its origin in a time of crisis, but it remains valid and meaningful for Christians of all time. In the face of apparently insuperable evil, either from within or from without, all Christians are called to trust in Jesus’ promise, “Behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age” (Mt 28:20). Those who remain steadfast in their faith and confidence in the risen Lord need have no fear. Suffering, persecution, even death by martyrdom, though remaining impenetrable mysteries of evil, do not comprise an absurd dead end. No matter what adversity or sacrifice Christians may endure, they will in the end triumph over Satan and his forces because of their fidelity to Christ the victor. This is the enduring message of the book; it is a message of hope and consolation and challenge for all who dare to believe.

The author of the book calls himself John (Rev 1:1, 4, 9; 22:8), who because of his Christian faith has been exiled to the rocky island of Patmos, a Roman penal colony. Although he never claims to be John the apostle, whose name is attached to the fourth gospel, he was so identified by several of the early church Fathers, including Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Hippolytus. This identification, however, was denied by other Fathers, including Denis of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, and John Chrysostom. Indeed, vocabulary, grammar, and style make it doubtful that the book could have been put into its present form by the same person(s) responsible for the fourth gospel. Nevertheless, there are definite linguistic and theological affinities between the two books. The tone of the letters to the seven churches (Rev 1:4–3:22) is indicative of the great authority the author enjoyed over the Christian communities in Asia. It is possible, therefore, that he was a disciple of John the apostle, who is traditionally associated with that part of the world. The date of the book in its present form is probably near the end of the reign of Domitian (A.D. 81–96), a fierce persecutor of the Christians.

So, after all that BULLSHIT, you never addressed the "symbolism" of the house of David and Lucifer.

I did. You just didn't understand it.

 

[Slade3200]

One thing also is human sight is quite limited regarding the entire spectrum; many animals see beyond what humans can see right in front of their faces. Quite bizarre really, thinking in these terms of sight/light limitations about various unknowns.

Probably because they don't have a sense of self like humans do. That kind of gets in the way of being.

How do you know that animals don’t have a sense of self?

I didn't say they had no sense of self. I said they don't have a sense of self like humans do.

In what way is it significant whether they have a sense of self like humans or not?

That it can impede our ability to see reality.

Isnt everybody’s sense of reality different?

That depends upon if they are being subjective or objective.

Wouldn't the answer be the same for both?

No. Because the definition of reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. Being objective is how one sees the world or the state of things as it actually exists. Whereas being subjective leads to seeing the world or state of things in an idealistic or notional way. The very definition of reality implies a final state of fact.

Right but when you say “how things actually exist” that is just a compilation of everything’s unique perspective of it. So the situations are one in the same

What you are describing is perception of reality. Reality and perception of reality are not necessarily the same. But by definition, reality implies a final state of fact that is independent of perception.

If I take your thought process to it's logical conclusion, you would have to conclude there was no such thing as reality. Is that what you think? And more importantly... is that how you behave?

I guess you could call reality “gods perception” if you want to set one perspective as a standard... but other than that what “is” is what we perceive and what we perceive is different and unique per the eye of the beholder

That belief would be fine IF your actions didn't belie that. Would you like for me to provide an example?

Yes please

Ok let's take Donald Trump as he is a polarizing figure and likely to illicit not only polarizing views but overwhelmingly strong polarizing views. Is it reality that he was a bad president?

That’s a great example and question. Per my previous explanation of reality I’d say that the answer is different depending on who is answering. Some will say yes and others will say no

I'm not asking you that - but what you just described is perception of reality and not reality. What I am asking you is do you believe that it is absolutely 100% objective truth that Donald Trump was a bad president and if YOUR perception should be accepted as the actual indisputable reality.

Because if you say, "no, it's not reality" then you have no basis for believing your opinion is any better than someone else's different opinion. And if you say, "yes, it is the objective truth and therefore reality" then you have just acknowledged that there does in actuality exist a final state of fact and objective truth which is known as reality.

I’m saying no it is not reality, it is simply perceived reality that is differently perceptive by each entity that perceives it. So you are correct there is no basis to claim that my perception is any better than anybody else’s. It simply is what it is for me and I understand that it could be completely different for you. No right and no wrong

So... if I searched through your posts I wouldn't find any instances where you acted like what you were arguing wasn't 100% the objective truth? And that others were wrong for believing otherwise?

I’d say the majority of my posts here are inquisitive with the intent to explore ideas. The posts where I engage more forcefully defending an idea or position are solely based on either my personal opinions or as a position I’m defending in a debate. Sometimes I’ll take positions I don’t personally believe in but I’ll debate that position just to shake out more areas of thought.

Ok, then. I'll accept you at your word. But luckily for me, I do believe that it is logical that there does exist a final state of fact for all things which can be called objective truth and/or reality. So I can argue for true things with conviction. And if my argument is logically proven incorrect then I have learned the truth and will reevaluate every other position in light of the truth, so it's all good.

But for the record perception of reality - which is what you have been arguing - does in and of itself point to reality. Otherwise there would never be any perceptions of reality or expectations of such.

Correct. The only thing we can know for sure is that we are perceiving a reality. A wise man once said “I think therefore I am” I think that was Dan Aykroyd

You can argue your reality with conviction because you think it is proven fact but you said yourself that science or other facts could change that reality. Doesn’t that right there show that what you think is absolute reality is in fact always susceptible to change making it pliable and subjective?

Not to be picky or anything but that belief you just stated was stated as if it were a reality. If you were going to be consistent it would be that there may or may not be an actual reality.

Please pick away... Of course everything I say is a product of something that I either perceive or believe so that’s a given I don’t find it useful to repetitively qualify everything as opinion.

But yes, I believe that the only thing we can know is real is the fact that we are perceiving a sense of reality. I know if I feel pain or sadness or happiness. That sense of self and awareness and the feelings associated with that is all we can’t really know as truth. The rest is a product of interpretation

 

[Batcat]

If everything just happened, then there can be no eternality of anything and no rational reason for what exists to exist unless it's always been. And science has proven that this is not the case. And philosophy rationalizes that this isn't the case. And mathematics reveals that this cannot be the case. But GOD isn't a material being. HE reveals that HE is in fact SPIRIT. Unlike all the gods of the ancients, and all the things "moderns" desire ---- which are material. SPIRIT has no beginning.

To be clear, when you refer to “god” you are speaking of some unknown and undefined thing that has always been, is that correct? You are not speaking about the god as defined by the Bible or any other organized religion. Is that right?

The Bible never defines God. That would be like a ant defining a human.

The Bible does not attempt to prove God exists or give any definition of God. Yet it does describe His nature in four ways: God is spirit - His nature is not flesh and blood. God is also light - there is no darkness in Him at all. God is also love. Finally, God's nature can be compared to a consuming fire. These four descriptions provide some insights into God's nature and character rather than giving us a definition of Him.

How Does the Bible Describe God?

There is nothing that anyone can know about God's nature unless He reveals it to humankind. Without divine revelation humanity will be in darkness.

www.blueletterbible.org

The Bible says plenty about God. Perhaps not a detailed description of exactly what God is but it speaks of his creations, his commands, his laws, and his actions.

Very true. Still we have no detailed description as you mention probably because it is impossible for us to describe God adequately.

 

[ding]

One thing also is human sight is quite limited regarding the entire spectrum; many animals see beyond what humans can see right in front of their faces. Quite bizarre really, thinking in these terms of sight/light limitations about various unknowns.

Probably because they don't have a sense of self like humans do. That kind of gets in the way of being.

How do you know that animals don’t have a sense of self?

I didn't say they had no sense of self. I said they don't have a sense of self like humans do.

In what way is it significant whether they have a sense of self like humans or not?

That it can impede our ability to see reality.

Isnt everybody’s sense of reality different?

That depends upon if they are being subjective or objective.

Wouldn't the answer be the same for both?

No. Because the definition of reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. Being objective is how one sees the world or the state of things as it actually exists. Whereas being subjective leads to seeing the world or state of things in an idealistic or notional way. The very definition of reality implies a final state of fact.

Right but when you say “how things actually exist” that is just a compilation of everything’s unique perspective of it. So the situations are one in the same

What you are describing is perception of reality. Reality and perception of reality are not necessarily the same. But by definition, reality implies a final state of fact that is independent of perception.

If I take your thought process to it's logical conclusion, you would have to conclude there was no such thing as reality. Is that what you think? And more importantly... is that how you behave?

I guess you could call reality “gods perception” if you want to set one perspective as a standard... but other than that what “is” is what we perceive and what we perceive is different and unique per the eye of the beholder

That belief would be fine IF your actions didn't belie that. Would you like for me to provide an example?

Yes please

Ok let's take Donald Trump as he is a polarizing figure and likely to illicit not only polarizing views but overwhelmingly strong polarizing views. Is it reality that he was a bad president?

That’s a great example and question. Per my previous explanation of reality I’d say that the answer is different depending on who is answering. Some will say yes and others will say no

I'm not asking you that - but what you just described is perception of reality and not reality. What I am asking you is do you believe that it is absolutely 100% objective truth that Donald Trump was a bad president and if YOUR perception should be accepted as the actual indisputable reality.

Because if you say, "no, it's not reality" then you have no basis for believing your opinion is any better than someone else's different opinion. And if you say, "yes, it is the objective truth and therefore reality" then you have just acknowledged that there does in actuality exist a final state of fact and objective truth which is known as reality.

I’m saying no it is not reality, it is simply perceived reality that is differently perceptive by each entity that perceives it. So you are correct there is no basis to claim that my perception is any better than anybody else’s. It simply is what it is for me and I understand that it could be completely different for you. No right and no wrong

So... if I searched through your posts I wouldn't find any instances where you acted like what you were arguing wasn't 100% the objective truth? And that others were wrong for believing otherwise?

I’d say the majority of my posts here are inquisitive with the intent to explore ideas. The posts where I engage more forcefully defending an idea or position are solely based on either my personal opinions or as a position I’m defending in a debate. Sometimes I’ll take positions I don’t personally believe in but I’ll debate that position just to shake out more areas of thought.

Ok, then. I'll accept you at your word. But luckily for me, I do believe that it is logical that there does exist a final state of fact for all things which can be called objective truth and/or reality. So I can argue for true things with conviction. And if my argument is logically proven incorrect then I have learned the truth and will reevaluate every other position in light of the truth, so it's all good.

But for the record perception of reality - which is what you have been arguing - does in and of itself point to reality. Otherwise there would never be any perceptions of reality or expectations of such.

Correct. The only thing we can know for sure is that we are perceiving a reality. A wise man once said “I think therefore I am” I think that was Dan Aykroyd

You can argue your reality with conviction because you think it is proven fact but you said yourself that science or other facts could change that reality. Doesn’t that right there show that what you think is absolute reality is in fact always susceptible to change making it pliable and subjective?

Not to be picky or anything but that belief you just stated was stated as if it were a reality. If you were going to be consistent it would be that there may or may not be an actual reality.

Please pick away... Of course everything I say is a product of something that I either perceive or believe so that’s a given I don’t find it useful to repetitively qualify everything as opinion.

But yes, I believe that the only thing we can know is real is the fact that we are perceiving a sense of reality. I know if I feel pain or sadness or happiness. That sense of self and awareness and the feelings associated with that is all we can’t really know as truth. The rest is a product of interpretation

I don't see how you can possibly see that as real and nothing else. As even that would be a perception of reality and not reality itself. Reality isn't a smorgasbord that you can pick and choose what is real. Perception of reality is though.

 

[Slade3200]

If everything just happened, then there can be no eternality of anything and no rational reason for what exists to exist unless it's always been. And science has proven that this is not the case. And philosophy rationalizes that this isn't the case. And mathematics reveals that this cannot be the case. But GOD isn't a material being. HE reveals that HE is in fact SPIRIT. Unlike all the gods of the ancients, and all the things "moderns" desire ---- which are material. SPIRIT has no beginning.

To be clear, when you refer to “god” you are speaking of some unknown and undefined thing that has always been, is that correct? You are not speaking about the god as defined by the Bible or any other organized religion. Is that right?

The Bible never defines God. That would be like a ant defining a human.

The Bible does not attempt to prove God exists or give any definition of God. Yet it does describe His nature in four ways: God is spirit - His nature is not flesh and blood. God is also light - there is no darkness in Him at all. God is also love. Finally, God's nature can be compared to a consuming fire. These four descriptions provide some insights into God's nature and character rather than giving us a definition of Him.

How Does the Bible Describe God?

There is nothing that anyone can know about God's nature unless He reveals it to humankind. Without divine revelation humanity will be in darkness.

www.blueletterbible.org

The Bible says plenty about God. Perhaps not a detailed description of exactly what God is but it speaks of his creations, his commands, his laws, and his actions.

Very true. Still we have no detailed description as you mention probably because it is impossible for us to describe God adequately.

Best description I can give to “God” would be that which we do not yet understand. We are linear finite thinking beings. God is infinity

 

[Slade3200]

One thing also is human sight is quite limited regarding the entire spectrum; many animals see beyond what humans can see right in front of their faces. Quite bizarre really, thinking in these terms of sight/light limitations about various unknowns.

Probably because they don't have a sense of self like humans do. That kind of gets in the way of being.

How do you know that animals don’t have a sense of self?

I didn't say they had no sense of self. I said they don't have a sense of self like humans do.

In what way is it significant whether they have a sense of self like humans or not?

That it can impede our ability to see reality.

Isnt everybody’s sense of reality different?

That depends upon if they are being subjective or objective.

Wouldn't the answer be the same for both?

No. Because the definition of reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. Being objective is how one sees the world or the state of things as it actually exists. Whereas being subjective leads to seeing the world or state of things in an idealistic or notional way. The very definition of reality implies a final state of fact.

Right but when you say “how things actually exist” that is just a compilation of everything’s unique perspective of it. So the situations are one in the same

What you are describing is perception of reality. Reality and perception of reality are not necessarily the same. But by definition, reality implies a final state of fact that is independent of perception.

If I take your thought process to it's logical conclusion, you would have to conclude there was no such thing as reality. Is that what you think? And more importantly... is that how you behave?

I guess you could call reality “gods perception” if you want to set one perspective as a standard... but other than that what “is” is what we perceive and what we perceive is different and unique per the eye of the beholder

That belief would be fine IF your actions didn't belie that. Would you like for me to provide an example?

Yes please

Ok let's take Donald Trump as he is a polarizing figure and likely to illicit not only polarizing views but overwhelmingly strong polarizing views. Is it reality that he was a bad president?

That’s a great example and question. Per my previous explanation of reality I’d say that the answer is different depending on who is answering. Some will say yes and others will say no

I'm not asking you that - but what you just described is perception of reality and not reality. What I am asking you is do you believe that it is absolutely 100% objective truth that Donald Trump was a bad president and if YOUR perception should be accepted as the actual indisputable reality.

Because if you say, "no, it's not reality" then you have no basis for believing your opinion is any better than someone else's different opinion. And if you say, "yes, it is the objective truth and therefore reality" then you have just acknowledged that there does in actuality exist a final state of fact and objective truth which is known as reality.

I’m saying no it is not reality, it is simply perceived reality that is differently perceptive by each entity that perceives it. So you are correct there is no basis to claim that my perception is any better than anybody else’s. It simply is what it is for me and I understand that it could be completely different for you. No right and no wrong

So... if I searched through your posts I wouldn't find any instances where you acted like what you were arguing wasn't 100% the objective truth? And that others were wrong for believing otherwise?

I’d say the majority of my posts here are inquisitive with the intent to explore ideas. The posts where I engage more forcefully defending an idea or position are solely based on either my personal opinions or as a position I’m defending in a debate. Sometimes I’ll take positions I don’t personally believe in but I’ll debate that position just to shake out more areas of thought.

Ok, then. I'll accept you at your word. But luckily for me, I do believe that it is logical that there does exist a final state of fact for all things which can be called objective truth and/or reality. So I can argue for true things with conviction. And if my argument is logically proven incorrect then I have learned the truth and will reevaluate every other position in light of the truth, so it's all good.

But for the record perception of reality - which is what you have been arguing - does in and of itself point to reality. Otherwise there would never be any perceptions of reality or expectations of such.

Correct. The only thing we can know for sure is that we are perceiving a reality. A wise man once said “I think therefore I am” I think that was Dan Aykroyd

You can argue your reality with conviction because you think it is proven fact but you said yourself that science or other facts could change that reality. Doesn’t that right there show that what you think is absolute reality is in fact always susceptible to change making it pliable and subjective?

Not to be picky or anything but that belief you just stated was stated as if it were a reality. If you were going to be consistent it would be that there may or may not be an actual reality.

Please pick away... Of course everything I say is a product of something that I either perceive or believe so that’s a given I don’t find it useful to repetitively qualify everything as opinion.

But yes, I believe that the only thing we can know is real is the fact that we are perceiving a sense of reality. I know if I feel pain or sadness or happiness. That sense of self and awareness and the feelings associated with that is all we can’t really know as truth. The rest is a product of interpretation

I don't see how you can possibly see that as real and nothing else. As even that would be a perception of reality and not reality itself. Reality isn't a smorgasbord that you can pick and choose what is real. Perception of reality is though.

Give me an example of something that you think is absolutely real and not a product of your perception

 

[ding]

One thing also is human sight is quite limited regarding the entire spectrum; many animals see beyond what humans can see right in front of their faces. Quite bizarre really, thinking in these terms of sight/light limitations about various unknowns.

Probably because they don't have a sense of self like humans do. That kind of gets in the way of being.

How do you know that animals don’t have a sense of self?

I didn't say they had no sense of self. I said they don't have a sense of self like humans do.

In what way is it significant whether they have a sense of self like humans or not?

That it can impede our ability to see reality.

Isnt everybody’s sense of reality different?

That depends upon if they are being subjective or objective.

Wouldn't the answer be the same for both?

No. Because the definition of reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. Being objective is how one sees the world or the state of things as it actually exists. Whereas being subjective leads to seeing the world or state of things in an idealistic or notional way. The very definition of reality implies a final state of fact.

Right but when you say “how things actually exist” that is just a compilation of everything’s unique perspective of it. So the situations are one in the same

What you are describing is perception of reality. Reality and perception of reality are not necessarily the same. But by definition, reality implies a final state of fact that is independent of perception.

If I take your thought process to it's logical conclusion, you would have to conclude there was no such thing as reality. Is that what you think? And more importantly... is that how you behave?

I guess you could call reality “gods perception” if you want to set one perspective as a standard... but other than that what “is” is what we perceive and what we perceive is different and unique per the eye of the beholder

That belief would be fine IF your actions didn't belie that. Would you like for me to provide an example?

Yes please

Ok let's take Donald Trump as he is a polarizing figure and likely to illicit not only polarizing views but overwhelmingly strong polarizing views. Is it reality that he was a bad president?

That’s a great example and question. Per my previous explanation of reality I’d say that the answer is different depending on who is answering. Some will say yes and others will say no

I'm not asking you that - but what you just described is perception of reality and not reality. What I am asking you is do you believe that it is absolutely 100% objective truth that Donald Trump was a bad president and if YOUR perception should be accepted as the actual indisputable reality.

Because if you say, "no, it's not reality" then you have no basis for believing your opinion is any better than someone else's different opinion. And if you say, "yes, it is the objective truth and therefore reality" then you have just acknowledged that there does in actuality exist a final state of fact and objective truth which is known as reality.

I’m saying no it is not reality, it is simply perceived reality that is differently perceptive by each entity that perceives it. So you are correct there is no basis to claim that my perception is any better than anybody else’s. It simply is what it is for me and I understand that it could be completely different for you. No right and no wrong

So... if I searched through your posts I wouldn't find any instances where you acted like what you were arguing wasn't 100% the objective truth? And that others were wrong for believing otherwise?

I’d say the majority of my posts here are inquisitive with the intent to explore ideas. The posts where I engage more forcefully defending an idea or position are solely based on either my personal opinions or as a position I’m defending in a debate. Sometimes I’ll take positions I don’t personally believe in but I’ll debate that position just to shake out more areas of thought.

Ok, then. I'll accept you at your word. But luckily for me, I do believe that it is logical that there does exist a final state of fact for all things which can be called objective truth and/or reality. So I can argue for true things with conviction. And if my argument is logically proven incorrect then I have learned the truth and will reevaluate every other position in light of the truth, so it's all good.

But for the record perception of reality - which is what you have been arguing - does in and of itself point to reality. Otherwise there would never be any perceptions of reality or expectations of such.

Correct. The only thing we can know for sure is that we are perceiving a reality. A wise man once said “I think therefore I am” I think that was Dan Aykroyd

You can argue your reality with conviction because you think it is proven fact but you said yourself that science or other facts could change that reality. Doesn’t that right there show that what you think is absolute reality is in fact always susceptible to change making it pliable and subjective?

Not to be picky or anything but that belief you just stated was stated as if it were a reality. If you were going to be consistent it would be that there may or may not be an actual reality.

Please pick away... Of course everything I say is a product of something that I either perceive or believe so that’s a given I don’t find it useful to repetitively qualify everything as opinion.

But yes, I believe that the only thing we can know is real is the fact that we are perceiving a sense of reality. I know if I feel pain or sadness or happiness. That sense of self and awareness and the feelings associated with that is all we can’t really know as truth. The rest is a product of interpretation

I don't see how you can possibly see that as real and nothing else. As even that would be a perception of reality and not reality itself. Reality isn't a smorgasbord that you can pick and choose what is real. Perception of reality is though.

Give me an example of something that you think is absolutely real and not a product of your perception

Great question. Everything is made manifest by mind, right? So one always should evaluate whether he has a preference for an outcome and if that preference is influencing his perception of reality. With that said, if one dies to self and has no preference for an outcome then he can see objective truth which is reality. So that's the how. But you asked for a what, right?

The love for my wife and her love for me is absolutely real. How about you?

 

[Slade3200]

One thing also is human sight is quite limited regarding the entire spectrum; many animals see beyond what humans can see right in front of their faces. Quite bizarre really, thinking in these terms of sight/light limitations about various unknowns.

Probably because they don't have a sense of self like humans do. That kind of gets in the way of being.

How do you know that animals don’t have a sense of self?

I didn't say they had no sense of self. I said they don't have a sense of self like humans do.

In what way is it significant whether they have a sense of self like humans or not?

That it can impede our ability to see reality.

Isnt everybody’s sense of reality different?

That depends upon if they are being subjective or objective.

Wouldn't the answer be the same for both?

No. Because the definition of reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. Being objective is how one sees the world or the state of things as it actually exists. Whereas being subjective leads to seeing the world or state of things in an idealistic or notional way. The very definition of reality implies a final state of fact.

Right but when you say “how things actually exist” that is just a compilation of everything’s unique perspective of it. So the situations are one in the same

What you are describing is perception of reality. Reality and perception of reality are not necessarily the same. But by definition, reality implies a final state of fact that is independent of perception.

If I take your thought process to it's logical conclusion, you would have to conclude there was no such thing as reality. Is that what you think? And more importantly... is that how you behave?

I guess you could call reality “gods perception” if you want to set one perspective as a standard... but other than that what “is” is what we perceive and what we perceive is different and unique per the eye of the beholder

That belief would be fine IF your actions didn't belie that. Would you like for me to provide an example?

Yes please

Ok let's take Donald Trump as he is a polarizing figure and likely to illicit not only polarizing views but overwhelmingly strong polarizing views. Is it reality that he was a bad president?

That’s a great example and question. Per my previous explanation of reality I’d say that the answer is different depending on who is answering. Some will say yes and others will say no

I'm not asking you that - but what you just described is perception of reality and not reality. What I am asking you is do you believe that it is absolutely 100% objective truth that Donald Trump was a bad president and if YOUR perception should be accepted as the actual indisputable reality.

Because if you say, "no, it's not reality" then you have no basis for believing your opinion is any better than someone else's different opinion. And if you say, "yes, it is the objective truth and therefore reality" then you have just acknowledged that there does in actuality exist a final state of fact and objective truth which is known as reality.

I’m saying no it is not reality, it is simply perceived reality that is differently perceptive by each entity that perceives it. So you are correct there is no basis to claim that my perception is any better than anybody else’s. It simply is what it is for me and I understand that it could be completely different for you. No right and no wrong

So... if I searched through your posts I wouldn't find any instances where you acted like what you were arguing wasn't 100% the objective truth? And that others were wrong for believing otherwise?

I’d say the majority of my posts here are inquisitive with the intent to explore ideas. The posts where I engage more forcefully defending an idea or position are solely based on either my personal opinions or as a position I’m defending in a debate. Sometimes I’ll take positions I don’t personally believe in but I’ll debate that position just to shake out more areas of thought.

Ok, then. I'll accept you at your word. But luckily for me, I do believe that it is logical that there does exist a final state of fact for all things which can be called objective truth and/or reality. So I can argue for true things with conviction. And if my argument is logically proven incorrect then I have learned the truth and will reevaluate every other position in light of the truth, so it's all good.

But for the record perception of reality - which is what you have been arguing - does in and of itself point to reality. Otherwise there would never be any perceptions of reality or expectations of such.

Correct. The only thing we can know for sure is that we are perceiving a reality. A wise man once said “I think therefore I am” I think that was Dan Aykroyd

You can argue your reality with conviction because you think it is proven fact but you said yourself that science or other facts could change that reality. Doesn’t that right there show that what you think is absolute reality is in fact always susceptible to change making it pliable and subjective?

Not to be picky or anything but that belief you just stated was stated as if it were a reality. If you were going to be consistent it would be that there may or may not be an actual reality.

Please pick away... Of course everything I say is a product of something that I either perceive or believe so that’s a given I don’t find it useful to repetitively qualify everything as opinion.

But yes, I believe that the only thing we can know is real is the fact that we are perceiving a sense of reality. I know if I feel pain or sadness or happiness. That sense of self and awareness and the feelings associated with that is all we can’t really know as truth. The rest is a product of interpretation

I don't see how you can possibly see that as real and nothing else. As even that would be a perception of reality and not reality itself. Reality isn't a smorgasbord that you can pick and choose what is real. Perception of reality is though.

Give me an example of something that you think is absolutely real and not a product of your perception

Great question. Everything is made manifest by mind, right? So one always should evaluate whether he has a preference for an outcome and if that preference is influencing his perception of reality. With that said, if one dies to self and has no preference for an outcome then he can see objective truth which is reality. So that's the how. But you asked for a what, right?

The love for my wife and her love for me is absolutely real. How about you?

That’s a wonderful example but it falls in line with what I’ve been saying. Your feeling of love is your perception and the only thing you can know for sure is that you feel the way you feel. I don’t want to challenge the other part of that statement as I don’t want to get too personal. But I will say for you to know your wife loves you takes faith

I like your observation about ego death but that only serves those seeking objectivity and fulfillment along those lines. Somebody like Trump who is the polar opposite is served by perceiving his reality through full ego. Who am Into say one is more accurate than the other? I can only speak for myself and my own perception of right and wrong.

 

[ding]

One thing also is human sight is quite limited regarding the entire spectrum; many animals see beyond what humans can see right in front of their faces. Quite bizarre really, thinking in these terms of sight/light limitations about various unknowns.

Probably because they don't have a sense of self like humans do. That kind of gets in the way of being.

How do you know that animals don’t have a sense of self?

I didn't say they had no sense of self. I said they don't have a sense of self like humans do.

In what way is it significant whether they have a sense of self like humans or not?

That it can impede our ability to see reality.

Isnt everybody’s sense of reality different?

That depends upon if they are being subjective or objective.

Wouldn't the answer be the same for both?

No. Because the definition of reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. Being objective is how one sees the world or the state of things as it actually exists. Whereas being subjective leads to seeing the world or state of things in an idealistic or notional way. The very definition of reality implies a final state of fact.

Right but when you say “how things actually exist” that is just a compilation of everything’s unique perspective of it. So the situations are one in the same

What you are describing is perception of reality. Reality and perception of reality are not necessarily the same. But by definition, reality implies a final state of fact that is independent of perception.

If I take your thought process to it's logical conclusion, you would have to conclude there was no such thing as reality. Is that what you think? And more importantly... is that how you behave?

I guess you could call reality “gods perception” if you want to set one perspective as a standard... but other than that what “is” is what we perceive and what we perceive is different and unique per the eye of the beholder

That belief would be fine IF your actions didn't belie that. Would you like for me to provide an example?

Yes please

Ok let's take Donald Trump as he is a polarizing figure and likely to illicit not only polarizing views but overwhelmingly strong polarizing views. Is it reality that he was a bad president?

That’s a great example and question. Per my previous explanation of reality I’d say that the answer is different depending on who is answering. Some will say yes and others will say no

I'm not asking you that - but what you just described is perception of reality and not reality. What I am asking you is do you believe that it is absolutely 100% objective truth that Donald Trump was a bad president and if YOUR perception should be accepted as the actual indisputable reality.

Because if you say, "no, it's not reality" then you have no basis for believing your opinion is any better than someone else's different opinion. And if you say, "yes, it is the objective truth and therefore reality" then you have just acknowledged that there does in actuality exist a final state of fact and objective truth which is known as reality.

I’m saying no it is not reality, it is simply perceived reality that is differently perceptive by each entity that perceives it. So you are correct there is no basis to claim that my perception is any better than anybody else’s. It simply is what it is for me and I understand that it could be completely different for you. No right and no wrong

So... if I searched through your posts I wouldn't find any instances where you acted like what you were arguing wasn't 100% the objective truth? And that others were wrong for believing otherwise?

I’d say the majority of my posts here are inquisitive with the intent to explore ideas. The posts where I engage more forcefully defending an idea or position are solely based on either my personal opinions or as a position I’m defending in a debate. Sometimes I’ll take positions I don’t personally believe in but I’ll debate that position just to shake out more areas of thought.

Ok, then. I'll accept you at your word. But luckily for me, I do believe that it is logical that there does exist a final state of fact for all things which can be called objective truth and/or reality. So I can argue for true things with conviction. And if my argument is logically proven incorrect then I have learned the truth and will reevaluate every other position in light of the truth, so it's all good.

But for the record perception of reality - which is what you have been arguing - does in and of itself point to reality. Otherwise there would never be any perceptions of reality or expectations of such.

Correct. The only thing we can know for sure is that we are perceiving a reality. A wise man once said “I think therefore I am” I think that was Dan Aykroyd

You can argue your reality with conviction because you think it is proven fact but you said yourself that science or other facts could change that reality. Doesn’t that right there show that what you think is absolute reality is in fact always susceptible to change making it pliable and subjective?

Not to be picky or anything but that belief you just stated was stated as if it were a reality. If you were going to be consistent it would be that there may or may not be an actual reality.

Please pick away... Of course everything I say is a product of something that I either perceive or believe so that’s a given I don’t find it useful to repetitively qualify everything as opinion.

But yes, I believe that the only thing we can know is real is the fact that we are perceiving a sense of reality. I know if I feel pain or sadness or happiness. That sense of self and awareness and the feelings associated with that is all we can’t really know as truth. The rest is a product of interpretation

I don't see how you can possibly see that as real and nothing else. As even that would be a perception of reality and not reality itself. Reality isn't a smorgasbord that you can pick and choose what is real. Perception of reality is though.

Give me an example of something that you think is absolutely real and not a product of your perception

Great question. Everything is made manifest by mind, right? So one always should evaluate whether he has a preference for an outcome and if that preference is influencing his perception of reality. With that said, if one dies to self and has no preference for an outcome then he can see objective truth which is reality. So that's the how. But you asked for a what, right?

The love for my wife and her love for me is absolutely real. How about you?

That’s a wonderful example but it falls in line with what I’ve been saying. Your feelings of love is your perception the only think you cam know for sure is that you feel the way you feel. I don’t want to challenge the other part of your statement as I don’t want to get too personal.

I like your observation about ego death but that only serves those seeking objectivity and fulfillment along those lines. Somebody like Trump who is the polar opposite is served by perceiving his reality through full ego. Who am Into say one is more accurate than the other? I can only speak for myself and my own perception of right and wrong.

Being objective is the only way to see reality. And yes, it can be done. For example is it objective truth to say people should wear seat belts and look both ways when they cross the street? Of course it is because those are standards which exist for logical reasons.

 

[ding]

But I will say for you to know your wife loves you takes faith

The definition of faith is placing complete trust in someone or something. I never place complete trust in anyone or anything without good reason. So even faith requires one to be objective and see reality. Which despite your objections does exist in reality because by definition reality is the state of the world or things as they REALLY EXIST.

 

[Slade3200]

One thing also is human sight is quite limited regarding the entire spectrum; many animals see beyond what humans can see right in front of their faces. Quite bizarre really, thinking in these terms of sight/light limitations about various unknowns.

Probably because they don't have a sense of self like humans do. That kind of gets in the way of being.

How do you know that animals don’t have a sense of self?

I didn't say they had no sense of self. I said they don't have a sense of self like humans do.

In what way is it significant whether they have a sense of self like humans or not?

That it can impede our ability to see reality.

Isnt everybody’s sense of reality different?

That depends upon if they are being subjective or objective.

Wouldn't the answer be the same for both?

No. Because the definition of reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. Being objective is how one sees the world or the state of things as it actually exists. Whereas being subjective leads to seeing the world or state of things in an idealistic or notional way. The very definition of reality implies a final state of fact.

Right but when you say “how things actually exist” that is just a compilation of everything’s unique perspective of it. So the situations are one in the same

What you are describing is perception of reality. Reality and perception of reality are not necessarily the same. But by definition, reality implies a final state of fact that is independent of perception.

If I take your thought process to it's logical conclusion, you would have to conclude there was no such thing as reality. Is that what you think? And more importantly... is that how you behave?

I guess you could call reality “gods perception” if you want to set one perspective as a standard... but other than that what “is” is what we perceive and what we perceive is different and unique per the eye of the beholder

That belief would be fine IF your actions didn't belie that. Would you like for me to provide an example?

Yes please

Ok let's take Donald Trump as he is a polarizing figure and likely to illicit not only polarizing views but overwhelmingly strong polarizing views. Is it reality that he was a bad president?

That’s a great example and question. Per my previous explanation of reality I’d say that the answer is different depending on who is answering. Some will say yes and others will say no

I'm not asking you that - but what you just described is perception of reality and not reality. What I am asking you is do you believe that it is absolutely 100% objective truth that Donald Trump was a bad president and if YOUR perception should be accepted as the actual indisputable reality.

Because if you say, "no, it's not reality" then you have no basis for believing your opinion is any better than someone else's different opinion. And if you say, "yes, it is the objective truth and therefore reality" then you have just acknowledged that there does in actuality exist a final state of fact and objective truth which is known as reality.

I’m saying no it is not reality, it is simply perceived reality that is differently perceptive by each entity that perceives it. So you are correct there is no basis to claim that my perception is any better than anybody else’s. It simply is what it is for me and I understand that it could be completely different for you. No right and no wrong

So... if I searched through your posts I wouldn't find any instances where you acted like what you were arguing wasn't 100% the objective truth? And that others were wrong for believing otherwise?

I’d say the majority of my posts here are inquisitive with the intent to explore ideas. The posts where I engage more forcefully defending an idea or position are solely based on either my personal opinions or as a position I’m defending in a debate. Sometimes I’ll take positions I don’t personally believe in but I’ll debate that position just to shake out more areas of thought.

Ok, then. I'll accept you at your word. But luckily for me, I do believe that it is logical that there does exist a final state of fact for all things which can be called objective truth and/or reality. So I can argue for true things with conviction. And if my argument is logically proven incorrect then I have learned the truth and will reevaluate every other position in light of the truth, so it's all good.

But for the record perception of reality - which is what you have been arguing - does in and of itself point to reality. Otherwise there would never be any perceptions of reality or expectations of such.

Correct. The only thing we can know for sure is that we are perceiving a reality. A wise man once said “I think therefore I am” I think that was Dan Aykroyd

You can argue your reality with conviction because you think it is proven fact but you said yourself that science or other facts could change that reality. Doesn’t that right there show that what you think is absolute reality is in fact always susceptible to change making it pliable and subjective?

Not to be picky or anything but that belief you just stated was stated as if it were a reality. If you were going to be consistent it would be that there may or may not be an actual reality.

Please pick away... Of course everything I say is a product of something that I either perceive or believe so that’s a given I don’t find it useful to repetitively qualify everything as opinion.

But yes, I believe that the only thing we can know is real is the fact that we are perceiving a sense of reality. I know if I feel pain or sadness or happiness. That sense of self and awareness and the feelings associated with that is all we can’t really know as truth. The rest is a product of interpretation

I don't see how you can possibly see that as real and nothing else. As even that would be a perception of reality and not reality itself. Reality isn't a smorgasbord that you can pick and choose what is real. Perception of reality is though.

Give me an example of something that you think is absolutely real and not a product of your perception

Great question. Everything is made manifest by mind, right? So one always should evaluate whether he has a preference for an outcome and if that preference is influencing his perception of reality. With that said, if one dies to self and has no preference for an outcome then he can see objective truth which is reality. So that's the how. But you asked for a what, right?

The love for my wife and her love for me is absolutely real. How about you?

That’s a wonderful example but it falls in line with what I’ve been saying. Your feelings of love is your perception the only think you cam know for sure is that you feel the way you feel. I don’t want to challenge the other part of your statement as I don’t want to get too personal.

I like your observation about ego death but that only serves those seeking objectivity and fulfillment along those lines. Somebody like Trump who is the polar opposite is served by perceiving his reality through full ego. Who am Into say one is more accurate than the other? I can only speak for myself and my own perception of right and wrong.

Being objective is the only way to see reality. And yes, it can be done. For example is it objective truth to say people should wear seat belts and look both ways when they cross the street? Of course it is because those are standards which exist for logical reasons.

I could make an argument against that as that advice is dependent on the end goal and the conditions of the world we perceive to live in. We could get into examples like this using statistics, cause and effect, math and science that all produce predictable results and confidently say they are agreeable absolute facts. But those “truths” only exist within the realm of reality in which we think we exist. The Matrix sets up a great, simplistic and understandable scenario to showcase what I’m talking about. If our reality is a game, or a dream, or a fragment of a greater existence then we only understand that which exists in our perceived reality. 1+1 = 2 makes sense in our realm because it is based on our perception of reality and the laws we understand that govern that realm. But what if we are in a dream, what if time went backwards, What if we exist in an infinite amount of dimensions?? Absolute truth changes depending on each other those scenarios. Sorry if this is getting too deep in the weeds. It’s a trippy rabbit hole

 

[Slade3200]

But I will say for you to know your wife loves you takes faith

The definition of faith is placing complete trust in someone or something. I never place complete trust in anyone or anything without good reason. So even faith requires one to be objective and see reality. Which despite your objections does exist in reality because by definition reality is the state of the world or things as they REALLY EXIST.

What really exists is only perceived by you and what you believe. You can’t know that I really exist and that I’m really conversing with you. All you can know is that you think you are having a philosophical discussion about reality. You could be having it with yourself

 

[Batcat]

If everything just happened, then there can be no eternality of anything and no rational reason for what exists to exist unless it's always been. And science has proven that this is not the case. And philosophy rationalizes that this isn't the case. And mathematics reveals that this cannot be the case. But GOD isn't a material being. HE reveals that HE is in fact SPIRIT. Unlike all the gods of the ancients, and all the things "moderns" desire ---- which are material. SPIRIT has no beginning.

To be clear, when you refer to “god” you are speaking of some unknown and undefined thing that has always been, is that correct? You are not speaking about the god as defined by the Bible or any other organized religion. Is that right?

The Bible never defines God. That would be like a ant defining a human.

The Bible does not attempt to prove God exists or give any definition of God. Yet it does describe His nature in four ways: God is spirit - His nature is not flesh and blood. God is also light - there is no darkness in Him at all. God is also love. Finally, God's nature can be compared to a consuming fire. These four descriptions provide some insights into God's nature and character rather than giving us a definition of Him.

How Does the Bible Describe God?

There is nothing that anyone can know about God's nature unless He reveals it to humankind. Without divine revelation humanity will be in darkness.

www.blueletterbible.org

The Bible says plenty about God. Perhaps not a detailed description of exactly what God is but it speaks of his creations, his commands, his laws, and his actions.

Very true. Still we have no detailed description as you mention probably because it is impossible for us to describe God adequately.

Best description I can give to “God” would be that which we do not yet understand. We are linear finite thinking beings. God is infinity

Infinity is a hard concept to truly understand. As are omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence — all attributes or characteristics of God.

​

 

[ding]

One thing also is human sight is quite limited regarding the entire spectrum; many animals see beyond what humans can see right in front of their faces. Quite bizarre really, thinking in these terms of sight/light limitations about various unknowns.

Probably because they don't have a sense of self like humans do. That kind of gets in the way of being.

How do you know that animals don’t have a sense of self?

I didn't say they had no sense of self. I said they don't have a sense of self like humans do.

In what way is it significant whether they have a sense of self like humans or not?

That it can impede our ability to see reality.

Isnt everybody’s sense of reality different?

That depends upon if they are being subjective or objective.

Wouldn't the answer be the same for both?

No. Because the definition of reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. Being objective is how one sees the world or the state of things as it actually exists. Whereas being subjective leads to seeing the world or state of things in an idealistic or notional way. The very definition of reality implies a final state of fact.

Right but when you say “how things actually exist” that is just a compilation of everything’s unique perspective of it. So the situations are one in the same

What you are describing is perception of reality. Reality and perception of reality are not necessarily the same. But by definition, reality implies a final state of fact that is independent of perception.

If I take your thought process to it's logical conclusion, you would have to conclude there was no such thing as reality. Is that what you think? And more importantly... is that how you behave?

I guess you could call reality “gods perception” if you want to set one perspective as a standard... but other than that what “is” is what we perceive and what we perceive is different and unique per the eye of the beholder

That belief would be fine IF your actions didn't belie that. Would you like for me to provide an example?

Yes please

Ok let's take Donald Trump as he is a polarizing figure and likely to illicit not only polarizing views but overwhelmingly strong polarizing views. Is it reality that he was a bad president?

That’s a great example and question. Per my previous explanation of reality I’d say that the answer is different depending on who is answering. Some will say yes and others will say no

I'm not asking you that - but what you just described is perception of reality and not reality. What I am asking you is do you believe that it is absolutely 100% objective truth that Donald Trump was a bad president and if YOUR perception should be accepted as the actual indisputable reality.

Because if you say, "no, it's not reality" then you have no basis for believing your opinion is any better than someone else's different opinion. And if you say, "yes, it is the objective truth and therefore reality" then you have just acknowledged that there does in actuality exist a final state of fact and objective truth which is known as reality.

I’m saying no it is not reality, it is simply perceived reality that is differently perceptive by each entity that perceives it. So you are correct there is no basis to claim that my perception is any better than anybody else’s. It simply is what it is for me and I understand that it could be completely different for you. No right and no wrong

So... if I searched through your posts I wouldn't find any instances where you acted like what you were arguing wasn't 100% the objective truth? And that others were wrong for believing otherwise?

I’d say the majority of my posts here are inquisitive with the intent to explore ideas. The posts where I engage more forcefully defending an idea or position are solely based on either my personal opinions or as a position I’m defending in a debate. Sometimes I’ll take positions I don’t personally believe in but I’ll debate that position just to shake out more areas of thought.

Ok, then. I'll accept you at your word. But luckily for me, I do believe that it is logical that there does exist a final state of fact for all things which can be called objective truth and/or reality. So I can argue for true things with conviction. And if my argument is logically proven incorrect then I have learned the truth and will reevaluate every other position in light of the truth, so it's all good.

But for the record perception of reality - which is what you have been arguing - does in and of itself point to reality. Otherwise there would never be any perceptions of reality or expectations of such.

Correct. The only thing we can know for sure is that we are perceiving a reality. A wise man once said “I think therefore I am” I think that was Dan Aykroyd

You can argue your reality with conviction because you think it is proven fact but you said yourself that science or other facts could change that reality. Doesn’t that right there show that what you think is absolute reality is in fact always susceptible to change making it pliable and subjective?

Not to be picky or anything but that belief you just stated was stated as if it were a reality. If you were going to be consistent it would be that there may or may not be an actual reality.

Please pick away... Of course everything I say is a product of something that I either perceive or believe so that’s a given I don’t find it useful to repetitively qualify everything as opinion.

But yes, I believe that the only thing we can know is real is the fact that we are perceiving a sense of reality. I know if I feel pain or sadness or happiness. That sense of self and awareness and the feelings associated with that is all we can’t really know as truth. The rest is a product of interpretation

I don't see how you can possibly see that as real and nothing else. As even that would be a perception of reality and not reality itself. Reality isn't a smorgasbord that you can pick and choose what is real. Perception of reality is though.

Give me an example of something that you think is absolutely real and not a product of your perception

Great question. Everything is made manifest by mind, right? So one always should evaluate whether he has a preference for an outcome and if that preference is influencing his perception of reality. With that said, if one dies to self and has no preference for an outcome then he can see objective truth which is reality. So that's the how. But you asked for a what, right?

The love for my wife and her love for me is absolutely real. How about you?

That’s a wonderful example but it falls in line with what I’ve been saying. Your feelings of love is your perception the only think you cam know for sure is that you feel the way you feel. I don’t want to challenge the other part of your statement as I don’t want to get too personal.

I like your observation about ego death but that only serves those seeking objectivity and fulfillment along those lines. Somebody like Trump who is the polar opposite is served by perceiving his reality through full ego. Who am Into say one is more accurate than the other? I can only speak for myself and my own perception of right and wrong.

Being objective is the only way to see reality. And yes, it can be done. For example is it objective truth to say people should wear seat belts and look both ways when they cross the street? Of course it is because those are standards which exist for logical reasons.

I could make an argument against that as that advice is dependent on the end goal and the conditions of the world we perceive to live in. We could get into examples like this using statistics, cause and effect, math and science that all produce predictable results and confidently say they are agreeable absolute facts. But those “truths” only exist within the realm of reality in which we think we exist. The Matrix sets up a great, simplistic and understandable scenario to showcase what I’m talking about. If our reality is a game, or a dream, or a fragment of a greater existence then we only understand that which exists in our perceived reality. 1+1 = 2 makes sense in our realm because it is based on our perception of reality and the laws we understand that govern that realm. But what if we are in a dream, what if time went backwards, What if we exist in an infinite amount of dimensions?? Absolute truth changes depending on each other those scenarios. Sorry if this is getting too deep in the weeds. It’s a trippy rabbit hole

So setting aside that my actions here might have repercussions in some other dimension, part of objective truth is understanding distributions. Objective truth requires one to argue all sides of a reality to arrive at objective truth. That would apply especially to outcomes we don't find pleasing. Objective truth would never define a specific outcome when reality calls for a statistical outcome because objectivity requires all scenarios to be considered without bias. Not doing so is subjective which is the root cause for perceptions of reality instead of reality.

As for the Matrix argument, a fish may not know he is wet but he knows the shark bearing down on him is real. My point here is that creating self fulfilling models of reality is subjective and in no way negates that there is a state of things that are real. Just because everything is made manifest by mind does not mean a reality does not exist outside of that manifestation. It only means that there is a chance that some minds won't be able to put aside their biases to see things the way they really are.

 

[Blues Man]

.

The atheist brigade can't help themselves. Their demon masters sent them!

you keep forgetting that you have to believe that your god made demons too.

So if your god made demons and he made humans then it must be that your god intended for some humans to be controlled by demons.

 

[ding]

But I will say for you to know your wife loves you takes faith

The definition of faith is placing complete trust in someone or something. I never place complete trust in anyone or anything without good reason. So even faith requires one to be objective and see reality. Which despite your objections does exist in reality because by definition reality is the state of the world or things as they REALLY EXIST.

What really exists is only perceived by you and what you believe. You can’t know that I really exist and that I’m really conversing with you. All you can know is that you think you are having a philosophical discussion about reality. You could be having it with yourself

Perceptions and reality only match up when one's perception of reality is really the way things exist. At all other times, perception of reality is not reality and are two different things.

 

[Blues Man]

One thing also is human sight is quite limited regarding the entire spectrum; many animals see beyond what humans can see right in front of their faces. Quite bizarre really, thinking in these terms of sight/light limitations about various unknowns.

Probably because they don't have a sense of self like humans do. That kind of gets in the way of being.

How do you know that animals don’t have a sense of self?

I didn't say they had no sense of self. I said they don't have a sense of self like humans do.

In what way is it significant whether they have a sense of self like humans or not?

That it can impede our ability to see reality.

Isnt everybody’s sense of reality different?

Perception is reality for all intents and purposes.

It doesn't matter that there are things we can not perceive or detect because all we can react to is what we perceive.

 

[Slade3200]

One thing also is human sight is quite limited regarding the entire spectrum; many animals see beyond what humans can see right in front of their faces. Quite bizarre really, thinking in these terms of sight/light limitations about various unknowns.

Probably because they don't have a sense of self like humans do. That kind of gets in the way of being.

How do you know that animals don’t have a sense of self?

I didn't say they had no sense of self. I said they don't have a sense of self like humans do.

In what way is it significant whether they have a sense of self like humans or not?

That it can impede our ability to see reality.

Isnt everybody’s sense of reality different?

That depends upon if they are being subjective or objective.

Wouldn't the answer be the same for both?

No. Because the definition of reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. Being objective is how one sees the world or the state of things as it actually exists. Whereas being subjective leads to seeing the world or state of things in an idealistic or notional way. The very definition of reality implies a final state of fact.

Right but when you say “how things actually exist” that is just a compilation of everything’s unique perspective of it. So the situations are one in the same

What you are describing is perception of reality. Reality and perception of reality are not necessarily the same. But by definition, reality implies a final state of fact that is independent of perception.

If I take your thought process to it's logical conclusion, you would have to conclude there was no such thing as reality. Is that what you think? And more importantly... is that how you behave?

I guess you could call reality “gods perception” if you want to set one perspective as a standard... but other than that what “is” is what we perceive and what we perceive is different and unique per the eye of the beholder

That belief would be fine IF your actions didn't belie that. Would you like for me to provide an example?

Yes please

Ok let's take Donald Trump as he is a polarizing figure and likely to illicit not only polarizing views but overwhelmingly strong polarizing views. Is it reality that he was a bad president?

That’s a great example and question. Per my previous explanation of reality I’d say that the answer is different depending on who is answering. Some will say yes and others will say no

I'm not asking you that - but what you just described is perception of reality and not reality. What I am asking you is do you believe that it is absolutely 100% objective truth that Donald Trump was a bad president and if YOUR perception should be accepted as the actual indisputable reality.

Because if you say, "no, it's not reality" then you have no basis for believing your opinion is any better than someone else's different opinion. And if you say, "yes, it is the objective truth and therefore reality" then you have just acknowledged that there does in actuality exist a final state of fact and objective truth which is known as reality.

I’m saying no it is not reality, it is simply perceived reality that is differently perceptive by each entity that perceives it. So you are correct there is no basis to claim that my perception is any better than anybody else’s. It simply is what it is for me and I understand that it could be completely different for you. No right and no wrong

So... if I searched through your posts I wouldn't find any instances where you acted like what you were arguing wasn't 100% the objective truth? And that others were wrong for believing otherwise?

I’d say the majority of my posts here are inquisitive with the intent to explore ideas. The posts where I engage more forcefully defending an idea or position are solely based on either my personal opinions or as a position I’m defending in a debate. Sometimes I’ll take positions I don’t personally believe in but I’ll debate that position just to shake out more areas of thought.

Ok, then. I'll accept you at your word. But luckily for me, I do believe that it is logical that there does exist a final state of fact for all things which can be called objective truth and/or reality. So I can argue for true things with conviction. And if my argument is logically proven incorrect then I have learned the truth and will reevaluate every other position in light of the truth, so it's all good.

But for the record perception of reality - which is what you have been arguing - does in and of itself point to reality. Otherwise there would never be any perceptions of reality or expectations of such.

Correct. The only thing we can know for sure is that we are perceiving a reality. A wise man once said “I think therefore I am” I think that was Dan Aykroyd

You can argue your reality with conviction because you think it is proven fact but you said yourself that science or other facts could change that reality. Doesn’t that right there show that what you think is absolute reality is in fact always susceptible to change making it pliable and subjective?

Not to be picky or anything but that belief you just stated was stated as if it were a reality. If you were going to be consistent it would be that there may or may not be an actual reality.

Please pick away... Of course everything I say is a product of something that I either perceive or believe so that’s a given I don’t find it useful to repetitively qualify everything as opinion.

But yes, I believe that the only thing we can know is real is the fact that we are perceiving a sense of reality. I know if I feel pain or sadness or happiness. That sense of self and awareness and the feelings associated with that is all we can’t really know as truth. The rest is a product of interpretation

I don't see how you can possibly see that as real and nothing else. As even that would be a perception of reality and not reality itself. Reality isn't a smorgasbord that you can pick and choose what is real. Perception of reality is though.

Give me an example of something that you think is absolutely real and not a product of your perception

Great question. Everything is made manifest by mind, right? So one always should evaluate whether he has a preference for an outcome and if that preference is influencing his perception of reality. With that said, if one dies to self and has no preference for an outcome then he can see objective truth which is reality. So that's the how. But you asked for a what, right?

The love for my wife and her love for me is absolutely real. How about you?

That’s a wonderful example but it falls in line with what I’ve been saying. Your feelings of love is your perception the only think you cam know for sure is that you feel the way you feel. I don’t want to challenge the other part of your statement as I don’t want to get too personal.

I like your observation about ego death but that only serves those seeking objectivity and fulfillment along those lines. Somebody like Trump who is the polar opposite is served by perceiving his reality through full ego. Who am Into say one is more accurate than the other? I can only speak for myself and my own perception of right and wrong.

Being objective is the only way to see reality. And yes, it can be done. For example is it objective truth to say people should wear seat belts and look both ways when they cross the street? Of course it is because those are standards which exist for logical reasons.

I could make an argument against that as that advice is dependent on the end goal and the conditions of the world we perceive to live in. We could get into examples like this using statistics, cause and effect, math and science that all produce predictable results and confidently say they are agreeable absolute facts. But those “truths” only exist within the realm of reality in which we think we exist. The Matrix sets up a great, simplistic and understandable scenario to showcase what I’m talking about. If our reality is a game, or a dream, or a fragment of a greater existence then we only understand that which exists in our perceived reality. 1+1 = 2 makes sense in our realm because it is based on our perception of reality and the laws we understand that govern that realm. But what if we are in a dream, what if time went backwards, What if we exist in an infinite amount of dimensions?? Absolute truth changes depending on each other those scenarios. Sorry if this is getting too deep in the weeds. It’s a trippy rabbit hole

So setting aside that my actions here might have repercussions in some other dimension, part of objective truth is understanding distributions. Objective truth requires one to argue all sides of a reality to arrive at objective truth. That would apply especially to outcomes we don't find pleasing. Objective truth would never define a specific outcome when reality calls for a statistical outcome because objectivity requires all scenarios to be considered without bias. Not doing so is subjective which is the root cause for perceptions of reality instead of reality.

As for the Matrix argument, a fish may not know he is wet but he knows the shark bearing down on him is real. My point here is that creating self fulfilling models of reality is subjective and in no way negates that there is a state of things that are real. Just because everything is made manifest by mind does not mean a reality does not exist outside of that manifestation. It only means that there is a chance that some minds won't be able to put aside their biases to see things the way they really are.

Good points and I’d agree that is a very fair minded and logical way to go about life as we know it. Your fish scenario gave me a counterpoint. Yes there is a “real” threat imposed by the shark but the unknown is what happens when the shark eats the fish. Does the fish wake up from a dream or go to another state of existence or cease to exists? I won’t argue that the threats you perceive in this life feel real and have predictable consequences but the fact that you don’t know what happens when you “die” is interesting don’t you think? What if the moment after you “die” you wake up in bed. Would then all these things you perceive in this life be absolute and real to you at that point? What of the dreams you experience in this life? Do you currently wake up and consider those experiences real?

 

[Slade3200]

One thing also is human sight is quite limited regarding the entire spectrum; many animals see beyond what humans can see right in front of their faces. Quite bizarre really, thinking in these terms of sight/light limitations about various unknowns.

Probably because they don't have a sense of self like humans do. That kind of gets in the way of being.

How do you know that animals don’t have a sense of self?

I didn't say they had no sense of self. I said they don't have a sense of self like humans do.

In what way is it significant whether they have a sense of self like humans or not?

That it can impede our ability to see reality.

Isnt everybody’s sense of reality different?

Perception is reality for all intents and purposes.

It doesn't matter that there are things we can not perceive or detect because all we can react to is what we perceive.

Agreed