- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
24 May 05
As I see it "reality" can be different for each individual person. Reality in my life is different from e.g. the Atheist. God is a reality in my life. For the atheist, God is not a reality. I would say that reality is related to personal experience, which would be different for each individual person. If the "reality" of one person does not contain God, is it reasonable for the person to claim that God is not real?
Any thoughts?
24 May 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerYou are confusing reality itself with your perception/knowledge of it.
As I see it "reality" can be different for each individual person. Reality in my life is different from e.g. the Atheist. God is a reality in my life. For the atheist, God is not a reality. I would say that reality is related to personal experience, which would be different for each individual person. If the "reality" of one person does not contain God, is it reasonable for the person to claim that God is not real?
Any thoughts?
24 May 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerReality and perceptions of reality are two distinct classes of entities. While we can only know the latter and trust that it accurately reflects the former, it would be a mistake either to say that the two are one and the same or that the former does not exist because we cannot know it except through the latter.
Are you suggesting that for a person, reality itself is different from how he/she perceives it, as well as different from what he/she knows about it?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
24 May 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerInteresting. So basically "reality" is the same for everybody. It is only the interpretation of reality that would then differ. So if I were to define "reality" as God and everything created by God, there is no way to prove me wrong, because everybody might have a different interpretation of reality?
Reality and perceptions of reality are two distinct classes of entities. While we can only know the latter and trust that it accurately reflects the former, it would be a mistake either to say that the two are one and the same or that the former does not exist because we cannot know it except through the latter.
24 May 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerExcept that you cannot define reality, only your own perception of it. I suggest for some light background reading you hunt down Descarts' Meditations, try here:
Interesting. So basically "reality" is the same for everybody. It is only the interpretation of reality that would then differ. So if I were to define "reality" as God and everything created by God, there is no way to prove me wrong, because everybody might have a different interpretation of reality?
http://www.wright.edu/cola/descartes/mede.html
24 May 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerAnd perception and knowledge are also tricky issues. For instance, how does one translate perceptions (sight, smell, touch) into knowledge.
You are confusing reality itself with your perception/knowledge of it.
What is knowledge?
Where does it come from?
Is knowledge universal or individual?
In other words, for a meaningful discussion to proceed, the terms should be defined, and knowledge accounted for.
24 May 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerthis is pretty much how i already view your stance. from what i can tell, your beliefs are based on faith, not proof. therefore, while i do not necessarily agree with your belief in god and the bible, i see no reason why i can, with a clear conscience, dismiss your faith as having no merit. however, you have to realize that, on the flip side of that coin, a faith-based religion is also one that may not be provable beyond any shadow of a doubt -- the confines of this shadow is where i habitually take respite.
there is no way to prove me wrong, because everybody might have a different interpretation of reality?
as for defining reality, i don't know...hard question. i would probably argue as others in this thread, however, that there is a distinction to be made between inherent reality and one's perception of that reality.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
24 May 05
Originally posted by LemonJellothis is pretty much how i already view your stance. from what i can tell, your beliefs are based on faith, not proof.
this is pretty much how i already view your stance. from what i can tell, your beliefs are based on faith, not proof. therefore, while i do not necessarily agree with your belief in god and the bible, i see no reason why i can, with a clear conscience, dismiss your faith as having no merit. however, you have to realize that, on the flip side of that co ...[text shortened]... here is a distinction to be made between inherent reality and one's perception of that reality.
My faith is the evidence of things not seen.
Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
therefore, while i do not necessarily agree with your belief in god and the bible, i see no reason why i can, with a clear conscience, dismiss your faith as having no merit. however, you have to realize that, on the flip side of that coin, a faith-based religion is also one that may not be provable beyond any shadow of a doubt -- the confines of this shadow is where i habitually take respite.
Do you think that all things can be proven beyond that shadow of a doubt?
24 May 05
3 edits
Originally posted by dj2beckerno. i already said that i don't think you can prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that your faith-based religion is correct (for example).
Do you think that all things can be proven beyond that shadow of a doubt?
i could be wrong...why don't you just present your proof?