What is 'objective reality'?

The problem with observable evidence presented to us in manifest form, is that the religious can claim "Well, where did it all come from then? There must be an answer as to the creation of that manifest world; and of course that can be retorted to with "Well, where is the creator of the creator?". It is such, an infinitely paradoxical question. I have to side with the Atheist argument, as it is all to simple to say that there is a creator and to simply accept his existence, as you may believe. But the seemingly odd commandments put forward by the word of those that supposedly heard God's words and relayed them (which also brings up a massive case of doubt as to the case of secondary empirical evidence) seems very odd and counter-intuitive, at least to myself. There are also massive contradictions held with all religious text, I take the Bible for reference;

"JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them." Opposed to;
PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

There are several other contradictions and inconstancy's held within the bible as to God's mercy, love and forgiveness, and then his anger, hatred and merciless stance upon his subjects, among other contradictions. I put forward a question to all theists; If god created man, why would he do so, and then command all his creations to love him, live their lives exactly as he had said and worship him constantly, kind of sounds narcissistic and self-centered if you asked me.

 

Please show PROOF that there are "contradictions" in and of themselves and not a matter of contradiction due to faulty interpretation.

 

And a "FACT" will still be "something believed to be true or real". Still subjective. Therefore, your premise is flawed.

 

I'm not going to debate the semantics of biblical texts, they are as they are, I will quote them and assume that what is written is unambiguous.

 

Assume: "1. (may take a clause as object) to take for granted; accept without proof; suppose: to assume that someone is sane. "

As noted above, assuming something to be true or to accept it without proof can lead to precarious situations, especially in debate or public discussion. Many of the scripture are written in parable and metaphoric style and as analogies, so to assume that what they say is what they say can be misleading to the person who is reading and possibly interpreting.

 

Parable:
noun
1.
a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.
What lesson is to be so obfuscated that nobody can understand it?
Now, what I am I accepting without proof? I think the onus of that particular argument is upon yourself; is it not? I see massive disparity between god being all merciful, and wishing to kill those who do not obey him. Those statements are as polarized and starkly stated as possible.

 

Creation.

I don't know: What are you accepting without proof?

Nope... it is not on me. You are claiming that God is wishing to kill all those who do not obey him. Do you have PROOF that such is an absolute fact? Or is the 'fact' just something that you as an individual happens to believe?

 

My first point was in reference to Biblical quotes. The Answer to your second point is just that; I am accepting of nothing without proof. And the third? No, I do not have proof that God wished to do that, like I don't have proof that he exists. The book that you so vehemently believe states that he is both, oxymoronically; all merciful and forgiving, and a killer of those who do not follow his command.

 

"Oxymoronically" speaking then, Do you have spiritual understanding of the scripture?

 

Why would the answer matter in this debate, with the subject matter present? We should be debating the actual points of contradiction within the Bible, and your onus of proof.

 

You are the one who claimed that there are contradictions, therefore, the onus is upon you to provide PROOF of that claim. Show the PROOF.

 

EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

another;

ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

These Biblical quotes are from the book YOU believe in. I have no proof for these claims, because I don't think anything in that book is actually the word of a "God". But it should be proof to YOU, and I reiterate, seeing that you belive in the book that these are quoted from. No ambiguity, not metaphorical, simple, plain text.

 

DISCLAIMER EVEN THOUGH I USED THE QUOTE FROM IC THIS IS AN OPEN POST AND IS ADDRESSING THE SUBJECT MORE THAN A SPECIFIC MEMBER >>>>>>>>>>>>

http://www.trinity.edu/cbrown/modern/descartes-Reality.html

The resource listed (above) and in the title is a fine piece that will save me from writing, and you the forum members from having to read one of my difficult, long, sometimes convoluted interpretations of what I learned in philosophy 101 102 etc lol! I consider advanced philosophy very difficult, for me anyway! More difficult than any science subject or math subject I was required to learn. The resource (above) is about a small chunk of one of my favorite philosophers, Descartes vast work, in this case Meditation III. It discusses and defines how Descartes understood objective reality, formal reality, and the 'degrees' of reality.

reva

 

Do you really want to know why those things you list do not contradict ? I do not want to waste my time if you are going to reject everything I detail from nothing more than hate etc of the subject. I guess what I mean is do you have a real desire to know, to learn or are you simply attempting to discredit Christianity using any means ?

reva

 

Sure, bring em over for some coffee. Let me shake its/they/them/he/she or whatever the claims hand. Oh, there is no hand you say. huh.
Then the flying spaghetti monster and God can talk about objective things. As both are 'objectively real'.

 

No one on this forum will make that assumption. No worries.

 

God as a substance was made up by your author. He quite frankly states 'if their is a God', then blah blah, a substance. How can an if be a substance.

- - - Updated - - -

Did you take and pass this quiz?

http://www.politicalforum.com/religion-philosophy/372651-test-your-knowledge-gospels.html

 

The short article you presented is interesting to say the least, however I noticed that it contains certain elements that take away from its meaningfulness. "Descartes thinks that...." and "Descartes doesn't think...." Those two elements of the writing show clearly that the author is presenting a third party interpretation of what the author believes to be the meaning of what Descartes has written. Rendering the interpretation to be no more or no less meaningful than the interpretations that anyone else would write pertaining to what Descartes wrote. Does the author actually KNOW what Descartes was thinking? Does anyone living today actually know what Descartes was thinking at the time that Descartes wrote the things that he wrote? That interpretation of the writings of Descartes is akin to the many publications printed as interpretations of the 'Bible' and what the various authors of the 'Bible' were thinking at the time they wrote the things that they wrote.

 

What specific assumption are you speaking about? Many assumptions have been expressed on this forum.

 

Another such assumption on your part. Assuming that I would respond in a certain manner. Shame on you for publishing such rubbish without having proof to support the assumption. Where specifically did I make such a statement?

 

Then you have interpreted those scripture to say that they are not metaphorical nor ambiguous. That is an assumption on your part. Of course there is also the matter of you refusing to answer my previous question pertaining to whether or not you know how to spiritually interpret scripture. If you don't know how to interpret scripture spiritually, then all you have left is the earthly interpretation and such earthly interpretation is inevitably going to be wrong: "1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

 

There is no such thing as interpreting the scripture spiritually. Else you'd be able to explain it so everyone could interpret it that way.

- - - Updated - - -

LOL. Shame on you. If you can prove God can shake anythings hand, please do so.
I thought not.

 

Show PROOF of your claim.

Why would I need to show such PROOF?

 

Lol as a student of psychology, well I have a number of semester hours , I know a trick when I see one. I answered the entire thing without reading the questions, of course scoring 100% wrong. The name kind of gave the ruse away XChristian ? Lol, get a life.

reva

 

I provided the resource just for reference. I think God in his natural state (see how language fails us when speaking about such things), is not of the physical universe. In the bible God nearly or always sends a messenger when dealing with the natural universe. The messenger is an angel sending a vision or a dream to someone, a burning bush, or even Jesus himself was a type of temporal agent. There may be one exception but even that when translated correctly tells us that the person God is making contact to (Moses) not look at him but rather look where he just was. Gods realm is atemporal and the bible does not give us very many details of it. One can think of the spirit realm something like a thought. Maybe it could be even another dimension or type of universe. However, I doubt that the spirit (Gods) realm is related to physicality ie the temporal universe at all. The reason the dead never communicate with the living may be that in their realm they may not yet exist as independent spirits, or maybe are not conscious (yet… the bible suggests they are not aware until resurrected). This is all speculation because of the scant attention the scriptures devote to the subject but it may be the spirit realm (eternal atemporal) is so totally different from our temporary time dependent world we would not recognize it, or maybe it can not coexist with the temporal physical universe.


reva