Atheism And Evil...

[Sparko]

This has been interesting though and I've given it some thought. Even at the quantum level, Heisenberg showed that it is impossible to measure or calculate exactly both the position and the momentum of an object. That's not "until we get to 'see' better", but an actual limitation built into the universe. So, we could say that we can't perceive reality to 100% accuracy, even at the quantum level. That's not to say that there is no reality, only perception, of course. There is no suggestion that particles don't exist apart from perception. (Or is there? Anyone fully up on quantum theory please correct me.)

What I've been kicking around in my mind is the idea that we should define reality at various levels. Maybe the world as we see with our eyes "exists" but only at that level. And so on down to the ultimate, whatever that might be.

Incidentally, I've thought of a very comforting use of this theory. Maybe all the people that disagree with my political views here aren't really dumb or misled. Perhaps when I read "Progressivism is really stupid", what they are really writing is "Progressivism is the best of all political views, and should be adopted by everyone" and it's just my perception that's at fault.

I never claimed we could observe or know everything about reality. Quite the opposite. I am just saying that there IS an objective reality. Science tries to learn as much about it as we can, but it is there whether we know or not. Even at the quantum level as you say. H_A seems to think our subjective views ARE reality, "our" reality. But our subjective view can be wrong. Take someone who is delusional. His view of reality is very skewed.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I never claimed we could observe or know everything about reality. Quite the opposite. I am just saying that there IS an objective reality.

Yet you cannot state what that objective reality actually is.

H_A seems to think our subjective views ARE reality, "our" reality.

If you think that then you have entirely missed my points.

Our reality is the only one we have but we cannot assume that the evolutionary path that has led to our human reality is the only reality available or that every human being perceives reality in exactly the same way.

The only [apparently] objective reality is at the quantum level but we do not live at that level. Hence you cannot answer your own statement that:

And no reality is not just at the quantum level. It is at every level.

Because you have no idea as to precisely what is reality.

[Sparko]

Yet you cannot state what that objective reality actually is.

Yes I did. It is everything that actually exists.

If you think that then you have entirely missed my points.

Maybe because you keep talking in circles and have no idea what you are talking about.

Our reality is the only one we have but we cannot assume that the evolutionary path that has led to our human reality is the only reality available or that every human being perceives reality in exactly the same way.

How do you know that?

The only [apparently] objective reality is at the quantum level but we do not live at that level.

How do you know that? Is that YOUR reality?

Hence you cannot answer your own statement that:



Because you have no idea as to precisely what is reality.

See my first answer above.

At this point anything you say is just your opinion based on YOUR reality, right?

If you insist that you are correct and I am wrong then you are admitting I am actually right because you seem to think there is some objective reality we should both agree on. Your argument is self-defeating.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Yes I did. It is everything that actually exists.

Maybe because you keep talking in circles and have no idea what you are talking about.


How do you know that?


How do you know that? Is that YOUR reality?


See my first answer above.

At this point anything you say is just your opinion based on YOUR reality, right?

If you insist that you are correct and I am wrong then you are admitting I am actually right because you seem to think there is some objective reality we should both agree on. Your argument is self-defeating.

I am not insisting on anything. I am simply pointing that what we [humans] perceive as our reality, may not be reality. Nor can we assume that our human reality is the only reality.

[seer]

I am not insisting on anything. I am simply pointing that what we [humans] perceive as our reality, may not be reality. Nor can we assume that our human reality is the only reality.

That wall in front of you is real. No question...

[Sparko]

I am not insisting on anything. I am simply pointing that what we [humans] perceive as our reality, may not be reality. Nor can we assume that our human reality is the only reality.

That is not what you have been "pointing out" - you have been claiming that each person has their "own reality" - which started with a discussion on what is "true" - with you claiming that there is no truth since we all have our own reality.

If you have your own reality and I have mine then there is no way you can claim anything is true, which means you may as well stop arguing that you are correct in anything you claim because it would only be "true for you" - it is a self defeating argument.

On the other hand I have been claiming that there IS an objective reality and we each perceive it differently in some ways. And that where our perceptions agree with reality, we are correct, and where our perceptions disagree with reality, we are incorrect. That there is an objective reality and therefore an objective truth. Truth is what corresponds to objective reality.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

That is not what you have been "pointing out" - you have been claiming that each person has their "own reality" - which started with a discussion on what is "true" - with you claiming that there is no truth since we all have our own reality.

That may well be the case. Your reality is not necessarily the same as your partners.

If you have your own reality and I have mine then there is no way you can claim anything is true, which means you may as well stop arguing that you are correct in anything you claim because it would only be "true for you" - it is a self defeating argument.

The comments were in relation to what we perceive as reality.

On the other hand I have been claiming that there IS an objective reality and we each perceive it differently in some ways.

As I noted the only [apparent] objective reality is at the quantum level. Do you see reality at that level?

As to what is objectively true or an objective truth. You would need to define the term "truth" in that context.

That certain facts are demonstrable is not necessarily the same thing as what individuals perceive to be "true".

[Sparko]

That may well be the case. Your reality is not necessarily the same as your partners.

The comments were in relation to what we perceive as reality.


As I noted the only [apparent] objective reality is at the quantum level. Do you see reality at that level?

As to what is objectively true or an objective truth. You would need to define the term "truth" in that context.

That certain facts are demonstrable is not necessarily the same thing as what individuals perceive to be "true".

Since you don't believe in truth or reality, your claims are nothing but the ramblings of a deranged cat woman.

[rogue06]

It's a little known fact that rattlesnakes enjoy boating, and lacking the ability to build boats themselves, often hang around quays hoping that humans will offer them a ride in their boats. Boaters should be warned that, despite their cute appearance, rattlesnakes are dangerous and should not be offered rides under any circumstances.

aggressive-rattlesnake-tries-to-board-a-boat-full-of-people-video-2.jpg
And the feller even brought along his own beer and sunscreen.

[rogue06]

He continues:

There’s the need to amalgamate gravity with quantum mechanics. Then there is the funny something that went on in the first 3 minutes after the beginning of the universe, which somehow created an imbalance between ordinary matter and antimatter. Everything we know about physics suggests that matter and antimatter particles are always created in equal proportions, so we expect this happened at the big bang. The problem is that every constituent of matter that we see around us – ourselves, the sun – everything is made almost completely of normal matter. In the time it takes to make a cup of tea, all the antimatter in the universe disappeared and we have no idea why.

How do Genesis 1 & 2 explain that?

Why should it be expected to?