Jump to Page: 1 2 3 4
praying4patience
I can't reason,
so I pick fights.
Worldly Traveler
Registered: 03-2006
Posts: 113
Karma: -5 (+1/-6)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Objective Reality
now let's say we were driving down a country road together..a whole car of folks here.
We spot this in the middle of the road.Driver puts on the brakes.
Now you and i both know what everyone in the car will say it is-the same thing you will say it is here.
But let's suppose one person yells, don't hit the cat.
Ok.You say maybe this person just didn't see it up close enough.We all get out of the car and we're a foot away from it.The person sees it perfectly and says "isn't that cat darling.I wonder if it has a home."
She's/He's identifying it subjectively.
She/He can say it's a cat all they want and it's not going to be a cat.Objective reality says COW no matter how many times she says cat and how obstinately she beleives this.
She/He can even pick up it up and take it home- and more power to the person.But it's STILL a cow.
That's objective reality.There is no "who's reality is it?"
IT'S A COW.It will always be a cow,albiet a dead one.
It will never be a cat.
That's objective reality.
GB!~
p4p
Last revised by praying4patience, 10/24/2006, 12:15 am
---  |
|
10/24/2006, 12:02 am
|
PM praying4patience
Read Blog
|
Lesigner Girl
Minerva
Worldly Traveler (premium)
Runboard staff member
Registered: 11-2005
Province: SW MI, USA
Posts: 5128
Karma: 89 (+103/-14)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Objective Reality
It's quite obvious to me that the cow is in a pasture surrounded by a wire fence, and not in the road at all. Believing it is cat or that it is in a road is not reality at all — objective, subjective, or otherwise &mash and illusion, or delusion, would more accurately describe the person's belief.
Your scenario does not compare with the arguments you've been trying to make at this board. People can see the cow and know it's a cow, and we can see that it is in a pasture, behind a wire fence and not in a road. People can not see the God you believe in, nor any evidence to prove "His" existence, nor can they disprove the existence of one or more deities. Therefore, all we are left with is blind belief, or the lack of it.
I see a cow, I act accordingly.
I don't see, hear, smell, feel, or taste something, I have no reason to act.
|
|
10/24/2006, 12:29 am
|
PM Lesigner Girl
Read Blog
|
Belligerence
Citizen
Worldly Traveler (premium)
Registered: 08-2004
Province: 127.0.0.1
Posts: 248
Karma: 14 (+16/-2)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Objective Reality
I quote this from God's Debris by Scott Adams ( You can read it for free online...Good book )
“Imagine that you had been raised to believe carrots were potatoes and potatoes were carrots. And imagine you live in a world where everyone knows the truth about these foods except you. When you thought you were eating a potato you were eating a carrot, and vice versa. Assuming you had a balanced diet overall, your delusion about carrots would have no real impact on your life except for your continuous bickering with others about the true nature of carrots and potatoes. Now suppose everyone was wrong and both the carrots and potatoes were entirely different foods. Let’s say they were really apples and beets. Would it matter?”
“You lost me. So God is a potato?” I joked.
“Whether you understand the true nature of your food or not, you still have to eat. And in my example it makes little difference if you don’t know a carrot from a potato. We can only act on our perceptions, no matter how faulty. The best we can do is to periodically adjust our perceptions—our delusions, if you will—to make them more consistent with our logic and common sense.”
It doesn't matter if someone calls it a cow or a cat...It is what it is despite what we call it...
The English call it a "Cow"...The Spanish call it "Vaca"...The French call it "Vache"...Germans say "Kuh"...Are they all wrong because they're not calling it a "Cow" ?
This is not "Objective reality"...And for you to go on posting while ignoring our other points and after you threw a tantrum over how "Rude" we are only validates you have no argument supporting your "God theory"...
You're just grasping at straws trying to make it okay in your own mind...Not ours...
--- Got a complaint? Customer Service Desk
Moderator at RB Support
Halo 3 sux0rz |
|
10/24/2006, 11:19 am
|
PM Belligerence
|
praying4patience
I can't reason,
so I pick fights.
Worldly Traveler
Registered: 03-2006
Posts: 113
Karma: -5 (+1/-6)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Objective Reality
People can not see the God you believe in, nor any evidence to prove "His" existence
there was no mention of God in the post.There is SUFFICIENT evidence that God exsists,but if you have a better possibility with sufficient evidence we can take that up in another thread.Present it there. The universe didn't poof into exsistence and if it did it still had to have something that caused it to poof.Now unless man created himself and the universe,there has to be something that did.And you believe that something is what?
The English call it a "Cow"...The Spanish call it "Vaca"...The French call it "Vache"...Germans say "Kuh"...Are they all wrong because they're not calling it a "Cow" ?
It's still cow wether it's vavca,vache or kuh.If i had written this same post on a German board for instance, i would have said Kuh. A toddler can call it a moo for that matter. The language is different of course.The post wasn't about differences in language.It was about objective reality.People have different experiences obviously and different languages and different cultures. All of that. This does not change objective reality.
Not i have a reality and you have a reality.That's subjective;anotherwords the person yelling cat(that is a small,furry animal that is a feline etc etc)when it's a cow.
We live in a day and age when evil is called good,good is called evil,truth is called a lie and lie is called a truth.
You're just grasping at straws trying to make *it* okay in your own mind...Not ours...
What's *it* ?
GB~
p4p
Last revised by praying4patience, 10/24/2006, 7:11 pm
--- |
|
10/24/2006, 5:38 pm
|
PM praying4patience
Read Blog
|
Lesigner Girl
Minerva
Worldly Traveler (premium)
Runboard staff member
Registered: 11-2005
Province: SW MI, USA
Posts: 5128
Karma: 89 (+103/-14)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Objective Reality
p4p said: there was no mention of God in the post.
Then what was your point in posting it?
p4p said: There is SUFFICIENT evidence that God exsists,but if you have a better possibility with sufficient evidence we can take that up in another thread.
I have asked you numerous times for your evidence, but you have failed to provide it every time. Why do you have to believe that some intelligent being created the universe? Chemical reactions happen all the time without intelligent intervention. One thing comes into contact with another, and POOF! We see it all the time.
Belli said: This is not "Objective reality"...And for you to go on posting while ignoring our other points and after you threw a tantrum over how "Rude" we are only validates you have no argument supporting your "God theory"...
You're just grasping at straws trying to make it okay in your own mind...Not ours...
I concur. 
|
|
10/24/2006, 10:02 pm
|
PM Lesigner Girl
Read Blog
|
praying4patience
I can't reason,
so I pick fights.
Worldly Traveler
Registered: 03-2006
Posts: 113
Karma: -5 (+1/-6)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Objective Reality
Name one chemical reaction that happens without a cause.
GB!~
p4p
--- |
|
10/25/2006, 5:38 am
|
PM praying4patience
Read Blog
|
Lesigner Girl
Minerva
Worldly Traveler (premium)
Runboard staff member
Registered: 11-2005
Province: SW MI, USA
Posts: 5128
Karma: 89 (+103/-14)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Objective Reality
You don't understand anything about chemistry, do you? 
|
|
10/25/2006, 6:31 am
|
PM Lesigner Girl
Read Blog
|
rsine69
Citizen
Worldly Traveler
Registered: 11-2005
Posts: 272
Karma: 12 (+13/-1)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Objective Reality
QUOTE..."The universe didn't poof into exsistence and if it did it still had to have something that caused it to poof.Now unless man created himself and the universe,there has to be something that did.And you believe that something is what?"
There are many theories in cosmology that discuss this. One theory has to do with baby universes being born from the black holes of older universes. In theory, the center of a black hole is known as the singularity. It's a point that is infinately small and infinately dense just like the very early universe. The problem with singularities existing is that everything about it takes on infinate value but according to quantum physics, on the very small subatomic scale, everything is no longer goverened by classical Einstein/Newton laws but instead by the uncertainty princible. This states that the more you measure with accuracy a specific quantum state, the less accurately you will be able to measure any other quantum state. Some cosomologists believe this quantum uncertainty would prevent singularities from exsisting. Instead they might form a baby universe that can expand into a full cosmos.
Another theory called THE MANY WORLDS INTERPRETATION OF QUANTUM MECHANICS states that every probable quantum outcome that can happen actually does happen and the universe splits into an infinate number of parallel universes. Each one following a specific quantum probability. According to this, the reason there was a big bang that produced a universe in which inteligent life emerged was because there were an infinite number of other big bangs creating an infinite number of other universes some of which the conditions were not suitable for the emergence of living organisims but the ones in which the conditions were right out number the ones in which the conditions were not and so the reason we are here is because there's a higher probability of a universe producing us.
Another theory has to do with the idea that although the univeres is finitely old. About 12 billion years old, there would be no beginning. This simply means that the further you go back in time to the very early universe, down to the first minute, the first second, the first nano-second and so forth, you will always have a moment of time that can be halved into even smaller time frames.
Another theory suggests that we are creating the conditions in the early univere in the here and now. According to quantum mechanics, unless something is observed to have a specific state, it has no defined state but since we weren't around during the early stages of the universe, how could it exist? By using telescopes such as the Hubble, we're able to look further back in time there by creating the conditions in the early universe by observing it that led to us being here.
|
|
10/25/2006, 9:03 am
|
PM rsine69
|
praying4patience
I can't reason,
so I pick fights.
Worldly Traveler
Registered: 03-2006
Posts: 113
Karma: -5 (+1/-6)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Objective Reality
ok lg take for granted i don't.Still,name one chemical reaction that happnes without a cause.
GB!~
p4p
--- |
|
10/25/2006, 6:35 pm
|
PM praying4patience
Read Blog
|
praying4patience
I can't reason,
so I pick fights.
Worldly Traveler
Registered: 03-2006
Posts: 113
Karma: -5 (+1/-6)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Objective Reality
One theory has to do with baby universes being born from the black holes of older universes.
so what caused the older universes?
According to this, the reason there was a big bang that produced a universe in which inteligent life emerged was because there were an infinite number of other big bangs creating an infinite number of other universes some of which the conditions were not suitable for the emergence of living organisims but the ones in which the conditions were right out number the ones in which the conditions were not and so the reason we are here is because there's a higher probability of a universe producing us.
this theory sounds the most reasonable but what produced the big bang?
Another theory has to do with the idea that although the univeres is finitely old. About 12 billion years old, there would be no beginning.
the universe has no beginning.Can you explain?
Another theory suggests that we are creating the conditions in the early univere in the here and now. According to quantum mechanics, unless something is observed to have a specific state, it has no defined state but since we weren't around during the early stages of the universe, how could it exist? By using telescopes such as the Hubble, we're able to look further back in time there by creating the conditions in the early universe by observing it that led to us being here.
so this is saying the universe didn't exsist before we exsisted.If this theory were true it still doesn't explain how we came into exsistence.And evidently we are necessary or the universe couldn't exsist.
Now you've given me all these theories.What is the evidence backing each one?
GB!~
p4p
--- |
|
10/25/2006, 6:48 pm
|
PM praying4patience
Read Blog
|
Add to this discussion
Jump to Page: 1 2 3 4
Powered by AkBBS 0.9.5b - Link to us
- Blogs
- Hall of Honour
- Chat
Click here to get your own free message board
|
You are not logged in (login)
Board's time is: 12/1/2008, 7:59 pm EDT
|
|
|
