I know very well what you mean, and according to many but not all Christians you are right; but people of the Jewish and the Islamic religion do not agree on the statement that the trinity you are speaking of is a “manifestation” of one god and thus of monotheism. In addition, they do not agree on the statement that a god has or should have a mother, because this would mean more than one god, at least two gods. If you visit certain countries of Europe, you will see that their Christian cult has more to do with the Virgin Mary as the Mother of God than with God himself or his son Jesus (who is or is not God - this was a discussion that lasted about three centuries) or his Holy Ghost (who is or is not God - this was a discussion that lasted about three centuries). Christianity is not only characterized by division of powers (see: the Christians’ trinity and Mother of God), but also by the separation of its Church and the state (laicism) as well as by peacefulness and humanity.
The First Commandment clearly belongs to the Jewish religion - regardless whether it is also accepted by Christians or not.
But this is more a subject of another thread, for example the following one: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=187389.
Your views above are too shallow and narrow. I agree there are various forms of monotheism, but what is critical here is the substance or essence. Note ‘monotheism’
In essence, Monotheism is the believe in ONE God that stand by itself [Islam] or overrides whatever sub-gods or forms of God that are believed, e.g. Christianity, Hindu Brahman.
I have already explained why the idea of God as believed and psychologically intended will and must ultimately gravitate and be reduced to an absolutely perfect God.
It has to be because no rational [basic] will accept their God to be inferior to another, i.e. having their god having to kiss the ass of another more inferior God.
The most rational of men, the ancient Greeks, were ok with inferior gods who held traits of jealousy, anger, violence, immortality, and the like.
They were more human, oh so human, the highest god was the cause of their fall. Does this imply an anthropomorphic schizophrenia between Philosophers and the gods of the common man?
As I had stated before, what is real is always conditioned to the Framework and Systems that reality emerges or is actualized.
Here is an exercise for you to understand ‘what is reality?’
Take a very large room and is sufficiently tight.
1000 cc of a certain liquid [water] is put in the middle of the room
I ask, what is the reality of that liquid under the following conditions;
a. Normal room temperature -liguid
b. The temperature in the room is raised to 150 degrees centigrade -steam
c. The temperature is slowly reduced to 10 degree C - mist
d. Reduce to normal room temperature - liguid
e. Reduce temperature to minus 10 degree C - ice.
f. Viewing the water with an electron microscope
The question is, what is the reality of that substance we put in the middle of the room.
The answer is, it is;
a. Real liguid of water
b. Real steam
c. Real Mist
d. Real ice
e. Real hydrogen and real oxygen molecules tightly packed
f. Real quarks …
So what is the reality of that substance that was placed in the middle of the room?
The answer is the reality of that substances varies with the conditions of the room.
That cannot be ONE Reality for every thing.
Whatever [including the Reality of realities] you conceive as reality is always conditioned by a Framework and System, thus there is no unconditional absolute reality.
If you think otherwise, show me how can you go about proving there is only ONE reality!
A living alien who lives an environment that has one of the condition permanently will never be able to experience and know other realities besides the only one that it is exposed to.
I have used ‘water’ as an example which is obvious to those with some scientific knowledge.
But all ‘things’ within what we call ‘reality’ are conditioned within the above principles, it is just that many things are seemingly solid and ‘permanent.’
Here’s Russell on the Philosophical persepctive of Reality’ and he questioned whether there is a ‘Real’ table in the first place.
There is no ‘ONE REALITY’, there are only realities that are real subject to qualified-conditions.
Why you think there is only ONE Reality because you are stuck with customs and habits [Hume] and where you are so dogmatic about it is because of psychological angst.
Reality = something that exist, existence.
Kant had argued ‘exist’ is not a predicate.
Existence is always predicated on something.
Therefore reality is always predicated on something.
As above,
Reality = the state of things as they actually exist
I have demonstrated there are many states of things which ‘things’ actually exist depending on the Framework and Systems a reality is realized.
As with the many states [conditions], therefore there are many “realities.”
Note I have already demonstrated to you the different conditional realities?
I had requested, show me how can you prove there is ONLY ONE REALITY?
I really don’t care what Kant argued, or rather what you think that Kant argued.
Well, then you misunderstand the word “exist”.
In your explanation about water having many POSSIBLE states, you failed to point out that water can only be in one of those states at any particular time (not that part of the water can’t be in a different state than another). When you have steam, you do not have ice (except as a different portion then it would be a combination).
Reality is whatever exists AT THAT TIME, not whatever might exist at some other time.
So are you trying to talk about Bohr’s many worlds ontology, wherein every possibility supposedly exists in a “parallel universe”?
Well that would be rather trivial. Something either exists or it doesn’t. Wouldn’t you agree?
If it exists then it is a part of reality (by definition). If it doesn’t exist, it is not a part of reality.
Therefore ALL that exists = existence = Reality = one Reality.
Water can exist in three states as steam or water or ice. Each state represents a different reality as pertaining to water. But these states can
simultaneously exist as well just not in the same space at the same time. Water does not appear in one state everywhere due to temperature
variations on Earth. All these specific realities are a part of the absolute reality which is the totality of existence. Also known as the Universe
This is the point why your philosophical views are so narrow and shallow.
Kant’s argument re ‘Existence is not a predicate’ is one very notable argument on the related topic. You need to understand [not necessary agree] to get my point.
What???
I am not emphasizing on possibilities.
Many such realities are already in existence all over the world [or in the Universe] wherever the conditions exist.
Whatever is H2O [scientifically] such can exist as liquids, clouds in the sky, mists in the cold hills, steam in a boiler, ice in the Arctic and wherever the temperature drop below 0, thus depending on the condition H20 is embedded in AT THE SAME TIME anywhere in the Universe.
Say, a living-thing living within a planet of gas, clouds and steam, mist will never understand the reality of liquid water. A fish living in the deepest part of the ocean will never experience H20 as steam, mists, clouds or ice.
So there are different realities to H20 [same or different H20 molecules] depending on the conditions H20 is subjected to.
Are there any real permanent H20.
No! H2O can be broken into Hydrogen or Oxygen atoms.
Hydrogen & Oxygen atoms can be broken into protons and electron, to quarks, etc.
Same Time?
Say we have a very small drop of water.
If three people are looking at it at the same time, one with normal sight, another looking through an electron microscope, another a more power electron microscope.
At a fixed specific time and conditions, the observers reported the following real observations;
A small drop of water
100 molecules of H20
200 hydrogen atoms & 100 oxygen atoms
So which is the real thing at that fixed specific time?
All the above observations are real to the observers but they have to be qualified to the instruments they used to observe whatever.
None of the three observers can claim theirs is the absolute real thing they observed except by their qualifications.
So you tell me what is the REAL thing that has the quality of H20 or water?
There is no way you can ever nail down that really real thing or that ONE REALITY because such an idea is an impossibility.
Don’t try to fool me with your deception.
Where did that ‘one’ come from??
If it exists it can only be part of a qualified reality and there can be many qualified realities.
There is no absolute reality that is unqualified and totally unconditional.
Note my explanation to the concept of many realities as qualified to various conditions which can be easily verified and proven.
There cannot be ‘ONE reality,’ you are pulling it out of air.
So here you are defining “a reality” as “any portion of all reality”.
And with that, you are defining “a reality” as “whatever an observer reports”. Subjectivism (learn the word for the next time someone asks). And its just a hair’s breadth from Solipsism.
Seriously? It takes a pretty serious idiot to not be able to figure that one out.
[list]“You’re not a human. You are just cells.
Oh wait. You are not cells. You are just molecules.
Oh no, no. You are not molecules. You are just atoms.
No, no. You are not atoms, you are just subatomic particles.
No, no, no. You are not subatomic particles, you are just energy.
Now I see. You are just a battery.
Would you charge my cellphone for me?” [/list:u]
So your definition of “realities” is “any portions of all Reality or observations of such portions.”
How many “realities” are there?
I imagine you would claim an infinity of them.
Our definition of “The One Reality” would then be “the total collection of all realities” (using your definition of “realities”).
Your views are too shallow and narrow. You have absolutely no argument at all, because your statements are hollow phrases. There is nothing behind it. You have merely proven that you have proven nothing at all, that you have no argument and that you do not understand logic, Kant and Hume.
It seems that you have not read my post or, as I already said before, that you are not capable of reading. Try to understand that your above quote and commentary on it do not concern the central statement of my text in my post . So, here you are again too shallow and narrow.
You have explained nothing except the fact that you have no argument and that you do not understand logic, Kant and Hume.
An absolutely perfect God is not needed. The Ancient Greek religion worked perfectly just because it lacked an absolutely perfect God.
The Ancient Greeks were not “the most rational of men”, but they did indeed not need an absolutely perfect God. Their gods were more like the Ancient Greek humans themselves. Their gods were projections of Ancient Greek humans. Their religion worked perfectly. So, the religion (and not God) must be a perfect one to them. Yes.
Not only the Ancient Greek religion gives evidence that an “absolutely perfect” (Prismatic) God is not needed in order to have a theistic system, a religion, a belief in God. It worked perfectly just because it lacked an absolutely perfect God.
The henotheistic/monotheistic religions give evidence too that an “absolutely perfect” God is not needed in order to have a theistic system, a religion, a belief in God. Each God of the each henotheistic/monotheistic religion is not and does not have to be “absolutely perfect”.
So, Prismatic’s pseudo argument or bogus argument that “absolute perfection is impossible” (first “premise” - which is false), that “God must be absolutely perfect” (second “premise” - which is false), so that “God is an impossibility” (“conclusion” - which is false), is an absolutely perfect case of a logical fallacy. (1) Absolute perfection is not impossible; (2) God does not have to be absolutely perfect; (3) God is not impossible. This can only be proven by logic, thus not by, for example, ethics or aesthetics or Prismatic’s schizoid delusions (see e.g.: “empirical possible multiple realities”).
James, I need for you to take your definition of a term like “realities” and note how you connect the dots between the logic imparted in the definition, your understanding of the Real God, and instances out in the world of actual human interactions where both can be intertwined in order to make clearer the points that you raise.
What wrong with ‘subjectivism’ [with rational justifications] where after all you are a subject. Note my views of objectivity = intersubjective consensus.
As for Solipsism, it is an incoherent view. iep.utm.edu/solipsis/#H7
So don’t be philosophically small minded and bang on this point to counter anything.
I have often refer to ‘Reality’ in general as “All there is” but it is meaningless within an empirical-rational reality.
You can define “The One Reality” as above but only in thoughts but such is not possible and realizable within an empirical-rational reality.
This is the same with my claim re God is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.
I have defined reality in this case as conditional upon a Framework and System, so there can be as many realities as the number of defined Framework and System. The most credible reality is that of the scientific reality which is conditional. This is scientific reality one can grip upon, whereas your definition above is baseless and groundless without any hinges to hold onto.
Objectivity is never intersubjectivity. Objectivity is always objectivity. Subjectivity is always subjectivity. So, intersubjectivity is always communicating subjectivity, thus it always remains subjectivity.
Objectivity and subjectivity can never come together. They can come to a consensus, but each consensus is merely intersubjective, thus always subjective and never objective.
The object and the subject are never interchangeable in the same observed and described situation.
A linguistic example: “John sees Mary”. Grammatically: John (subject) sees (predicate) Mary (object). If you changed subject and object here, then you would have another observed and described situation: “Mary sees John” (S-P-O) or “John is seen by Mary” (O-P-S). If you want to say that both are seeing each other, then you have to say for example: “John sees Mary, and Mary sees John” (S-P-O, S-P-O [thus: two S-P-O sentences]) or “John and Mary see each other” (S-P-O) or “John is seen by Mary, and Mary is seen by John” (O-P-S, O-P-S [thus: two O-P-S sentences]) or “John and Mary are seen by each other” (O-P-S) … or similar S-P-O or O-P-S or even P-S-O or P-O-S sentences. But, regardless which of the options you choose, you will never be capable of changing subject and object in one sentence. So, object and subject are always separated from each other. Always, thus also in science and philosophy, in epistemology.
John is never Mary, and this stands for: Subject (S) is never Object (O). Whether John is subject or object and Mary object or subject depends on the situation and on the observation and/or description of this situation. And as an observer and/or describer you can choose a more objective or a more subjective observation and/or description of a situation (happening). But you will never be capable of changing the logic behind it, especially the epistemological form, namely the subject/object dualism (dichotomy).
So, you have no chance to change or overcome reality and certain forms of linguistics, logic, mathematics.
When epistemology and the subject/object dualism (dichotomy) are not “in fashion”, then this does not mean that they have vanished.
Note we are discussing Philosophy as the main ‘subject’ and not linguistics. Note the limitations of Language Games [Wittgenstein].
Even with linguistics when analyzed philosophically,
“John [subject] sees Mary [object]” at t1, location X
"Mary [subject] sees John [object]"at t1 location X
Now from a factual analysis, at the same time [to most exact nano-second] in the same place and conditions, one can clearly understand John and Mary are ‘subject’ and ‘object’ at the same time and conditions. There are also two subjects and two objects existing at the same time and conditions.
In a deeper philosophical analysis,
John [subject] can see Mary subjectively or objectively.
If John sees Mary subjectively, it is only his subjective views, i.e. based on his own conditions. In this case, it is possible for John in his subjective POV to see Mary as a snake [nevertheless still an ‘object’], if John suffer from kind of mental problem.
“The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_W … _for_a_Hat
Thus the individual will subjectively experience and cognize things from his/her individual conditions and experiences.
For John to see Mary objectively as a living human person and not something else, there is a need for intersubjective interaction and consensus to agree what a living human person is.
Factually, if one use a electron microscope to see ‘Mary’ then the fact is there is only a bundle of molecules. A blind bat will cognize Mary in terms of a sonar image.
How John cognized Mary objectively as a living human person with various features is based on an inherent process of intersubjective consensus [conducted by our generic DNA] within humanity.
Thus subjectivity is one person’s view.
Objectivity is many peoples’ shared-view, i.e. intersubjective consensus.
Note this is grounded on the DNA which core is generic to all humans.
The most reliable objective knowledge is scientific theories and they are based on intersubjective consensus after individual subjective conjectures are refined/polished.
Inter subjectivity is fundamental to science because single first person perspectives can not be accepted
as valid. As there is no means by which they can be tested for bias. It does not equate to objective truth
however. But it does reduce as much as possible any subjective interpretations of observable phenomena
