phyllo wrote:For me, I have never claimed there is a really-real-apple but the 'apple' that I see and touched is an empirical reality that is interdependent and entangled with my being.
Right. And that means that every reality that you are talking about is dependent on the minds of the people who create it. Every one of the realities depends on a particular framework and the psychology which cause that framework to be adopted.
It's meaningless for you to talk about "reality" without referring to a particular framework/context.
But in fact, you do that all the time. In the OP, you ask a question without specifying a particular framework. You make general statements without specifying the framework.
Why and how can you do that?
The answer is that you have a particular default "reality" in you mind when you post a statement.
You think that it is the "reality" that everyone ought to have at that particular instant. But people are not in you head. They can't know what you are specifically thinking.
Yes, I have asserted all realities are conditioned upon some kind of Framework and System.
As such all that I have asserted is based some kind [specific or in combination] of Framework and System.
Do I have to specify every Framework and System I had used?
Note the logical, rational, Scientific, philosophical are very obvious.
If you are not sure, then ask, I will answer. This is not an issue.
Note the basis of my OP is this;
1. God is an impossibility - [frameworks referred are reason-logical, empirical]
2. God is driven by psychological factors - [most probable i.e. evidence from Psychological framework]
3. I had used philosophy as an overriding controller.
There should not be any hidden or unknown Framework and Systems relied upon, these must be transparent. If not sure, then ask.
It is obvious God exists within thought-reality as with all other things, apples, dogs, etc.
What exists as thoughts can be objective truths, knowledge, lies, falsehoods, imaginations, dreams, or illusions, etc.
Things that exist as thoughts only do not have merit in terms of knowledge which is Justified True Beliefs.
As a Standard, the most credible knowledge to mankind is objective scientific knowledge, others has a range of credibility with illusions as the lowest credibility in terms of Justified True Beliefs.
The idea of God as I had demonstrated is a transcendental illusion.
Here you are talking as if people ought to adopt a particular framework in a particular situation. And I will go out on a limb and say that it is the framework the YOU are using. You don't actually name a specific framework.
But why ought they use that framework rather than another?
"Credible knowledge" based on which framework. It's not credible in all frameworks ... that you would imply an absolute credibility.
All Framework and Systems I used must be transparent. I have listed them above. If not sure, then ask.
You can use any other Framework and System but you need to qualify and explain them.
You tell me what is your basis and framework to support the credibility of your conclusions, re God exists?
"Credible knowledge" is not absolute but comes in various degrees depending on the type of Framework and System. At present the most credible knowledge is that from the Scientific Framework and System even though at best they are merely "polished conjectures" [Popper].
The central theistic doctrines i.e. God exists [as real and absolute] is of the lowest degrees [I say ZERO] in term of credible knowledge.
Show me in what way can theism's 'God exists' can be objectively credible?
Yes, in this case these sub-realities are basically under one umbrella empirical-rational reality, i.e. Scientific-based empirical rational reality.
Did you just invent that word "sub-realities"? What does it mean? How do "sub-realities" relate to the umbrella "empirical-rational reality"?
What is wrong with that?
It is so common there are main-set and subsets.
The umbrella "empirical-rational reality" encompasses all basis of reality that can be supported by empirical evidences with rational and philosophical justifications.
For example Science is not based purely on empirical evidence but these evidence are subjected to a rational Scientific Method that include elements of logic and philosophy-proper.
There are other empirical-rational framework and systems like legal, economics, sports, health, etc. There is a 'real' murder but that is only qualified to the legal framework and system.
Common sense reality is like the obvious 'Sun moving across the sky of the fixed flat Earth from one horizon to the other' and certain to appear the next morning.
"Common sense reality" is a generic term. There are actually Tom, Dick and Harry "realities". If Tom's compass is not working and he is confused about east and west then his "reality" may have the sun rising in the west and setting in the east. So not only are multiple realities dependent on a framework, they actually dependent on the thoughts and experiences of individuals.
What a mess.
You are in the mess.
I have not deny the fact, multiple realities dependent on a framework are fundamentally dependent on the thoughts and experiences of individuals, INTERSUBJECTIVELY.
There is no ONE absolute independent Reality that encompass all of the above. If you claim so, show me how can you prove and justified it credibly?
You're the one claiming multiple realities and you have not shown that it produces anything but an inconsistent, confusing mess.
Seem yours is very thick.
There are various realities that are conditioned upon its Framework and Systems and it is obvious they have their benefits to mankind, e.g. legal, economics, sports, health, etc.
It is very critical that humans understand the existence of such multiple realities and the elements and mechanics plus their assumptions, limitations, boundaries, etc. so that we can optimize its benefits to the individual and humanity.
Those who do not understand the above concepts of Framework and Systems will think Science is King and represent the absolute truth, leading to Scientism. When we understand the details, Scientific knowledge are merely at best 'polished conjectures' but we use it for our benefits while being mindful of its limitations and the potential to be exploited by evil prone people.
From my perspectivem my reference to the multiple realities is as follows,
1. I have relied on the Philosophy-proper framework to understand why theism [in part -re Islam] is so malignantly evil.
2. I have used abductive logic to produce the major and minor premises and relied on philosophy with empirical framework to justify my premises.
3. From general logic I produced a logical syllogism.
4. Research from psychology has indicated humans the idea of God can arise from mental illness, drugs, brain damage, etc. [evidences provided].
My proposals are directed to benefits to humanity as a whole in terms of perpetual peace.
However for the theists, their theism is Mainly for a very SELFISH purpose to deal with the individual's psychological angst [SOS].
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.