May 4, 2012 -- 9:54AM, stardustpilgrim wrote:

May 4, 2012 -- 9:37AM, Adelphe wrote:

May 4, 2012 -- 9:27AM, stardustpilgrim wrote:

May 4, 2012 -- 7:34AM, Adelphe wrote:

May 4, 2012 -- 7:22AM, stardustpilgrim wrote:

May 3, 2012 -- 10:16PM, Adelphe wrote:

May 3, 2012 -- 8:57PM, stardustpilgrim wrote:

I'm in a little over my head here, so if you have to educate me, feel free.

I'm going to presume a metaphysical realist can't have a conception of something they can't directly experience?

Let's assume that there was a person, Jesus, who actually existed. So a metaphysical realist can deal with that he existed, but not who he was, because that goes beyond what they are willing to admit?

My position is that God exists, is very real. Blu (for example) says that God is imaginary because I can't (objectively) demonstrate that God is real.

Let's say that Blu would admit that as a person, Jesus existed. But Blu couldn't admit that Jesus is God, because, to Blu, God is imaginary.

I'd better stop here.......according to.......... 

sdp

Actually, I know Blu's position well from his arguments in similar discussions on Science & Religion and he is most definitely, manifestly, and decidedly NOT a realist.

My dictionary says that "metaphysical realism is shared by common sense, the sciences and most philosophers. ....and that the answers to the questions we put to the real are provided by reality itself--whatever the answers may be, they are substantially what they are because it is reality itself that determines them to be that way". 

sdp 

That's all true but...incomplete (and inadequate.)  Do you have the entire passage?  Anyway, you said "dictionary" but I wouldn't go to a dictionary for a treatment of this topic.

And whoever accused Blu of "common sense", btw? 

You'll also get vociferous and emphatic arguments from non- and anti-realists on the above.  Some are actually reasoned arguments, though (Faustus5's come to mind), unlike some others we've seen on the S&R board...)

Well...my dictionary is The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Second Edition. Metaphysical realism is 1/2 page.

.........Several pieces of a puzzle have been laid out (the different posts), I haven't been able to fit the pieces together.... I think first we have to agree on definitions....it's seems we are not in agreement....

sdp

That's fine.  Can you check to see if it's on-line so you can copy/paste rather than typing it in directly so we can have a look?

It does not seem to be online. I quoted a little more adding to the earlier post.....(plus a seemingly significant spaciotemporal qualification....)

sdp 

Well, I looked back and this:

"Metaphysical realism, in the widest sense, the view that (a) there are real objects (usually the view is concerned with spatiotemporal objects), (b) they exist independently of our experience or our knowledge of them, and (c) they have properties and enter into relations independently of the concepts with which we understand them or the language with which we describe them. Anti-realism is any view that rejects one or more  of these three theses, though if (a) is rejected the rejection of (b) and (c) follows trivially. (pgs 562, 563)"

again, isn't adequate.

"Usually concerned with spatiotemporal objects" is true--most of these discussions come up with respect to science (hence so many of them on the Science & Religion board.)

I don't think you want to type something up by hand (but your call) and since I have a volume of a philosophical encyclopedia electronically on my hard drive on another laptop, I'll copy/paste from that later on.

I believe that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are One God and not three gods.  That said, I plead "mystery of faith" as to how that works.

The universal/particular language is as good as any and better than many to explain it, though.  One question I have never settled for myself though is:

How is the relationship of the Persons of the Trinity to the universal of "divinity" different from the relationship of any other particular to its universal?

Are all red things or all chairs part of the same unity as the Persons are the one Godhead? Or is infinity/singularity a specific property of the universal of divinity so that instead of three gods we have three particulars that are still One?

Moderated by Adelphe on May 04, 2012 - 10:20AM - For no good reason other than...doing too many things at once...

May 4, 2012 -- 10:02AM, Adelphe wrote:

May 4, 2012 -- 9:54AM, stardustpilgrim wrote:

Well, I looked back and this:

"Metaphysical realism, in the widest sense, the view that (a) there are real objects (usually the view is concerned with spatiotemporal objects), (b) they exist independently of our experience or our knowledge of them, and (c) they have properties and enter into relations independently of the concepts with which we understand them or the language with which we describe them. Anti-realism is any view that rejects one or more  of these three theses, though if (a) is rejected the rejection of (b) and (c) follows trivially. (pgs 562, 563)"

again, isn't adequate.

"Usually concerned with spatiotemporal objects" is true--most of these discussions come up with respect to science (hence so many of them on the Science & Religion board.)

I don't think you want to type something up by hand (but your call) and since I have a volume of a philosophical encyclopedia electronically on my hard drive on another laptop, I'll copy/paste from that later on.

That's cool....

May 4, 2012 -- 10:08AM, Adelphe wrote:

 

As a self-proclaimed Nominalist and Christian, I'm simply flabbergasted that you don't see the "pertinence to the topic."

Don't know what else to say.  Maybe back off on the discussion and let it continue until you manage to do so.

What? I've stumped you?

You can't explain why the union of an instantiation of god (God) and an instantiation of flesh (the flesh of Jesus) requires that the universals (flesh and god) be as objectively real as the instantiations?

It's a simple question, maybe even a dumb question, but that it should flabbergast you surprises me.

I hope that something true, useful or interesting will be in the following thoughts about the incarnation of God’s Word.  

If we think of a plan leading to an action which leads to a result, we can see that the plan comes first and without it, there can be no result. By thinking in this order, it could be argued that the plan is more real than the resulting object ( a chair, for instance). 

Since we live in the physical world, we are used to thinking that physical things, a chair for instance, are more real than the plan which created them. Perhaps we are thinking from the bottom up when we should be thinking from the top down. By thinking from the top down, I mean thinking of God as the “Most Real” or the “Only Real” and of all created things as being less real, or not real but only appearances. I hope that we can avoid getting bogged down here. 

If we can imagine the desire, ability (and plan) to create and maintain the universe and mankind as residing in God (Reality), and that His Word represents His desire and ability in action, perhaps we can get a general idea of how His Word “framed the worlds” (Heb. 11:3) and became flesh. 

Using the above definition of God’s Word, His desire and ability in action, God’s Word is God Himself. God acting with Mary’s cooperation and consent fathered a human child, this is how God’s Word (God Himself) became flesh (but was not limited to it). 

Two potential difficult points for some (not me) are:

1- God is the only Reality.

2- God’s Word is His desire and ability in action, not a separate individual.