May 4, 2012 -- 12:44PM, stardustpilgrim wrote:

 

I understand perfectly the view that all talk of God is imaginary. Does that change for one second the fact that I hold that God is real and the source for everything that is? No.

Why should it?

I can appreciate the tightrope amcolph seems to be walking, but I can't live there practically, it seems almost schizophrenic (in the ordinary sense of the word, no disrespect intended).

It doesn't seem like a tightrope to me, or schizophrenic either.  One of the reasons I brought this up is that I have the same wonderment about Christians who embrace Realism.

Do I ever consider that it might be the case that the whole basis of my world might be illusory? No.

And what would you do about it if it was?  But somehow, I can't imagine anyone thinking that a world without Realism was illusory. 

I still like Kant, there is an exterior world independent of mind, but we cannot know the noumenal world. Our own physiology and psychology, our neural network, only allows in what corresponds to its structure. Mind filters and shapes the information coming in through the senses, and gives us our phenomenal world. Now, there is a direct correlation between the exterior world and our interior world, but what we know as the phenomenal world is not exhaustive concerning the noumenal world.

How does this help us understand the relationship of God to the world, but more specifically, the relationship between Jesus and the Father? Jesus had a different, more elaborate, filtering system. Jesus was able to directly experience more of the noumenal world. More than that, at some point in his life, we could say that Jesus experienced the totality of the noumenal world. He said he came from the Father and that he actually seen the Father, like no one else. John one tells us that Jesus had been with the Father always. Elsewhere we are told in scripture that the Second Person of the Trinity was actually the agent for creation of the material universe and is what holds it together.

So it would seem metaphysical realism is an accurate description of reality, however, it does not give the full picture of man's relationship to reality. What man is capable of knowing about ontology is subject to our epistemology. But Jesus and the Bible tell us that man is capable of having his psychological structured altered in such a manner as to be able to take in more of the noumenal world. This change is in fact an ontological change, changing the very nature of what a particular man is.

So to some, Jesus is just an ordinary man. To others, in Jesus dwelt the fulness of the Godhead, bodily. Jesus was, and is God, from all eternity. Close your eyes and imagine for a few seconds that you have never been able to see. This world with no light is your phenomenal world, all you have ever known. But science has come up with a new operation that will fix your type of blindness and allow you to see. You have the operation and a new world opens up, light and vision. Your new neurological structure allows you to see now, and see (understand) more of the noumenal world.

(If Adelphe posts the definitions from her electronic philosophical encyclopedia, will supply later in the appropriate places).

sdp    

So it would seem metaphysical realism is an accurate description of reality...

but unlike you, I find Realism inconsistent with it. 

Please elaborate. Metaphysical realism is different from Realism? In the Cambridge there are eleven listing for realism, all qualified. There is no Realism (period).

sdp

May 5, 2012 -- 9:16AM, stardustpilgrim wrote:

So it would seem metaphysical realism is an accurate description of reality...

but unlike you, I find Realism inconsistent with it. 

Please elaborate. Metaphysical realism is different from Realism? In the Cambridge there are eleven listing for realism, all qualified. There is no Realism (period).

sdp

We seem to be struggling with an inconsistent set of definitions.  Whatever the Cambridge Dictionary has to say, the existence of objective reality is not being called into question in this discussion.

The classical position of Nominalism is that generalities exist only in minds.  For example, there are many objectively existing chairs as the Nominalist and the Realist agree, but the Nominalist takes the position that the abstract concept chair has no objective existence outside of the minds of those who think about it.

The Realist, on the other hand, believes that in addition to objectively real chairs, the concept chair exists objectively, independently of any objectively existing chairs--indeed, whether any actual chairs exist or not--and independently of anybody thinking about chairs.

Check out the link:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_univers...

I suppose that from a Kantian perspective the question would be, are abstract concepts part of the noumena or the phenomena?

May 5, 2012 -- 9:50AM, amcolph wrote:

May 5, 2012 -- 9:16AM, stardustpilgrim wrote:

So it would seem metaphysical realism is an accurate description of reality...

but unlike you, I find Realism inconsistent with it. 

Please elaborate. Metaphysical realism is different from Realism? In the Cambridge there are eleven listing for realism, all qualified. There is no Realism (period).

sdp

We seem to be struggling with an inconstent set of definitions.  Whatever the Cambridge Dictionary has to say, the existence of objective reality is not being called into question in this discussion.

The classical position of Nominalism is that generalities exist only in minds.  For example, there are many objectively existing chairs as the Nominalist and the Realist agree, but the Nominalist takes the position that the abstract concept chair has no objective existence outside of the minds of those who think about it.

The Realist, on the other hand, believes that in addition to objectively real chairs, the concept chair exists objectively, independently of any objectively existing chairs--indeed, whether any actual chairs exist or not--and independently of anybody thinking about chairs.

Check out the link:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_univers...

I suppose that from a Kantian perspective the question would be, are abstract concepts part of the noumena or the phenomena?

For me this raises the question: What does God know and when does he know it?

For me, God doesn't know everything that will ever been known, IOW, for me, God's omniscience is not comprehensive in relation to time and all the created worlds. That probably doesn't mean anything so I'll give an example. But first, additionally, I believe God created with the purpose of intelligent life being able to be independent creators.

My (maybe poor) example. Say when God created the universe it was open-ended, there would be things God would be surprised by. OK, we have plant life that after hundreds of thousands of years would become crude oil and natural gas. Man comes along and through a series of happenings, investigations and experiments, invents the internal combustion engine. Now, I can see God saying to mankind, yea guys, that was good....keep it up. IOW, before creation, God didn't "know" that the internal combustion engine would some day be. (An example of the non-comprehensive omniscience of God).

Therefore, although there would have been many things God had conceptual knowledge of previous to their physical existence, the internal combustion engine, previous to creation, would have had neither physical existence nor even conceptual existence.

So, if we accept that God exists, and my example is correct, there cannot be only one position, either Realist or Nominalist. For some things there exists concepts apart from things (if only in the mind of God) and for some things, concepts can't exist apart from things. Realist as specifically defined by amcolpm, is pretty stupid.

...........

Just thought of maybe a better example. Edison was in favor of DC (direct current) electricity. Tesla and Westinghouse were in favor of AC (alternating current) electricity. Tesla actually invented the alternating current motor on which a great deal of our industry is based (cool story, he was actually walking and reciting a poem in his mind, a poem that had nothing to do with electricity, but he suddenly envisioned and saw whole the alternating current motor, from the words of the poem).

To use DC you would have to have an electrical generating plant on just about every block (because of the limitations of DC power, batteries are DC power). Did God know Tesla was going to invent the alternating current motor? Did God create Tesla to invent the AC motor? The advantage of AC electricity is that electricity can be transmitted thousands of miles with a little boost here and there. Would we now have a DC electrical system if Tesla hadn't existed?

................................

Anyway......I don't see how you can possibly have concepts apart from brains, or some otherwise ordering intelligence (God). IOW, Realism. 

Adelphe, do you accept amcolph's definition of Realism?

sdp