@180 Proof

Thank you for your answers :pray:

Regarding your first answer, the question is that if the theism is the result of fear of the end that will happen, why do religious theists continue to commit sin despite the warnings of religion? Fear as a natural mechanism always prevents a person from danger, but sin is a selective act. which occurs despite the presence of fear.

Regarding your second answer, the question is why "evolution", which has changed everything, has not changed this concept? We are witnessing both the spread of the modern attitude towards this concept and the primitive attitude towards it.

Regarding your third answer, one can also ask why Spinoza was theistic if consciousness mainly leads to the passing of this concept. Was Descartes a theist? And even today, many thinkers are theists, although many are not theists.

Regarding the fourth answer, the question is that if the issue of death and the concept of immortality is the key to solving the "problem of God", then how can the phenomenon of suicide be justified? Not all people have a desire for immortality, and death is not a natural event, and sometimes it is a choice.

What is the need for God?
Is God a legacy of the past that remains to this day? Or is it a natural concept that will remain with humans forever?
Is man able to solve the "problem of God"?

How is the world without God?
From a thoughtful and philosophical perspective
From a personal and psychological perspective
From the collective and sociological perspective

@Fire Ologist
@Igitur
@180 Proof
@Tom Storm
@Sam26@Richard B
@bert1
Thank you for your participation.
@Fire Ologist Your point of view is interesting, that instead of proving God, we should deal with the feeling of God, and I am not looking to prove God, but I am looking to clarify this issue and find or build my relationship (as a human being) with it.
In my opinion, the most important human problem is "God's problem".
Maybe this post didn't get a lot of feedback (although people's views on this matter are very important to me because I'm going through a mental transition) because I didn't answer his questions myself. Now I will answer it myself, maybe more people will contribute maybe the path is clarified a little.
First question: What was the traditional belief and actually your idea of ​​God?
My answer: God, in the traditional attitude and the personal and social conditions in which I was brought up, is an all-knowing and all-powerful being who is able to intervene in the affairs of his servants, and whenever I have prayed to him and he has answered, have mercy on me. He said, and if he did not answer, it was because of his wisdom. Although this God cannot be seen on earth, he is omnipotent on earth and does whatever he wants. And it seems to me that this unlimited knowledge and this unlimited power that I have imagined for God has formed in me in a negative way. Because wherever I have not been able to solve a problem, I have sought to attract his ability in my favor by praying.

Second question: Has this belief changed now?
My answer: My belief in God is changing, which means I want to change this traditional belief, which in my opinion is wrong and based on "self-will" rather than "pure truth", that's why I seek to understand people's attitudes.

Maybe this topic is the best place to ask my question:
What was the traditional belief and actually your idea of ​​God? (that is, the belief that every person has had under the influence of the environment in which he was raised, before he encountered any wise thoughts about God)
Has this belief changed now?
- If the answer is yes, how did this new belief evolve and under what ideas were the experiences? I mean, what happened that you came to the conclusion that this belief must be changed? And how did you transform it? And what is your belief now?
- If the answer is no, why do you think that the traditional belief (in the sense of what you have accepted in the past) does not need to be transformed?

@LuckyR

Speaking of human beings... you do understand that each individual human gets to describe their god any way they want to, right?

-@LuckyR

NO!

@Walter
I think that you want to understand God's actions before you know him (who is infinite according to the definition of philosophers and the question is, how can the finite know the infinite?), this seems not possible and you attribute an action to him before you understand what his action really is.
Before knowing God, it is not possible to understand his actions, just like before knowing a human being, one cannot understand his actions.

@George Fisher

In your talks, the main issue was forgotten, what is life? Is it possible to provide a definition for it? What is your definition specifically?
- In another discussion, one can ask what is a human being? Why does he exist? And why should he be?
- In another discussion, you can ask what is the world? Why is it? Where are we in it? Are we alone?
- In another discussion, you can ask if there is a God? What is He? Is the world and everything in it created by Him? Why is there a God? And why do we think that there is a God? ) What does he want? What is his purpose in creating the universe? What do we want from him and what are we looking for?
- In the final discussion, we can ask if there is an end to the history of the world? At the end of history, what will happen to humanity? In which direction will it go? Is the end of human history separate from the end of world history? And etc.

These are questions that have occupied philosophy and science for centuries. The answer to these questions, like many other fundamental questions, may be beyond the ability of man and his knowledge, but we should not stop trying and at least try on an individual level. until we found a convincing answer for our awakened and restless conscience - if we are restless and worried inside - however, in recent years, science and philosophy have reduced their efforts to deal with fundamental questions and devoted their efforts to utilitarianism and profit. They have taken as much knowledge as possible for their own benefit. Fundamental sciences have partially given way to applied sciences, and the question: "What is the benefit of understanding the truth?" has replaced the question: "What is truth?" However, one should not be discouraged.
But know that basic questions require basic answers. Although the answers may be personal and not universal, they require years of work, effort, study and thought.
So try, search, try, search and etc.
sometimes maybe this same trying and searching is the meaning of your life.

How psychoceramic ...

@180 Proof

That she thinks she is psychoceramic is your reality, not my reality! :rofl:

This must be one of most oxymoronic, incoherent, word combos in common (sophistical) usage. I've no idea what "your reality" – like that other bit of pop nonsense "your truth" – even means.

@180 Proof

That you don't know what it means is your reality and not my reality! :lol:

Apparently, you did not profit from our discussion on your old thread Spinoza's Philosophy, Ali ...

@180 Proof

That your reality is that I have not benefited from your discussion in the said thread, is only your reality and not mine.
I used your words (even if you don't believe me,but that doesn't mean I completely agree with your words), thank you for them. :flower:

Father Copelston's Thomistic misreading of Spinoza

@180 Proof

This is your perception and your reality, my reality and perception is different from yours.

One can't "disagree" with another's (your) misconceptions, which are based on demonstrably insufficient study

@180 Proof

You are free to judge me as you wish, but accusing me of insufficient studies is not a philosophical argument, it is simply a fallacy!

Good luck.

What's with this sudden concern of things beyond all possible experience or cognition? You do realize that it's literally beyond experience and cognition, so we can't say anything about it...

Yes, I try to say that we cannot say anything about it Except that it can be said that there is.

So what does that have to do with your phrase

@180 Proof

If you read my comment, you will understand their connection.

"Cognitive apparatus" and "reality" are completely different, unrelated, concepts.

@180 Proof

On what basis do you say that these concepts are unrelated?
Please refer to Kant.

Well then, carefully re-read what Spinoza wrote (re: Ethics, I "Of God") because that is his point.

@180 Proof

This is your understanding of Spinoza. According to Capleston's history of philosophy, Spinoza considered "thought" and "dimension" as attributes of substance. I have said in previous talks that "thought" is our inner reality, so my definition of reality is more It is similar to Spinoza's definition of the attributes of substance rather than substance itself.
Anyway, I respect your opinion and you are free to disagree with my opinion.

if you read this my quote:

Reality is different from existence, existence precedes reality, but the existence that causes reality to occur is actual existence, not potential. If something exists and its existence is potential, it has not occurred until it is actual, and there is no talk of its reality. The condition of something being real is the occurrence of that thing that makes an impression on us.

@Ali Hosein

and this:

I think yes. The difference between existence and reality is relative and related to the thing in which the existence occurs. Many things may be in the universe that have potential existence and have not occurred in us as beings. And so for us, please note that "for us" are not real, but the fact that they are not real does not mean that they do not exist.

@Ali Hosein

Then you will realize that I differentiate between existence and reality. Existence is necessary and is related to truth and precedes reality.
Why? Because our cognitive system creates reality from an effect that affects us, and reality is a relative thing.
Therefore, if I say that we do not have access to the truth, it means that we do not have access to the "what" of the truth, because there is a border between us and the truth called the cognitive system, and this does not conflict with with "existence" as a truth attribute.
What I mean by "access" is the possibility of asking "what" and "why" about a thing.

No my friend, acknowledging the existence of the truth does not mean knowing what it is, not having access to the truth means not knowing it and not its non-existence.

And I think it is correct that what someone says is not truth, but it is reality.

I have used "beyond" here to mean beyond the limit of cognition and beyond our cognitive apparatus.
The boundary between reality and truth is our cognition and cognitive apparatus, our cognitive apparatus creates an internal reality from an external effect (truth) that affects the senses.
In my opinion, this border between reality and truth has been created by our senses and cognitive system.

About Spinoza, I am not sure that substance is the same as reality, because he believed that only two attributes "thought" and "dimension" can be perceived from the divine attributes. "Attributes" seems to fit my definition of reality better than substance.

The next issue is that the structural limitation of the cognitive system does not mean limited realities, when the external effect is unlimited, the realities derived from it will also be unlimited, so we due to the consider Impact that the external effect has on us We can perceive various realities.

My friend, there are not only unique realities, some realities are common like "science".
So if we express a concept based on our common realities, they have more comprehensive validity. In my opinion, even the truth and falsity of propositions are based on accepted common realities (logical relations) and are only realities, not truth.
I do not claim that I have presented a completely scientific or philosophical argument, but I have tried to present a convincing argument to myself based on studies taken from accepted facts (by studying the opinions of some reliable scientific and philosophical people) and I presented it So that maybe it will be useful for people who agree with me or friends like you can help me with their criticisms to get a better understanding.

What is the evidence that something exists? For example, have you seen it, touched it, heard it, smelt it? Where was it, on the mountain, hill, in your garden, or in your room? What did it look like? What shape was it? Were you able to communicate with the object that you say that exists? What was the conversation you had with the existence?

@Corvus

If you have paid attention to my talk about realities, you will realize that all realities are not objective or have no precedent outside of our mind. For example, a concept like force, can you tell exactly what force is, what it looks like, where it is. .. or a concept (hypothetical model) like the electron? (I suggest you refer to Leibniz's philosophy for a better understanding).
But if you are looking to find out what is the truth that affects us, I have to say sorry, in my opinion it is not possible, why? Because between you and the truth is a cognitive system consisting of the brain and the senses, which transforms every effect into a reality that you can understand, therefore access to the truth is not possible.

No problem, you are free to like whatever reality you want.
:flower:

But all that's just your reality. How do we know it's the truth?

@unenlightened

It is true, these are my realities and not the truth, why? Because neither I, nor you, nor any other material being has access to the truth. But how do we know that there is a truth? From the effect that affects our cognitive system and It causes the emergence of realities. We do not create realities out of nothing, an effect affects our senses and realities emerge through our cognitive apparatus. (Probably, this can be taken from the combination of Leibniz's and Locke's views.)
The truth of this is an effect that originates from effecting.
I don't know what the truth is, but through the realities I can realize the existence of the truth, although I don't know what the nature of the truth is, but I know it exists.

@alan1000
Thank you :flower:

Are you saying they are all incorrect? You seemed to be saying earlier that everyone has their own reality, and they can be different. Now there seems to be one God and reality is in Him, and if that is the truth as you say, then all the other realities must surely be false.

@unenlightened

You consider reality and truth to be the same, while the realities are different as I said before, because they are completely dependent on the perception of the beings of the truth, pay attention to the following explanation that I presented earlier:

Simply using the word reality cannot determine whether this concept is fake or not, more information is needed, that is, a concept that defines fakeness or not.
In my opinion, this concept can be "truth". Truth is an absolute concept, when we say that something exists, its existence is a truth shared by all of us equally.
Regardless of what a thing is, its existence is a common truth. In my opinion, the word reality refers to what is. When we ask something about reality, we must first answer the question of what is real.
Therefore, the fact of the existence of a thing is enough for it to be fake or not fake, but whether it happens or not and how it happens depends entirely on the entity that perceives that thing. That is, it depends on how it happens in our cognitive system.
The reality of light for us is completely different from the reality of light for bees, but maybe if we could understand the language of bees! He probably acknowledged with us the fact that there is something, even if the reality is different for both of us.

@Ali Hosein

In the above statement, I have mentioned that there is a truth that is absolute, but the realities are different based on the recognition of the truth by each entity according to its cognitive structure.
The reality is the manifestation of truth in the cognitive systems of beings, and not the violation of God's uniqueness as truth, and the contradiction between the unique truth and different realities.

@Corvus

Prove it.

@Corvus

Feel it to prove it.

Some people think God is real, and some people think God is unreal, and they are all correct?

@unenlightened

Regarding God, in my opinion, God is beyond reality and objective realities are manifestations of God, God is the truth, and objective realities are manifestations of truth.

In this context, Spinoza's view is significant.
He believed that everything that exists is in God and nothing can exist or be imagined without God. He also believed that God is the internal cause of all things.
Of course, this does not mean that I completely agree with Spinoza's point of view.

Is only "There is no problem" good? :lol:
thank you :flower:

There is no problem, I said at the beginning of the conversation that the realities can and may be different and they can and may be common, a realities called the color of a tree can have a common meaning among many people, and the word green refers to that. However, some people perceive a different reality from the color of a tree and are called color blind from the point of view of the majority, or some do not perceive any reality from it, like the blind.
My opinion about you and the bee was based on the common reality between humans called "science", but you can not accept this common reality and realize your own reality.

If we assume that you and I are similar creatures (in terms of cognitive structure and the way we know nature), and considering the word honey, which is the word we refer to the product of bees and it contains common meanings such as sweet taste and honey color and ... and considering that the cognitive structure of the bee is different from our cognitive structure based on the common reality that we refer to as the word "science", with a good probability, the above proposition can be expressed from these possibilities.

The reality that you perceive as honey is probably completely different from the reality that the bee perceives as its product.
But I can understand that you both acknowledge that there is a truth whose reality is honey for you and what it perceives for the bee.
In fact, I think you perceive the same truth in the form of different realities.

What everyone else is getting at is that reality is that about which one can be deceived. So in the case where what is real to you is unreal to me, at least one of us is deceived. But if you are suggesting that something can really be real to you and really be unreal to me, then I think you must be confused.

@unenlightened

Simply using the word reality cannot determine whether this concept is fake or not, more information is needed, that is, a concept that defines fakeness or not.
In my opinion, this concept can be "truth". Truth is an absolute concept, when we say that something exists, its existence is a truth shared by all of us equally.
Regardless of what a thing is, its existence is a common truth. In my opinion, the word reality refers to what is. When we ask something about reality, we must first answer the question of what is real.
Therefore, the fact of the existence of a thing is enough for it to be fake or not fake, but whether it happens or not and how it happens depends entirely on the entity that perceives that thing. That is, it depends on how it happens in our cognitive system.
The reality of light for us is completely different from the reality of light for bees, but maybe if we could understand the language of bees! He probably acknowledged with us the fact that there is something, even if the reality is different for both of us.

so i'm agree that:

something can be real to me but not real to someone else.

@A Realist

:up: :flower:

Interesting! thank you.

Are you joking? this link is wine shop website!

What about perceptions? Are reality independent of our perceptions?

Thoughts are very different to reality

@simplyG

So can we conclude that because thoughts are different from reality and thoughts exist, then existence is different from reality, because thoughts are different from reality?

i have two question:
Does a thought exist or not?
Does reality exist independent of your thoughts or your perceptions?

In that case is there really a difference between reality and existence ? If so what are they ?

@simplyG

I think yes. The difference between existence and reality is relative and related to the thing in which the existence occurs. Many things may be in the universe that have potential existence and have not occurred in us as beings. And so for us, please note that "for us" are not real, but the fact that they are not real does not mean that they do not exist.
It is also possible that something is real for us but not real for another being. Like our thoughts. A thought created by our mind is not real for other beings and is real only for us because its existence is actual for us and relative to us but for other being is potential to them and thus they do not understand our thoughts and it is not real for them.

How does existence precede reality instead of say vice versa. Reality precedes existence has an equal claim to being true to what you’re claiming.

Why would you make the claim that existence precedes reality …I’m not quite clear.

- @simplyG
Because the condition of occurrence is existence, if there is nothing, how will it occur?

Reality is different from existence, existence precedes reality, but the existence that causes reality to occur is actual existence, not potential. If something exists and its existence is potential, it has not occurred until it is actual, and there is no talk of its reality. The condition of something being real is the occurrence of that thing that makes an impression on us.

In my opinion, everything that is perceived, whether it is a feeling derived from sensations or a thought created by the mind, is considered reality.