It is delusional to say, "There is no Ultimate Reality"

Author: Mopac
Ultimate Reality
God
Orthodox
The Way
The Truth

Posts

Total: 147
Topic's author
#61
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Our faith is expressed in typology, allegory, parable, and the like.

That being the case, how can I answer these questions in a way that will satisfy you? I can't.

The issue is not one of explanation. If that was the case, I would be understood when I speak clearly.

Our religion is Truth worship. You can't reconcile the way it truly is with your perception of it. Why? You don't want it to be true. If what I am saying is true, you have been made a fool. You have been tricked by the godless and wicked into denying reality itself, something even you know is stupid.





#62
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@SirAnonymous
That sounds pantheistic or panantheistic. Am I correct, or am I assuming too much?

Correct. Panentheism would be the correct term here.

Before I answer whether or not God is the Ultimate Reality, could you define what you mean by the "Ultimate Reality"?

If I could help here it just means reality as it exists independent of our own personal observations. If God is proposed as omnipresent, which God is, it means the reality God observes is the Ultimate Reality....meaning there is nowhere something exists where the Creator is not aware. Basically everything that exists, exists within the Reality of God, God encompasses all that exists. There is no reality which exists independent of God, out of which all things originate. The Hindu description of Brahman is a great example of what we mean by an Ultimate Reality.
God exists both within creation and independent of creation. All things exist within the Creator. So this reality as it exists within God is considered the "ultimate" as opposed to a fraction of it or a piece of it and nothing is outside of that, God observes all things at once at all times everywhere. 


#63
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@SirAnonymous
Basically in a nutshell it's the conscious reality of God we are proposing that would be the ultimate reality. Since nothing exists outside of that or independent of that it is the ultimate, sounds cheesy I know lol, but it's actually legit. Mopac just doesn't know how to articulate that for whatever reason. 
#64
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@Mopac
That doesn't really answer my question. You define the Ultimate Reality as God and God as the Ultimate Reality. That doesn't help me understand what you mean.
Could you please define "Ultimate Reality" without calling it God?
What characteristics does it have?
What makes it different than non-non-ultimate reality (presuming you think there is such a thing)? 
What makes the Ultimate Reality more ultimate than the non-ultimate reality?
#65
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@SirAnonymous
What characteristics does it have?

Consciousness, awareness to start with. That's what makes it the Ultimate Reality, it's reality as it is observed independent of our own observations. 
#66
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@EtrnlVw
Correct. Panentheism would be the correct term here.
Ok.
If I could help here
Maybe, but only if you understand it the same way Mopac does. Otherwise, it won't help me understand what Mopac means when he uses the term "Ultimate Reality." Let me ask Mopac if your explanation is in line with how he understands it.
#67
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@SirAnonymous
Maybe, but only if you understand it the same way Mopac does. Otherwise, it won't help me understand what Mopac means when he uses the term "Ultimate Reality." Let me ask Mopac if your explanation is in line with how he understands it.

Okay
#68
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@Mopac
 it just means reality as it exists independent of our own personal observations. If God is proposed as omnipresent, which God is, it means the reality God observes is the Ultimate Reality....meaning there is nowhere something exists where the Creator is not aware. Basically everything that exists, exists within the Reality of God, God encompasses all that exists. There is no reality which exists independent of God, out of which all things originate. The Hindu description of Brahman is a great example of what we mean by an Ultimate Reality.
God exists both within creation and independent of creation. All things exist within the Creator. So this reality as it exists within God is considered the "ultimate" as opposed to a fraction of it or a piece of it and nothing is outside of that, God observes all things at once at all times everywhere.

Basically in a nutshell it's the conscious reality of God we are proposing that would be the ultimate reality. Since nothing exists outside of that or independent of that it is the ultimate, sounds cheesy I know lol, but it's actually legit.
Is this your understanding of the Ultimate Reality? If not, in what ways is your understanding different and/or similar to this?
#69
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@EtrnlVw
@Mopac
What characteristics does it have?
Consciousness, awareness to start with.
If this is a characteristic of the Ultimate Reality that Mopac agrees with, then it is an excellent illustration of my problem with his argument. It is undeniable that reality exists. Thus far, Mopac's argument holds. However, many or most people would not agree that reality, or the Ultimate Reality, has consciousness. So when Mopac tells someone that believing in the Ultimate Reality means that, by extension, they believe in God, or at least that they should believe in God in order to be logically consistent, Mopac and whoever he's talking to at the time aren't talking about the same thing when they say, "Ultimate Reality." One thinks the Ultimate Reality has consciousness; the other doesn't. So while Mopac's understanding of the Ultimate Reality is God, the other person's isn't. Calling them the same name doesn't make them the same.
#70
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@SirAnonymous
If this is a characteristic of the Ultimate Reality that Mopac agrees with, then it is an excellent illustration of my problem with his argument. It is undeniable that reality exists. Thus far, Mopac's argument holds. However, many or most people would not agree that reality, or the Ultimate Reality, has consciousness. So when Mopac tells someone that believing in the Ultimate Reality means that, by extension, they believe in God, or at least that they should believe in God in order to be logically consistent, Mopac and whoever he's talking to at the time aren't talking about the same thing when they say, "Ultimate Reality." One thinks the Ultimate Reality has consciousness; the other doesn't. So while Mopac's understanding of the Ultimate Reality is God, the other person's isn't. Calling them the same name doesn't make them the same.

That's exactly true, which is why I tell Mopac the term is useless until one first accepts God exists. I don't know why he keeps using it as a means to argue his position, it's silly. An Ultimate Reality though, would be useless unless that Reality could be observed by an Ultimate Observer. To non-believers it's just reality as it is, they don't equate that with the conscious reality of the Creator.....yet. 


#71
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@SirAnonymous
One has to be able to connect God with this supposed ultimate reality, and I think it is possible but Mopac feels it's unnecessary to do so, or he believes whatever he is saying to be obviously true just by definition, which it is only to those who have accepted God exists. 
Topic's author
#72
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@SirAnonymous
Reality as it truly is.

What else needs to be said? It should be obvious that there is a certain level of incomprehension that cannot be overcome.




Topic's author
#73
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@EtrnlVw
@SirAnonymous
What characteristics does it have?

Consciousness, awareness to start with. That's what makes it the Ultimate Reality, it's reality as it is observed independent of our own observations. 


What makes it the ultimate reality is that it is what is ultimately real. Real in the truest sense of the word.

The Ultimate Reality is not contingent on observation. Consciousness and awareness is not what make something real.

#74
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@Mopac
Any comments on this?
If this is a characteristic of the Ultimate Reality that Mopac agrees with, then it is an excellent illustration of my problem with his argument. It is undeniable that reality exists. Thus far, Mopac's argument holds. However, many or most people would not agree that reality, or the Ultimate Reality, has consciousness. So when Mopac tells someone that believing in the Ultimate Reality means that, by extension, they believe in God, or at least that they should believe in God in order to be logically consistent, Mopac and whoever he's talking to at the time aren't talking about the same thing when they say, "Ultimate Reality." One thinks the Ultimate Reality has consciousness; the other doesn't. So while Mopac's understanding of the Ultimate Reality is God, the other person's isn't. Calling them the same name doesn't make them the same.
It wouldn't have to be consciousness. Any characteristic of God - personal, merciful, omnipotent, etc. - would have the same logic. My point is that your argument only works if the person you're talking to has the same understanding of the Ultimate Reality that you do. Since most atheists/agnostics don't think reality is a being, let alone a divine Being, your argument fails from the get-go.
#75
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
In your ultimate reality what does your god have to do with the bible?
Topic's author
#76
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@SirAnonymous
it just means reality as it exists independent of our own personal observations. If God is proposed as omnipresent, which God is, it means the reality God observes is the Ultimate Reality....meaning there is nowhere something exists where the Creator is not aware. Basically everything that exists, exists within the Reality of God, God encompasses all that exists. There is no reality which exists independent of God, out of which all things originate. The Hindu description of Brahman is a great example of what we mean by an Ultimate Reality.
God exists both within creation and independent of creation. All things exist within the Creator. So this reality as it exists within God is considered the "ultimate" as opposed to a fraction of it or a piece of it and nothing is outside of that, God observes all things at once at all times everywhere.

Basically in a nutshell it's the conscious reality of God we are proposing that would be the ultimate reality. Since nothing exists outside of that or independent of that it is the ultimate, sounds cheesy I know lol, but it's actually legit.
Is this your understanding of the Ultimate Reality? If not, in what ways is your understanding different and/or similar to this?



We wouldn't say The Ultimate Reality exists within God, we would say The Ultimate Reality is God. By definition, this can't exist inside anything because it is all encompassing. We wouldn't say that consciousness is what defines God either, it is REALITY thst defines God.

I'd like to note that the fact that God exists should be a given. There should be no dispute about this. It is when you get into statements about God that there is real debate.

Debating the existence of God is something uneducated people do. And communists. Why communists? Because communism is in itself a secular religion that is innately intolerant towards competing religions. 

#77
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@Mopac
@disgusted
I'd be curious to know that as well. Either the Ultimate Reality is just the lowest common denominator that everyone agrees exists and isn't God, or it's the God of the Bible and everyone doesn't agree that it exists. Mopac's argument tries to have it both ways at the same time.
Topic's author
#78
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@SirAnonymous
Here is the thing.

The Ultimate Reality is not an understanding. It is not a conception. It is not a theory. It is reality as it truly is.

Reality as it truly is. How I understand or make sense of that is truly irrelevant. God exists, and God is true. Let all be wrong, let God be right.








Topic's author
#79
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@SirAnonymous
When we say, "God", we mean The Ultimate Reality.


That is why it is nonsensical to dispute that God is The Ultimate Reality.

#80
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@Mopac
We wouldn't say The Ultimate Reality exists within God
<br>
I don't believe I said or implied that, and if I did, it was by mistake, because this...
we would say The Ultimate Reality is God. 
...I understood. So this...
By definition, this can't exist inside anything because it is all encompassing. 
...isn't relevant.
We wouldn't say that consciousness is what defines God either, it is REALITY thst defines God.
But consciousness is still a characteristic of God. This is where my logic applies. Either the Ultimate Reality doesn't have consciousness, in which case people agree it exists but it isn't God, or the Ultimate Reality has consciousness and people don't agree that it exists. Let me make this a little clearer.
P1: The Ultimate Reality doesn't have consciousness.
C1: People agree it exists.
C2: It isn't God.
P2: The Ultimate Reality does have consciousness.
C3: It is God.
C4: Not everyone agrees it exists.
If P1 is true, then C1 and C2 are true but C3 and C4 are false. If P2 is true, the C3 and C4 are true and C1 and C2 are false.

Your argument requires that C1 and C3 are both true, which requires both P1 and P2 to be true. However, they are contradictory, so your argument isn't valid. As a result, you have not established  that this is true:
I'd like to note that the fact that God exists should be a given. There should be no dispute about this.

#81
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@Mopac
When we say, "God", we mean The Ultimate Reality.


That is why it is nonsensical to dispute that God is The Ultimate Reality.
But this is exactly the problem. When most people say the "Ultimate Reality," they don't mean God. When most people say God, they don't mean the Ultimate Reality. Your argument only works if the other person agrees that the Ultimate Reality is God. In other words, your argument only works if the other person already agrees with you.
#82
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@EtrnlVw
Basically in a nutshell it's the conscious reality of God we are proposing that would be the ultimate reality. Since nothing exists outside of that or independent of that it is the ultimate, sounds cheesy I know lol, but it's actually legit. Mopac just doesn't know how to articulate that for whatever reason. 

The reason is because he prefers to stick to truisms rather than actually talk about what he believes because he thinks he can morph that into a big "gotcha!" with every one of his posts. The underlined portion of your post is an example of this. It is not an obvious truism that reality is conscious so Mopac avoids mentioning that he thinks that it is because he knows he has no good justification for this claim.
#83
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
Reality + consciousness = god

Mopac believes that reality exists and that it is conscious, thus he believes in God.

There are people that believe reality exists but do not believe it is conscious, thus these people do not believe in god.

Pretty simple concept. It has been explained to Mopac enough that he definitely understands it by now, he just willfully ignores it because his proto-ontological apologetics fall apart if he does not.
#84
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Mopac

The Ultimate Reality is not contingent on observation. Consciousness and awareness is not what make something real.

That's the only thing that makes it real lol, without observation there can be no Ultimate Reality. Observation comes from first awareness, everything else comes after that. 
#85
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Mopac
We wouldn't say The Ultimate Reality exists within God, we would say The Ultimate Reality is God.

If the Ultimate Reality does not exist within God then it exists outside of God and therefore is greater than the Observer. Observation is what makes reality possible. If you wish to say the Ultimate Reality IS god I have no real problem with that, but it is still from observation, that is the observation of God. Maybe we are getting into semantics here. Keeping it simple so people understand what we mean, only the conscious Reality of God can be the Ultimate Reality, that is the Reality as God observes it. 
#86
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
It is not an obvious truism that reality is conscious....because he knows he has no good justification for this claim.

This is where we would begin to piece everything together using correlation. I would argue the very nature of energy, as it operates within our own universe is key here. How does energy produce what it does? how does it create form? how does it produce intelligence? 
In Theistic terms awareness does not need form, it exists as energy exists both within form and independent of form. Energy is not created and not destroyed...it's omnipresent. These are the very characteristics of God. It is by conscious activity that energy exists at all, awareness generates energy and both the conscious Reality of God and energy co-exist together eternally. 
I can make this claim because of how energy operates in creation, it's an intelligent action/process. Energy is what God uses to create form within the universe. 
#87
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@SirAnonymous
God exists independent of the Bible, as with all spiritual texts. The Bible is just the interpretation of that Reality or even transcendent society, as with all religious observations albeit accurate or not. So the Ultimate Reality is more a universal term, whether or not it fits with any religious proposition is a second issue or matter. 
#88
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@EtrnlVw
So you don't believe any particular religion, then?
#89
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@SirAnonymous
Sure, many spiritual sources have great information. I approach religion from more a wholistic or omnist view, recognizing many of them have legit observations and knowledge. 
#90
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@EtrnlVw
Ok, thanks for clarifying.