Does the notion of "objective reality" require God?

[grannymh]

A proposition though, is a verbal formulation. For example, if one says, “It is true that ‘star exist,’” they are commenting on the truth of the proposition (the verbal formulation), which does not exist outside of language.

From my perspective, I would say “The North Star exists.”

If you wish, you could use “language” to comment on the truthfulness of that statement. Or you could completely ignore looking up at the night sky and still say “It is true that the North Star exists.” Someone else could use language to comment on the truthfulness of your proposition. If everyone kept their mouth shut, no verbal formulation whatsoever, would the North Star disappear?

In other words, there are objects which exist independently of language. Long range, it would be possible to say that because objects exist outside of ourselves, one would need to go outside of our language to find the source of those objects. In this sense, one could say that God as a Creator is needed.

 

[Qoeleth]

From my perspective, I would say “The North Star exists.”

If you wish, you could use “language” to comment on the truthfulness of that statement. Or you could completely ignore looking up at the night sky and still say “It is true that the North Star exists.” Someone else could use language to comment on the truthfulness of your proposition. If everyone kept their mouth shut, no verbal formulation whatsoever, would the North Star disappear?

In other words, there are objects which exist independently of language. Long range, it would be possible to say that because objects exist outside of ourselves, one would need to go outside of our language to find the source of those objects. In this sense, one could say that God as a Creator is needed.

If you make a proposition “the north star exists”, what I can say is that stat**ement is true or untrue.

Now, if everyone stopped perceiving and concieving, yes, things would disappear (i.e. cease to appear). There has to be some perceiver and interpreter to whom things appear. If no one see the north star it does not appear to anyone, (it dis-appears). Similarly, if no one calls it “the north star”, then it is not the north star.

I wonder if there is any significance to the fact the God’s creation occurs through His verbal formulation (He says “Let there be light”, etc.), again supporting the thesis of linguistic idealism?

 

[jimmy]

Such a position requires (consciously or unconsciously) the inclusion of “super human thoughts and perceptions”- since, as noted previously, something can exist (ex sistet) only if it exists to some observor.

Of course, you, as a Catholic believe that this is God- so there is no inconsistency in you holding such a belief. My contention was that the idea of objective reality cannot be reconciled with atheism.

I take a similar view when it comes to values and ethics. Values don’t exist in a vaccuum, but only in relation to persons who can value them and order their lives according to them. The concept of murder only makes sense when there is someone that can perceive the meaning of it and the consequences of it.

But when it comes to physical reality, either it exists or it doesn’t. Either a tree exists or it doesn’t. It is irrelevant whether I perceive it. The rain forests of South America exist regardless of the fact that I have never been to South America and seen them.

I agree though that you can’t deny objective reality and the existence of God at the same time. Perception precedes the existence of the world logically and temporally.

But maybe you could say that I take my own perception as an objective reality just as much as I take the world around me as objective. I think it is absurd for me to say that I perceive the world around me and to deny the existence of God at the same time. So there is a sense that I have to be perceived or conceived in order for me to perceive the objective reality. So perception still precedes everything else.

 

[grannymh]

If you make a proposition “the north star exists”, what I can say is that statement is true or untrue.

Now, if everyone stopped perceiving and concieving, yes, things would disappear (i.e. cease to appear). There has to be some perceiver and interpreter to whom things appear. If no one see the north star it does not appear to anyone, (it dis-appears). Similarly, if no one calls it “the north star”, then it is not the north star.

I wonder if there is any significance to the fact the God’s creation occurs through His verbal formulation (He says “Let there be light”, etc.), again supporting the thesis of linguistic idealism?

As I recall from a philosophy survey course, linguistic idealism may have been one of the theories which lead to some philosophers to doubt their own existence and therefore, they were trying to find themselves in someone else’s imagination. That may be a bit of an exaggeration – which resulted in my dismissing these men as being a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic.

 

[gentle_atheist]

If you make a proposition “the north star exists”, what I can say is that statement is true or untrue.

Now, if everyone stopped perceiving and concieving, yes, things would disappear (i.e. cease to appear). There has to be some perceiver and interpreter to whom things appear. If no one see the north star it does not appear to anyone, (it dis-appears). Similarly, if no one calls it “the north star”, then it is not the north star.

Nobody knew about the existence of bacteria until the 17th century. Nobody knew about the existence of the planet Neptune until the 19th century. What are you saying, that these things did not exist before then?

I wonder if there is any significance to the fact the God’s creation occurs through His verbal formulation (He says “Let there be light”, etc.), again supporting the thesis of linguistic idealism?

Well, if it is indeed a “fact” that God spoke the world into existence then I guess that it would make the case for linguistic idealism open and shut.

I remember the nuns in grammar school telling us that we would cease to exist if God stopped thinking about us. So I guess you could say that those who believe that God spoke the world into existence are linguistic idealists.

 

[inocente]

As I recall from a philosophy survey course, linguistic idealism may have been one of the theories which lead to some philosophers to doubt their own existence and therefore, they were trying to find themselves in someone else’s imagination. That may be a bit of an exaggeration – which resulted in my dismissing these men as being a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic.

Alternatively: They only had one oar in the water. Couldn’t hit the floor if they fell on it. Their wheel is spinning but the hamster fell off. Their driveway doesn’t quite reach the road. If you stand close enough to them you can hear the sea.

But then how do you know that you know what you know, when you can’t know what it is to know before you know?

 

[grannymh]

Alternatively: They only had one oar in the water. Couldn’t hit the floor if they fell on it. Their wheel is spinning but the hamster fell off. Their driveway doesn’t quite reach the road. If you stand close enough to them you can hear the sea.

But then how do you know that you know what you know, when you can’t know what it is to know before you know?

I would ask Peter Piper.