what is objective reality? when reality is the same for everyone?Boostinsane

Objective reality is reality that can be measured and agreed on emprically.

For example; the physical environment, our biological system, the chemical composition of material, etc. We know we can all agree on those principles, since scientific discovery is based on global consensus and understanding.

Social or societal morals that form our objective reality are based on laws and customs for the country we're in. These laws and customs typically stem from human group interaction.

[QUOTE="diz360"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

But there's only a 'shared perception' of objective reality if the people we see actually exist. If they don't exist, there is no shared perception. Put simply: how do you know that the shared perception is not an illusion?Funky_Llama

Its because we have a mutual inter-dependence with other people from the day we are born. We need to rely on others to survive. We all experience similar action/consequence situations that form our subjective experience.

Proof of the success of this "objective reality" that affects us all is the scientific method that depends on collaboration and successive discoveries.

What question is my explaination raising?

If other people did not exist, how would you explain your own birth and upbringing?

You would be able to access the wealth of scientific discovery in all fields as easily as you can access this discussion forum.

But there's only a 'shared perception' of objective reality if the people we see actually exist. If they don't exist, there is no shared perception. Put simply: how do you know that the shared perception is not an illusion?Funky_Llama

Its because we have a mutual inter-dependence with other people from the day we are born. We need to rely on others to survive. We all experience similar action/consequence situations that form our subjective experience.

Proof of the success of this "objective reality" that affects us all is the scientific method that depends on collaboration and successive discoveries.

[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="TheFlameProof"]What makes us so different from fictional chacracters?Funky_Llama

Question everything! Existing is a hard concept to pin down and leads to all sorts of rose-tinted thinking, unless its well qualified:

Our existence as independent humans can be proven by agreement in our shared perception of objective reality. Human existence is quite easy to quantify in an objective and empirical frame of reference.

Fictional characters, by definition, have not existed in objective reality - only in the minds of those creating and consuming the fiction.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="TheFlameProof"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]You're working under the assumption that god created man. That is a cyclic redundancy.TheFlameProof

Shared objective reality proves we exist.

It is unreasonable to assume that if God is imaginary, then so are people. To do so would be to deny the objective reality that we all can co-exist in.

[QUOTE="diz360"][QUOTE="mindstorm"]

Do you consider yourself unbiased then?

I'm aware of all of that. I saw that documentary on the "Lost Tomb of Jesus." The video was extremely biased and didn't do all that well with it's arguments. If you believe Jesus of Nazareth to be burried there then be my guest. As you stated earlier there were a lot of people named Jesus in that day, as well as Joseph and Mary.

mindstorm

I'n unbiased towards religions, although I am biased against inductive reasoning. I am biased towards ratoinality, deductive reasoning and the skeptical scientific method.

Statistically, they say the chances of the family names from that tomb being similar is quite small, lending a high probability to the notion that this could be the tomb of the Jesus figure from the bible.

What arguments didn't go that well for the documentary? The names were clear enough to see...

Does it matter that much that they found bones? Do you not think Jesus ascention to heaven could have been spiritual, rather than physical? would it make that much difference to the story?

If Jesus' resurrection was only spiritual then it would be a complete contridiction of what the Bible teaches. If Jesus did not raise from the dead then there is no reason for me to continue in this faith. It is the central event of Christianity. Of course it would make a difference to the story.

1 Corinthinians 15:3-8 states, "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born."

I suppose that if that passage is true then Jesus did not appear in bodily form but as a spirit. Other places in scripture mention Jesus eating and drinking with the disciples, would that not mean he has a body?

It seems as if you are making a progression from saying there is no proof of Jesus existing to saying Jesus' tomb has been found... Make up your mind.

There are Christians that don't believe in the physical resurrection, so again, you are portraying your own particular bias there. Why assume that a spiritual Jesus could not eat and drink? What about the condradictions with 2 Tim 2:18? Bear in mind they were both written decades later.

I still think there is no proof of a biblical Jesus, since I don't believe in the supernatural. Study of the past tells me theat there were loads of people called Jesus, loads of preachers, many eerily similar stories from previous religions.

The tomb I indicated is well documented and evidenced - there is plenty on the site. This includes Dr Feuervenger's probability factor of 600 to 1. I think there is a potential paternal DNA connection with the remains, so that would cast doubt over the immaculate birth - another issue.

Do you deny that this tomb containing Jesus has been found? It seems funny that you are certain that Jesus lived, but seem equally convinced that this was not his tomb.

Do you consider yourself unbiased then?

I'm aware of all of that. I saw that documentary on the "Lost Tomb of Jesus." The video was extremely biased and didn't do all that well with it's arguments. If you believe Jesus of Nazareth to be burried there then be my guest. As you stated earlier there were a lot of people named Jesus in that day, as well as Joseph and Mary.

mindstorm

I'm unbiased towards religions, although I am biased against inductive reasoning. I am biased towards ratoinality, deductive reasoning and the skeptical scientific method.

Statistically, they say the chance of the family names from that tomb being similar is quite small, lending a high probability to the notion that this could be the tomb of the Jesus figure from the bible.

What arguments didn't go that well for the documentary? The names were clear enough to see...

Does it matter that much that they found bones? Do you not think Jesus ascention to heaven could have been spiritual, rather than physical? Would it make that much difference to the story?

(P.B.U.H.) is just a sign of respect. Did it affect my arguments? I think not. If based on my usage of (P.B.U.H.) you are concluding that I am biased, then you are wrong. Like I said, I was arguing from a neutral standpoint.

Is islamic view neutral? No. It clearly says that Jesus was "Prophet of God", but I never brought Islam into discussion (you did).

And as far as I have read, there are Roman manuscripts that talk of Jesus (P.B.U.H.)

MFaraz_Hayat

If respect is earned, then you are biased. You say you are neutral but everyones' arguments are bound by their subjective emotion, background and opinion. Those who claim neutrality are often the most misguided.

Its an obvious sign of bias to cast praise upon a historical figure. If you can't see that, then please re-read my above paragraph.

Do you know anything about these manuscripts, like who wrote them, when, what was written, how some of the manuscripts shared the same mistake, how the writing style of one manuscript changed on mention of Christus? Or are you asking me to provide you with evidence that Jesus did exist?

This tomb could be the tomb of Jesus, but it would mean the bible needs some revision.

Is the Bible the only source of evidence for Jesus's existence?

Did I deny you the right of questioning the authority of Bible? I think not...... I mean, how can I (over the internet)?

Plus, I was arguing from a neutral point. Regardless, there is evidence that certain parts of present Bible were not in original manuscripts.

MFaraz_Hayat

You should know (or find out) about the other sources of evidence.

You seemed to infer I should base my belief in Jesus life on the accuracy of the scriptures, while saying that you choose to disregard sections of the same gospels that don't fit with your own beliefs. It seemed a little hypocritical to me.

Is an Islamic view neutral? Do you think sticking (PBOH) after someones name doesn't imply bias?

1. What? No, the whole point is that evidence should fit the case. If you make the case fit the evidence then it defeats the whole object of investigation.

2. You know very well what I meant about the sky being blue.

3. I NEVER said nobody disputes Jesus lived. I said almost all Historians agree that Jesus Christ existed. Notice the difference between 'all' and 'most'? ;)

4. They have dated the limestone to 20AD and it is inscribed "Ya'akov bar Yosef akhui di Yeshua" which means: "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus."

5. Jesus' foot? No, Jesus ascended into Heaven. Remember his body was absent? Anyway, it was just the foot of someone who had been cruxified at around the same time. The significance was that the nail had been thrust into a knot in the wood, which is why there was still wood fragment (i.e from the cross).

6. That article about his tomb is rubbish. No, I wasn't showing you Jesus' tomb, you claimed that there were no Roman burials at the time he lived, that tomb says otherwise.

Lansdowne5

1. No - I am assessing the evidence. You are the one making the evidence fit a case without assessing its credibility.

2. Please don't profess to tell me what I know. I do know the sky is not always blue.

3. You said "practically all" do believe. See the difference between "most" and "all"? I'm saying a substantial minority do not. But it should not matter what others think - we should be able to judge the evidence on our own terms.

4. Nice link. Do you know how many James, Josephs and Jesus' existed at the time? The tomb I linked to has even more names in it.

5. There's no dispute about cruxifictions, although the tradition was not to do them on Fridays.

6. I never claimed there were no Roman burials at that time. Why wouldn't there be? I think you must have got confused somewhere. See, that's why I keep liking to sites with burial tombs... I thought your picture of a tomb (although not Jesus' tomb) was very nice.