Does objective reality require faith

[idav]

If there are no agreed rules then there is no discussion to have.

"In mathematics, a proof is a deductive argument for a mathematical statement. In the argument, other previously established statements, such as theorems, can be used. In principle, a proof can be traced back to self-evident or assumed statements, known as axioms, along with accepted rules of inference."
https://www.google.com/#q=math+proof

 

[idav]

When I go out for a coffee with friends there does seem to be a consensus about a "table" being there. I guess we could be in a matrix-style simulation, but if so it's very realistic.

Even in a matrix scenario, which is touched on a little in the op, it is still real because everyone perceives the same dream, thats as real as things come and they are essentially telepathically interacting with each other.

 

[Palehorse]

Right before Jesus was crucified, water was turned into wine. Water is life. Wine is fermented water(life). When wine sits for a period of time, wine turns back into water(life). EveryBODY (99%)
perceives the same dream except for Jesus(I%).

 

[idav]

Right before Jesus was crucified, water was turned into wine. Water is life. Wine is fermented water(life). When wine sits for a period of time, wine turns back into water(life). EveryBODY (99%)
perceives the same dream except for Jesus(I%).

Different perception but not different reality, the maker would dream in code.

 

[Palehorse]

Different perception but not different reality, the maker would dream in code.

Or seed, the earth could actually be the size of a pea in the eyes of GOD.

 

[Whateverist]

I think the only faith required for objective reality is faith in your own capacity and desire to know what that may be. Interestingly I'm not sure you'd be fully ensconced in objective reality if you didn't realize how much that depends on your approaching it in the right state of mind.

 

[VioletVortex]

It requires faith on two levels. It requires faith in the physical world itself; faith that there is more than just nihilism.

It also requires faith in the spiritual. The "scientific" theories behind our creation have various flaws that can be pointed out- paradoxes. Spirituality seems to be the most sound explanation.

Then again, one could still live a fulfilling life as a nihilist, lacking faith in anything, and just living for pure entertainment.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Objective reality are the things that we are sure exist. I think that even if objective reality doesn't exist that it still requires zero faith to believe in. Objective things are the only things we can be sure about and know about even if we are in some simulated dream because the simulations would still be real. Things that I have to hope are real can't be verified objectively. Something that is right in front of my face I don't have to hope for cause its in front of me.

Without faith, all is solipsism and nihilism.

if we are in some simulated dream because the simulations would still be real

This does however imply that once one awakens, one returns to 'reality'.
And this implies that in 'reality' there is no awakening to another state,
in the "reality" if one's consciousness (supposedly) ended, then so would one's existence.

But the question seems to deconstruct to the notion that one's actions in this world
either do or not have consequences beyond this world (whether a dream or an incarnation) -{is there a real difference here?}

And so!
Faith!
Do we have faith that our worst actions can be redeemed?
What you do with what is in front of your face is the next step beyond acknowledging it.
Do you act with faith by trying to bring about good results?
or do you act without faith by only observing your own ego and ignore the effects you have on the world?
whether it be a dream or an incarnation -[is there a real difference here?]

 

[Straw Dog]

Hello! It's been a long time since I'm been on RFs and I'm glad to be back. In my absence, I've been working to improve overall mental clarity in part by studying logic. This seems like an appropriate topic to begin my engagement anew with you fine folks.

Objective reality are the things that we are sure exist. I think that even if objective reality doesn't exist that it still requires zero faith to believe in. Objective things are the only things we can be sure about and know about even if we are in some simulated dream because the simulations would still be real. Things that I have to hope are real can't be verified objectively. Something that is right in front of my face I don't have to hope for cause its in front of me.

Objective reality doesn't require faith in any religious sense. It does require direct observation and some ontological assumptions in which all effective reasoning depends upon. Objective reality is composed of facts. A fact is something made or done. It has clear objective, independent status. It is persistent, demands recognition, and can be harmful if ignored. There are two basic types of objective facts: things and events. A subjective fact is limited to a subject experiencing it. Every idea in the mind is ultimately traceable to a thing, or things, actually existing in a world that is independent of and apart from the mind. Clear ideas faithfully reflect the objective order from which they derive. They are not self-generating. So we must match our ideas to objective facts in order to begin making any sense at all.

 

[Straw Dog]

Hello Saint Frank! Long time, no chat...

Can't 100% sure of anything, really. I just go with it, regardless. I treat it all the same, not drawing a distinction between "real" and "unreal".

There's a difference between real gray areas and manufactured gray areas. Just because we may be uncertain of something at one particular point in time doesn't mean that it cannot be understood eventually or that we should project our subjective state of uncertainty onto reality as a whole. The experience of uncertainty is only possible because we have known the experience of being certain about something. Don't you think?