A Theory On Reality and Existence

Just some philosophical thoughts I had on what makes something real or not. How do we know what is real and what is not? I also tied in a quick defense for Christianity.

What makes something real? How do we know if something is real? It is not whether it can be seen, heard, smelled, or touched. The senses often deceive or fail us; they can not be a hundred-percent relied on. The key factor to determine the reality of something is to observe the impact or effect it has on other earthly things around it. The five senses merely act as a tool that aids in the reception or examining of the effects caused; they do not directly determine the reality of an object. The wind cannot be seen, but its existence is proved by the rustle of the branches of the trees when it blows. It is the eye that helps to see the impact the wind has on the trees, as well as the ear which allows us to hear the rustle of the leaves. But it is impossible to hear or see the actual wind itself; we merely sense the resulted impact of its force around us. If one were blind and deaf would that make an object in front of them any less real, simply because they could not see or hear it?

 

A young girl once had an imaginary friend. She believed in her friend so strongly that she spoke to him, played with him, and even requested a spot at the dinner table for him to sit. This friend made her happy, and her family could easily see that and delighted in it. The actual physical presence of this friend is easy to deny, but the reality of this friend cannot be so quickly concluded. The idea of this friend, whether consisting of any physical elements or not, was real. It impacted the girl, so much so that it even impacted on her family. The imaginative idea of a friend was real, the belief of a person was real, the effect it caused her and her family was real. In short, her friend, because of the faith she placed in him and the influence she allowed him to have in her life, was real.

 

Religious belief works in much the same way. It is not news that the existence of God cannot be proved; then again nor can it be disproved. However, those believing in God claim to see the impact and effects He has on our world. The imaginary essence of a God, whether real or not, exists. That cannot be denied. The concept of a God influences and impacts anyone who believes in it; it affects the way they live, what they say, do, and think. Those who cannot see the miracles and wonders of God are perhaps similar to the blind, deaf man. Rather than being physically impaired, however, they are spiritually or metaphysically impaired. They are not given the tools needed to perceive the evidence God has threaded throughout world. Whether they are aware of the impact or not has nothing to do with the reality of it; it is there, in spite of their inabilities and impairments, so to speak. When explained in this way it is easy to see why those with such incapacities should be pitied rather than scorned, loved rather than despised, nourished rather than ignored.

 

In conclusion, the reality of a thing is based mostly on whether it can cause an impact or not. Without an impact there is no evidence, nothing to determine its existence. The senses cannot be relied on solely as a means to prove whether something is real or not, simply because they so often fail or deceive us. Something that is truly real is there, despite whether the senses pick up on it or not. The way to ensure it is real is to examine the effects it causes on other worldly things. That, and that alone, proves that there is a force at work. The nature of the wind or imaginary friends is perfect testament to that. 

Reviews

[bob, small b. aka invs]

interesting ideas.
i have a friend who is schizophrenic. she is prone to hallucinations in the form of characters who walk in and out of her life, but who only she is able to see. the only reason she thinks these are hallucinations is because other people don't react to them (well, that, and the fact that they are an array of creatures who look like they belong in horror movies). to her, they are as real as you or i. so my friend and i have had long conversations about precisely this. the nature of reality. whether, in fact, there is any real objective reality at all or if it is all subjective and unique to each person.
i think there is a flaw in your idea that those of a religious bent have better insight into realms others are blind to. it could be equally true that they are all delusional in their perceptions. likewise, your idea that seeing the results or impact of unseen forces somehow proves they exist doesn't always hold true either. my friend often complains about her hallucinatory friends moving things like coffee cups, papers, etc.. should we consider those things proof that they exist? nothing"s as simple as it seems. i think there is probably some objective reality to the universe, but i really doubt that we are able to know what it is.

[AveTN]

I wasn't using this as proof that God is real. I was simply saying that, because of the impact it has on the religious, the CONCEPT and BELIEF of God is real. Therefore He does exist in some way, some form, just not a "Godly" form. At the very least He exists as an imaginative idea, a figment of the religious' imagination, so to speak.

Also, I was not indicating in any way that the religious have better insight or that the unfaithful are inadequate in some way. I simply said they do not have the tools needed in order to believe in God. I did not, however, define what those tools are. Perhaps the "tool" is insanity, or delusional thinking, or perhaps it is something of a slightly more positive nature. Regardless though, the statement still holds true: the unfaithful do not have what it takes to believe.

[bob, small b. aka invs]

so God exists in the same way santa clause does? his impact among those who believe in his concept is profound as well, even if his demographic is those under 8 or 9 yrs old. oh, and how do explain conversion experiences if those without a god concept lack the tools to believe? i'm not trying to pick on your ideas, i'm just curious because this topic has been on my mind for years.

[AveTN]

No its fine, I welcome constructive criticism as it helps to strengthen and clarify my own views. I am saying that God MAY exist in the same way Santa Claus does. There is no way, however, to prove or disprove God's existence. Those who convert simply gain the "tools" needed to believe, just as glasses can physically enhance impaired eyesight. If not does not possess the tools it is not to say that he never will. It is not permanently conclusive or unchangeable.

[Timothy Burjess]

Greetings AveTN

I always find great interest in works such as these; when the author poses questions for a greater understanding of themselves and their ideas, while remaining curious to the ability of perception and correct determination in our ability of the latter. I am humbled to read your ideas AveTn. I shall review the works in typical structure.

Where better to begin than to question; force one to think and they shall do so, or decide that they do not feel like it - a simple solution to the hurdle that is writer's block no? The instant flow to the piece - to pose a question or two then to follow with an explication - instantly grips the reader's attention, for works which have no flow, especially in the field of philosophy, is agony to the reader. From the offset of your explanation I see you adopt the anti-empiricist viewpoint, i.e. that senses and external perception cannot be fully justified because of the vast opportunity for fallibility in regards to one's perception of a certain element compared to that of another - take an example of mine for instance: if there are two identical twins (and allow for bias to be placed for the sake of explanation) and they are exactly the same from external to genetic structure, say if they were to both pinch themselves on the exact same point on their arms, with the exact same pressure, for the exact same amount of time, then proceed to explain to one another exactly what they felt, how are they to prove that they felt exactly the same pain as one another? Of course, language and ability to communicate plays a substantial role here, but say they in fact feel the exact same sensation, how is one twin supposed to fully understand that the other felt exactly the same? Taking into consideration that the twins (in the example) are perfectly the same, they still are in different positions in the universe, have separate consciousness's, and are infallibly two separate, individual entities - thus, one could suggest that there would in truth, be no way to define the ability to understand the exact replica of anything - even to the extent of the pinch example posed. I greatly respect your ideas on the "impact or effect" of perceptions of reality, and the idea deeply connects to my personal ideals as an individualist. I too like how you use the wind as a tool to explain the idea; seems acceptable.

Flowing from one example to another, in two different matters and states, is a grand tool in keeping the reader engaged, especially considering that the second example seems to come from the personal level of the author herself - the latter an important tool if the author wishes to build up a relation with their readers, and can even go as far (if one wishes) as building up a relational repertoire over the years of production; this important for one who wishes to create works that correspond with creating and identity. The second paragraph is so very well written that I struggle to comment on anything other than its perfect usage. "Spot on" one might state; great writing.

Now, as I stated towards the end of my final paragraph, - how "I struggle to comment" - I too struggle to comment on this third paragraph, but not a struggle in the traditional sense; perhaps it would be more prevalent to suggest that I indeed feel a need not to comment. You see, I understand religious importance to the individual ... as an individual ... as an individualist. However, one thing I can say about the paragraph you have provided is that it is written so, so well, that it in fact helps re-illiterate my own views - this something I wish you intended for the reader no? You explain faith in words that are universally understood, or at least should be.

"In conclusion, the reality of a thing is based mostly on whether it can cause an impact or not" - great idea Ave, I personally think you should continue along that route, perhaps by explicating upon it just a little more in another piece. Another sentence I sincerely like, "Without an impact there is no evidence, nothing to determine its existence." You see, I connect with this to grand extents; for each individual perceives everything unique to themselves and their means of doing so, so too do they consciously obtain data in regards to their surroundings and introspectivity, abstracting ideas, thoughts, and concepts through use of their logical rationality. What one may see as focal providence may hold nil worth to another - that is the way of the individual, each unique in their path respectively.

Thank you so very much for this piece, and allow me to say that I am subscribing to your "Philosophical Ideas, Concepts, and Thoughts" book in the hope that I shall be up front for all ideas that stem from your great mind.

Timothy.

[Jenny_226]

Wow! This is so true!! Like people always say they need physical proof for God's existance, yet there are so many things in life that we cannot see, touch, hear, taste or smell, but we know they are real, like the most common example, emotions, because we can see the "impact" it has on people. We can't physically prove God exsits, but i know for a fact He does through my own experiences when He has seen me through them in such a way, I feel it is not possible to not believe. And people can see the change in me, from when i had doubts, to when I decided to give Him my whole heart, whether it was newfound and true smile, or a look in my eyes, they could see the "impact" it had on me. And what is better proof of God's existance than pure happiness? This is written brilliantly. Spot on I say. And the last line of paragraph three, I agree with you there. I want to see more of your work :)