PH & Realists: Prove Reality-Itself Exists?

[Veritas Aequitas]

In insisting there are no objective moral facts and that morality cannot be objective, PH and realists believe there exists a reality [& things] independent of what realists believe, know and say about.

I challenge PH and Realists [philosophical] to prove 'reality itself' that is absolutely independent of the human condition, exists as real.

Note there are two main types of realists, i.e.
1. Philosophical [Transcendental] Realists [p-realists]
..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
2. Empirical Realists.

If p-realists do not agree they conform to 1 above, explain what is your realist position?

Well, stone me.
So, the thing we call reality would exist if there were no humans. It would have 'emerged' and 'realised' since the universe began.

If there were no humans, there would be no emerged & realized reality that exist.
Reality emerged and is realized upon a human-based FSR and is perceived, known, believed and described via FSK.

This is complete nonsense.
It's mistaking what we believe, know and say about reality for reality itself.
And you agree that 'there are things out there (a)waiting to be seen by humans'. So you're asserting two utterly contradictory claims.

I suggest you stop and think very deeply about the fundamental mistake you're making. You muddle up three separate and different things:
what there is;
what we believe and
[what we] know about
what there is;
and what we say about what there is.

Actually, p-realists are the one who is ignorant, philosophically immature and incompetent.

The fact is what theists are proposing is an evolutionary default that is inherent in ALL humans, they are all kindergarten stuffs.
It is still inherent in ALL, so, anti-realists [Kantian] don't have to stop and think very deeply about any fundamental mistake they could be making with this evolutionary default.
Rather anti-realists have already used reflective and critical thinking to understand what is really real beyond the evolutionary default that entrapped one to be dogmatic with a reality that is absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Relatively, on this issue, theists are still stuck in kindergarten, while anti-realists [Kantian] are doing their PhD thesis on the said issue. it is not easy for p-realists to understand the above difference.

The Challenge:
I challenge PH and Realists [philosophical] to prove 'reality itself' that is absolutely independent of the human condition, exists as real.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Philosophical Realism is not tenable.
Why Philosophical Realism is Illusory
viewtopic.php?t=40167


My position as an anti-realist [Kantian] is this;

"Reality emerged and is realized upon a human-based FSR and is {subsequently} perceived, known, believed and described via FSK."

I have explained in numerous threads on how Reality emerged and is realized prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing it.

Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

What is Emergence & Realization
viewtopic.php?t=40721

VA: Knowledge & Descriptions CANNOT Produce Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39925 Apr 10, 2023

Perceiving, Knowing & Describing a Thing Not Related to Existence of the Thing
viewtopic.php?t=40715

[Atla]

PH and realists believe there exists a reality [& things] independent of what realists believe, know and say about.

I challenge PH and Realists [philosophical] to prove 'reality itself' that is absolutely independent of the human condition, exists as real.

Note there are two main types of realists, i.e.
1. Philosophical [Transcendental] Realists [p-realists]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism]
2. Empirical Realists.

If p-realists do not agree they conform to 1 above, explain what is your realist position?

If there were no humans, there would be no emerged & realized reality that exist.
Reality emerged and is realized upon a human-based FSR and is perceived, known, believed and described via FSK.

This is complete nonsense.
It's mistaking what we believe, know and say about reality for reality itself.
And you agree that 'there are things out there (a)waiting to be seen by humans'. So you're asserting two utterly contradictory claims.

I suggest you stop and think very deeply about the fundamental mistake you're making. You muddle up three separate and different things:
what there is;
what we believe and
[what we] know about
what there is;
and what we say about what there is.

Actually, p-realists are the one who is ignorant, philosophically immature and incompetent.

The fact is what theists are proposing is an evolutionary default that is inherent in ALL humans, they are all kindergarten stuffs.
It is still inherent in ALL, so, anti-realists [Kantian] don't have to stop and think very deeply about any fundamental mistake I could be making with this evolutionary default.
Rather anti-realists have already used reflective and critical thinking to understand what is really real beyond that evolutionary default that entrapped one to be dogmatic with a reality that is absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Relatively, on this issue, theists are still stuck in kindergarten, while anti-realists [Kantian] are doing their PhD thesis on the said issue. it is not easy for p-realists to understand the above difference.

The Challenge:
I challenge PH and Realists [philosophical] to prove 'reality itself' that is absolutely independent of the human condition, exists as real.

Kant was an agnostic and therefore stuck in kindergarten too. You're on your own.

[Iwannaplato]

In insisting there are no objective moral facts and that morality cannot be objective, PH and realists believe there exists a reality [& things] independent of what realists believe, know and say about.

I challenge PH and Realists [philosophical] to prove 'reality itself' that is absolutely independent of the human condition, exists as real.

Note there are two main types of realists, i.e.
1. Philosophical [Transcendental] Realists [p-realists]
..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
2. Empirical Realists.

If p-realists do not agree they conform to 1 above, explain what is your realist position?

If there were no humans, there would be no emerged & realized reality that exist.
Reality emerged and is realized upon a human-based FSR and is perceived, known, believed and described via FSK.

This is complete nonsense.
It's mistaking what we believe, know and say about reality for reality itself.
And you agree that 'there are things out there (a)waiting to be seen by humans'. So you're asserting two utterly contradictory claims.

I suggest you stop and think very deeply about the fundamental mistake you're making. You muddle up three separate and different things:
what there is;
what we believe and
[what we] know about
what there is;
and what we say about what there is.

Actually, p-realists are the one who is ignorant, philosophically immature and incompetent.

The fact is what theists are proposing is an evolutionary default that is inherent in ALL humans, they are all kindergarten stuffs.
It is still inherent in ALL, so, anti-realists [Kantian] don't have to stop and think very deeply about any fundamental mistake they could be making with this evolutionary default.
Rather anti-realists have already used reflective and critical thinking to understand what is really real beyond the evolutionary default that entrapped one to be dogmatic with a reality that is absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Relatively, on this issue, theists are still stuck in kindergarten, while anti-realists [Kantian] are doing their PhD thesis on the said issue. it is not easy for p-realists to understand the above difference.

The Challenge:
I challenge PH and Realists [philosophical] to prove 'reality itself' that is absolutely independent of the human condition, exists as real.

Prove that you exist and are not a p-zombie.
Prove that you are not a brain in a vat.
Prove that the present moment follows some past moment.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Prove that you exist and are not a p-zombie.
Prove that you are not a brain in a vat.
Prove that the present moment follows some past moment.

It is off topic, more so to raise another challenge to answer a challenge.
Suggest you raise separate OPs for the above.

[Iwannaplato]

Prove that you exist and are not a p-zombie.
Prove that you are not a brain in a vat.
Prove that the present moment follows some past moment.

It is off topic, more so to raise another challenge to answer a challenge.
Suggest you raise separate OPs for the above.

Did you not understand the point?
Do you not see that I was pointing out an implicit assumption in the OP?
Your ad hominim assessment of my motives was incorrect.
I don't think external reality exists in the way ontological realists do. I am not sure, but I don't think so.
So, I am not evading a challenge. I am pointing out a problem with the challenge itself.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Prove that you exist and are not a p-zombie.
Prove that you are not a brain in a vat.
Prove that the present moment follows some past moment.

It is off topic, more so to raise another challenge to answer a challenge.
Suggest you raise separate OPs for the above.

Did you not understand the point?
Do you not see that I was pointing out an implicit assumption in the OP?
Your ad hominim assessment of my motives was incorrect.
I don't think external reality exists in the way ontological realists do. I am not sure, but I don't think so.
So, I am not evading a challenge. I am pointing out a problem with the challenge itself.

The OP is shorten as a matter of convenience, I have qualified and explained the precise application of the the OP's title, i.e.

I wrote;
"I challenge PH and Realists [philosophical] to prove 'reality itself' that is absolutely independent of the human condition, exists as real."

I wrote in another post;

"ontological realism" is not intersubjective per se.
If one's ontology refer to a reality that is absolutely mind-independent [independent of subjects] that is not intersubjective.
It not demeaning to identify the fact that philosophical realists are ideological with their beliefs.

The term 'ontological' is a very loose term.
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology
As such, one can be an ontological philosophical realist or ontological empirical realist.
An ontological philosophical realist is likely to be ideological.

[Atla]

Prove that you exist and are not a p-zombie.
Prove that you are not a brain in a vat.
Prove that the present moment follows some past moment.

It is off topic, more so to raise another challenge to answer a challenge.
Suggest you raise separate OPs for the above.

Did you not understand the point?
Do you not see that I was pointing out an implicit assumption in the OP?
Your ad hominim assessment of my motives was incorrect.
I don't think external reality exists in the way ontological realists do. I am not sure, but I don't think so.
So, I am not evading a challenge. I am pointing out a problem with the challenge itself.

Different rules apply to VA. While realists are required to prove a positive, he is not required to prove his negative. His negative is proven by default and is unquestionable.

[Age]

In insisting there are no objective moral facts and that morality cannot be objective, PH and realists believe there exists a reality [& things] independent of what realists believe, know and say about.

And what IS even MORE Truly ABSURD here is, "veritas aequitas" INSISTS that there are NO 'real things', WITHOUT human beings, but there EXISTS 'objective moral facts', or a 'morality that IS objective, and thus real'.

Which MEANS that 'objective moral facts' ONLY came about AFTER 'subjective thinking human beings' came ABOUT, (which let us NOT FORGET according TO "veritas aequitas" was BEFORE ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' ELSE), ANYWAY, these so-called 'objective moral facts', which "veritas aequitas" STILL has NOT listed NOR shown us, ALSO can NOT be AGREED UPON by a 'subjective thinking species', which would, OBVIOUSLY, LEAD MORE TOWARDS there being NO such 'thing' as 'objective moral facts' then there being 'objective moral facts'.

I challenge PH and Realists [philosophical] to prove 'reality itself' that is absolutely independent of the human condition, exists as real.

Note there are two main types of realists, i.e.
1. Philosophical [Transcendental] Realists [p-realists]
..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
2. Empirical Realists.

If p-realists do not agree they conform to 1 above, explain what is your realist position?

If there were no humans, there would be no emerged & realized reality that exist.
Reality emerged and is realized upon a human-based FSR and is perceived, known, believed and described via FSK.

This is complete nonsense.
It's mistaking what we believe, know and say about reality for reality itself.
And you agree that 'there are things out there (a)waiting to be seen by humans'. So you're asserting two utterly contradictory claims.

I suggest you stop and think very deeply about the fundamental mistake you're making. You muddle up three separate and different things:
what there is;
what we believe and
[what we] know about
what there is;
and what we say about what there is.

Actually, p-realists are the one who is ignorant, philosophically immature and incompetent.

The fact is what theists are proposing is an evolutionary default that is inherent in ALL humans, they are all kindergarten stuffs.
It is still inherent in ALL, so, anti-realists [Kantian] don't have to stop and think very deeply about any fundamental mistake they could be making with this evolutionary default.
Rather anti-realists have already used reflective and critical thinking to understand what is really real beyond the evolutionary default that entrapped one to be dogmatic with a reality that is absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Relatively, on this issue, theists are still stuck in kindergarten, while anti-realists [Kantian] are doing their PhD thesis on the said issue. it is not easy for p-realists to understand the above difference.

The Challenge:
I challenge PH and Realists [philosophical] to prove 'reality itself' that is absolutely independent of the human condition, exists as real.

[Iwannaplato]

Different rules apply to VA. While realists are required to prove a positive, he is not required to prove his negative. His negative is proven by default and is unquestionable.

Yes, and he is dogmatic, fundamentalist, extreme and ideological. Which he claims ontological realists are, based on criteria he doesn't explain. It seems if you disagree with him, you are these things.

[Age]

It is off topic, more so to raise another challenge to answer a challenge.
Suggest you raise separate OPs for the above.

Did you not understand the point?
Do you not see that I was pointing out an implicit assumption in the OP?
Your ad hominim assessment of my motives was incorrect.
I don't think external reality exists in the way ontological realists do. I am not sure, but I don't think so.
So, I am not evading a challenge. I am pointing out a problem with the challenge itself.

The OP is shorten as a matter of convenience, I have qualified and explained the precise application of the the OP's title, i.e.

I wrote;
"I challenge PH and Realists [philosophical] to prove 'reality itself' that is absolutely independent of the human condition, exists as real."

VERY EASY and SIMPLE.

Human beings, thus NOR the so-called 'human condition', could just COME-ABOUT, FROM NOTHING.

Human beings, and/or the 'human condition' CAME-ABOUT FROM OTHER 'things', which, OBVIOUSLY, were 'REAL things' that exist/ed.

So, depending on HOW 'you', individually, ARE DEFINING the 'reality' word here, then to PROVE that 'this reality itself' IS ABSOLUTELY independent of the so-called 'human condition' just relies on the Fact that the 'human condition' did NOT ARISE NOR COME FROM ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

OBVIOUSLY THE 'reality' that an earth existed BEFORE the 'human condition' CAME TO EXIST, and THE 'reality' that an earth STILL EXISTS, SPEAKS FOR ITSELF, and PROVES, that 'this reality itself' IS ABSOLUTELY INDEPENDENT of the 'human condition' an exists AS REAL.

I wrote in another post;

"ontological realism" is not intersubjective per se.
If one's ontology refer to a reality that is absolutely mind-independent [independent of subjects] that is not intersubjective.
It not demeaning to identify the fact that philosophical realists are ideological with their beliefs.

The term 'ontological' is a very loose term.
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology
As such, one can be an ontological philosophical realist or ontological empirical realist.
An ontological philosophical realist is likely to be ideological.