Existence revolves around consciousness.
I'm afraid you're going to have to prove that before you just repeat it dogmatically.
If something is to exist, it must be definite. In order to determine definition, there must be something that determines the defintion. Consciousness determines the definition of things. Thus, when consciousness exists, definitions exist, and things exist. Some people say "Well, even if no conscious being conceives of a thing, it still exists." What many of them must rely on, though, is the concept of god (in order for this to work). Perhaps god is "that which determines the definition of things and thus, causes their existence." If this is the case for you, what are you taking 'god' to be?
If you are saying the idea or perception of the ball exists, be clear.
Yes, that's what I was saying I think. The phenomenological existence of the football is "the football that appears."
If you are saying the idea of the football and the football are the same thing, you are going to have to demonstrate why this is so.
The question is, why are they different? If you go outside and play with a football right now, why is the existence of the ball any different if you believe that it exists in fundamental reality?
Faith is believing something as truth because someone tells you to, rather than anything to do with its truthfulness or untruthfulness.
Yes, because "faith" beliefs are beliefs that have no truth value. They cannot be determined to be true or false within the given methodology.
Also, faith beliefs often include paradoxes, that are believed regardless, nearly guaranteeing the beliefs are false, and that the truth has not been achieved.
I agree with you. There are many "beliefs" that simply
cannot be because they are logically self-defeating. However, I'm not sure I would call these "faith" beliefs. For one, their truth value can be determined to be false (within the universal methodology of logic). However you define something like this, I like to believe that no rational person would still take beliefs on faith that they have been shown are absolutely impossible.
If finding truth is a goal, faith is (for the aforementioned reasons) an extremely irrational way of going about it.
Hmmm... I'm not sure you showed the rational obligation to believe that faith beliefs are irrational. But whatever.
That would be valid, except that logic isn't a universal methodology.
*shrug* Okay Ubuntu, whatever you say.
You haven't demonstrated that things need to be defined (by a human) before they can exist; you've merely stated it.
Yikes. I hope I haven't claimed that. I don't mean that things need to be defined by a human being, but rather, by some kind of definer.
I'd also like you to clarify what you mean by "Consciousness is what defines things," especially addressing the issues of what it means for a thing to be defined, and why it is that only consciousness can achieve this effect, and perhaps also touching on what status a thing has before it gets defined by sombody's consciousness.
What I mean by "A thing must be defined to exist" is that if a thing must be definite to exist. That is, it must be a "this" and not a "that." I'll have to check my facts on whether or not only consciousness can define things. In the meantime, you can list some other definers. As for the "what status a thing has before it gets defined": well, if a thing is not defined, then it simply isn't.
What happens when two Consciousnesses disagree on definitions?
I don't know. I suppose they would experience things differently.
should we start a new religion where we have a God as the final arbitrator, whose sole purpose is to be the highest level of Consciousness to define our reality?
Wouldn't be new by any means.
Did atoms not exist until someone thought of them?
My philosophy professor, I believe, would argue "no."
That's just sloppy thinking.
Or... maybe it's philosophical thinking. Your thinking is that things exist independent of them being conceived. My question to you is, "why?" You cannot demonstrate that things actually exist, so why do you believe it at all? Wouldn't this be "sloppy thinking?" Many people tend to think so.
Definitions are reflections of existence, they are tools for our understanding, not for creation...
Are you sure? A thing can exist without being definite and without having definite properties?