The potential anything.

The previous post discussed the real and fana, but this example is the basis for an observable fact that reality can be anything, yet a condition that premise be that a portion of life be unfalsed due to the two positions equating the same reality minus it's seperate denied premises.

Since if it was genuinely anything, we'd observe a reality where the earth is round, because each inherent reality added up to a sphere and as such denies the possibility to show it to be only flat, even though it can be observed as such.

This is thus because reality is forced to take a certain shape as a result of each predisposed potential way it is real in such a manner that they all exist as defined, but fail ojectively due to the added objective realities outside that specific one.

We can never know if God or nature created existence, because they both did and provide seperate proofs within their different entries. Further the reasoning for why is not the same and thus the uncertainty principles of each position is contradictory to the other. You can't conslusively define god real the same way you define atheism to be real, but both have objectivity inversly from each other, due to the uncertainty.

Both positions propose existence, but deny the other as a requirement of their reality. A theist accepts the evidence of God in its discribed fashion, while the atheist does the same, the result is irrational in each others positions without the proposition that either position is existent non conclusively with the fact that either available to the subject of the thought.

You can never guarentee their true without having already taken up the assumption it is and matching it to some form of real observable thing, you can say the energy of an atom effects its behavior, but you never say conclusiveley that its real if it is never seen, a resulting predicted effect is only measured and never prooven. You can also always say it is without ever seeing it.

The only applicable reason for why reality refuses to be known entirely objectively, is that the portions that are not objective, are not false or real in the sense that they exist materially the same way as they ARE NOT defined according to another perspective. Rather they exist according to their observance and rule defined by their definition that is conflated with the propositions on the same evidences by other such rulesets.

An example is when you argue that you cannot show that God does not exist or exist but merely take up a position on it and locate objective reasons for why, you always find an explanation for that within the other side, such that saying God can't exist because space exists and this relates to a less likely hood of goodness and simplicity.

One can respond by saying that the existence of space implies that God required lots of room in his creation that he has reason to put space for curiousities sake and complexities sake. The problem is that both admit to space but disagree on whether it implies two totally opposite things. Which when acknowledged sugguests that our reality, or atleast what can be known as reality can take on more then one state of being at the same time, simply because the two states of defined reality can be attained from the same visual reality.

While totally absurd, this has application, absurdity not disprooving it but simply pointing to evidence of mind's absurdity such that its application was able to find physical evidence of absurdity within the circumstance of space being proof or not of God.

This is because what has been considered prooven always works, and is always based or basis itself on an unfalsifiable position or positions. Any other relation is context based depending on its functionality objectively and it's uncertain claim.