Can God's Existence be Proven Subjectively but not Objectively?

[country boy]

I haven't figured out how to do it either, but there are many instances where a diagram would help.

 

[mosassam]

When you mention that a person can misinterpret their own experiances and be delusional, I have to ask, delusional to what?

If a person really believes they are Jesus Christ or that God told them to do it, then they are delusional. But the delusion is still part of their own experience and therefore part of their own 'truth'. I do not understand the question "Delusional to what?". Also, you gave an example of people in a room agreeing it was raining outside, or the jury agreeing on a verdict. In both cases we can talk about a 'unanimous opinion' but this has little to do with truth, unless you are defining truth as something that is agreed on by people regardless of whether it's actually a fact or not. Is objective truth a fact or an agreement?

 

[country boy]

The question about what is delusional might be illuminating. If a person thinks he's something special he might be considered delusional. That would be the case if no one else thinks he is special. But if everyone agrees that he is special, then he is not delusional.

This might mean that even objective truth is only a matter of context. Take the example of Galileo dropping two balls of different weight simultaneously from the tower of Pisa. This should have yielded an objective truth. He saw both balls hit the ground at the same time and concluded that they fell at the same rate. But his spectators saw small differences in when they hit and concluded that they fell at different rates. Today we say that Galileo was correct, because we have come to believe his theory (his context). We might say that the spectators did not watch carefully or misinterpreted the small differences. But in the prevailing view at the time (the spectator's context) it was not believed that the balls would fall at the same rate, and the spectators couldn't see it happen. To many at the time, Galileo was delusional.

How do we decide what context, or theory, to use? If it explains and predicts more than the alternatives, then we accept it as more "true". But clearly, there is a subjective aspect to this.

 

[Ghostfaith]

The question about what is delusional might be illuminating. If a person thinks he's something special he might be considered delusional. That would be the case if no one else thinks he is special. But if everyone agrees that he is special, then he is not delusional.
.

You should also challenge the massive cultural assumptions implicit in that example. Why is thinking you are special *bad*? Calling it delusional is, like Focuault pointed out, generating the idea of mental illness to explain traits that we don't like.

Nietzsche would have said that thinking you were somethign special was a good thing - that the Ancient Greeks would have seen it as a virtue, not a sin - and that the idea that it is *bad* is an ingrained cultural assumption caused by the infection of pro-Herd Christian ideology.

:)

 

[mosassam]

If a person thinks he's something special he might be considered delusional. That would be the case if no one else thinks he is special. But if everyone agrees that he is special, then he is not delusional

.

In this example other people 'consider' the person to be delusional. That is merely their opinion, and possibly their own delusion. However, thinking you're Jesus Christ does not require other people's opinions about being delusional. Thinking you're special is hardly delusional, and if others think it is then that is their own experience which in no way impinges on your own experience. You're 'subjective truth' is that you feel special, another persons 'subjective truth' is that they think you're delusional.
But, if everyone agrees that you are delusional, is this an 'objective truth'?

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

wow, this is getting confusing. Can all these questions be explained with the three types of truth proposed?

I'll take a crack at the last post.

If everyone else thinks the person is delusional, this can't hardly be a real situation, but let's continue. It is everybody's word against the one person. Either everyone else is delusional, or the single person is. If it's okay to think of everybody else as a single mind for this question ("is the person delusional?"), then it is subjectively true that that one person is delusional to everybody else, while it is subjectively true for that single person that everybody else is delusional. There is no objective truth here, since this situation can't be resolved with science beyond the use of probabilities (although the probabilities are heavily weighted against the single person), but there is still the possibility of an absolute truth, of which either party can't know, but can only guess. In this highly unreal situation, the most reasonable guess seems to be choosing to agree with everybody else, at least in my perspective it does.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

If a person really believes they are Jesus Christ or that God told them to do it, then they are delusional. But the delusion is still part of their own experience and therefore part of their own 'truth'. I do not understand the question "Delusional to what?". Also, you gave an example of people in a room agreeing it was raining outside, or the jury agreeing on a verdict. In both cases we can talk about a 'unanimous opinion' but this has little to do with truth, unless you are defining truth as something that is agreed on by people regardless of whether it's actually a fact or not. Is objective truth a fact or an agreement?

yes, I agree. Objective truth is a fact, since it stands by itself, although to understand it, one needs to learn the substructure of standardizations and definitions that objective truth rests upon (I went into detail in my first post about this idea). But... since Objective truth is based on "definitions and standardizations", it is limited by the collective knowledge and understanding of humanity. When a situation arises where we don't have enough information to answer the question someone asks, the objective truth can't go any further than probabilities without losing its factual footing. The probability distribution is factual, but beyond that requires a guess. The guess is made by a single individual, and is supported by what they have experianced in life that they can relate to the current situation, it goes without saying that science (objective truth) doesn't have this ability since it isn't a sentient being. If one can acquire knowledge and/or understanding that trancends all of humanity's collective knowledge and/or understanding, then one could have enough information to know the correct answer to the question at hand with certainty, and in this case, one who can perceive this knowledge and understanding is perceiving absolute truth. But, due to the fact that every person is a member of the human family, and adds their own knowledge and understanding to the total sum, it can't be the case that a person can actually have any absolutely true knowledge (in this case), since by defition, absolute truth is truth beyond that which is knowable to anyone, or humanity in general. Therefore, nobody can know the absolute truth of any situation that can't be fully answered by objective truth, but they can take a guess, and that guess may or may not be the same as the absolute truth of the situation at hand. So in the case where a collection of individauls are all required to guess something, and come up with a unanimous decision, it is not objectively true, but rather just a collective guess that may or may not be absolutely true.

I think it's safe to say that objective truth is a subset of absolute truth.

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

This thread is long and the paragraphs are annoyingly hard to read but I attempted to read everything to avoid repetitious discussion but had a difficult time following most of the rambles on here.

I seriously couldn't follow this thread so if there is a topic I failed to address (I am sure there is), please engage me in discussion as I enjoy this subject greatly.

When you discuss the concept of ontology, atleast in philosophical formal logic, you are referring to 'objects and their being'.

For instance, Western philosophy tends to presuppose a substance ontology, in which this macrocosmic reality that we experience essentially deconstructs into fundamental, constituent parts through reduction (e.g. atoms, particles, quantum entities, even god).

In the East, through Daoism, a process ontology emerges from which, one perceives reality to be an infinite oscillation between being and nonbeing, as essential, interconnected aspects of reality. This logic is counter-intuitive to our paradigm of reality in the west and would require more in-depth reading on your part to fully grasp or to attempt to fully grasp it's implications.

When one discusses knowledge, one is discussing Epistemology, not Ontology.

Now, Let's analyze the concept objective:

"Everyone see's the green pok-a-dotted scorpion."

How does one verify that everyone see's the green pok-a-dotted scorpion? Each individual hears everyone say they see the green pok-a-dotted scorpion but how do you know their perception is the identical to yours?

Objectivity deconstructs into an agreeance of subjective perceptions.

However, one can resolve this problem in a number of ways but I welcome your responses first.

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

Also, if you desire, I can provide my own philosophical arguments for the existence of a purely material reality.

While we are discussing epistemology, instead of treating the concepts 'truth' and 'knowledge' intuitively, can you describe your cognitive construction of these elements? For the sake of a logical discussion, it would be beneficial if we try to avoid Solipisism or subjective idealism, as it isn't going to take us anywhere.

The concept that nothing exists except for yourself or what you percieve, welcomes some pretty ego-intensive aspects of your existence.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

This thread is long and the paragraphs are annoyingly hard to read but I attempted to read everything to avoid repetitious discussion but had a difficult time following most of the rambles on here.

I seriously couldn't follow this thread so if there is a topic I failed to address (I am sure there is), please engage me in discussion as I enjoy this subject greatly.

When you discuss the concept of ontology, atleast in philosophical formal logic, you are referring to 'objects and their being'.

For instance, Western philosophy tends to presuppose a substance ontology, in which this macrocosmic reality that we experience essentially deconstructs into fundamental, constituent parts through reduction (e.g. atoms, particles, quantum entities, even god).

Yeah, that's my fault. I thought I knew what it meant, but I didn't look it up until after I started the thread. Sorry about that.

In the East, through Daoism, a process ontology emerges from which, one perceives reality to be an infinite oscillation between being and nonbeing, as essential, interconnected aspects of reality. This logic is counter-intuitive to our paradigm of reality in the west and would require more in-depth reading on your part to fully grasp or to attempt to fully grasp it's implications.

When one discusses knowledge, one is discussing Epistemology, not Ontology.

Now, Let's analyze the concept objective:

"Everyone see's the green pok-a-dotted scorpion."

How does one verify that everyone see's the green pok-a-dotted scorpion? Each individual hears everyone say they see the green pok-a-dotted scorpion but how do you know their perception is the identical to yours?

Objectivity deconstructs into an agreeance of subjective perceptions.

However, one can resolve this problem in a number of ways but I welcome your responses first.

Ok, this is exactly what we're talking about. I agree with you. Objective truths are true for every subjective perception, as long as everyone goes by a standardized set of definitions and rules. Maybe this will make my view of it more clear:

"Doesn't it make sense that all people experience objective truths in different ways? Such as the fact that people can experience hunger. That is a true thing for all of humanity, but person A might not experience the same exact sensations as person B, but they both will recognize that the sensation is that of hunger."

Here's an excerpt from my first post:

"For example, in Mathematics, one has to set up rules to go by before a problem can be worked out, and via the application of those rules implies that the one using those rules is in agreement with them. In other words, when we use math, we agree to a contract which states that we must follow the rules of math for any conclusion to be valid (we must agree to the rules of logic in order for the logic to work correctly). The reason I make this distinction is because someone can look at a red object and say it is green, simply because they go by their own rules. Since humanity has agreed that red objects have a characteristic wavelength range in the lower visible spectrum, then the objective truth is that light with frequencies in the lower visible spectrum are red. So a person has to also agree to refer to that color as red too in order to abide with some way to standardize common experiances among all persons. And so we also must agree to make a discinction between our left and right sides of our bodies in the same way. As long as we agree on common things like these, we are in the world of objective truth. We must agree to the definitions of the words we use to communicate for them to mean anything at all. In other words, subjective truth comes first, and objective truth is a consequence of agreements of definitions and rules and the like.

Objective truth therefore requires that an individual agree upon the commonalities underlying objectively true arguments. For example, we can say that it is objectively true that the sky is blue because we all agree on the definitions of blue and sky. So if someone believes that "sky" means "the atmosphere on Mars", then the statement "the sky is blue" is not true to them. However, they must conclude that the atmosphere on Earth is blue. This can easily become a problem in semantics, so let's keep in mind that the whole purpose of establishing an objective truth is to make things easier for ourselves, and complicating a fact as simple as "the sky is blue" doesn't make things easier for everyone. So this illustrates the point that it is best to go by the standard definitions and clarify using other words and/or more commonly understood and accepted words when extra clarity is needed. The details of objectively true statements can be followed point by point using its own agreed upon rules of common logic, and so objective truth stands by itself, since it is supported by it's own basic rules and definitions. Objective truth becomes true to an individual (subjectively) so long as he/she agrees on the commonalities. So objective truth is devoid of it's own sentient perception, and behaves deterministically, like a machine or a tool, for those (sentient beings) trained to use it. It is something used to help humanity help itself, it is created by people, and it's used for people.

Science is a rigorous manifestation of objective truth. It is founded on basic premises such as the scientific method, and all the conclusions made through its use are the most honest forms of objective truth known to man. Therefore, it is best to regard it as the overall persuit of mankind for truth, and so it is wise to accept the premises and definitions, because even if one were to look at the world with their own definitions, they will still observe the same conclusions (in their own understanding) about the world. For example, if one uses a different word for "blue", then they can still make some statement about the sky (to themself) that means the same thing as the "sky is blue" (to science), much like how a system of particles can be described with any set of coordinates, but all sets of coordinates will still make correct predictions of their movement (for each respective set of coordinates) although the predictions of one set can't be used for a different set."

I started only speaking of "subjective" and "Objective" truths, then Mosassam, Gerben, and Country Boy made it clear to me that there is a problem, and there could be an "absolute" that we could try and consider.Right now, we're discussing the ideas of "subjective", "objective", and "absolute" truth as far as I know. My goal is to develop a common basis of discussing these topics so that we can all define it better, and refine it to make it fit together if it can at all. We're not speaking of solipsism, and maybe you could interpret this as subjective idealism, but if you think about it, every philosophy is subjectively ideal (at least I think).

 

[country boy]

Let me try. A subjective truth is one that may not be agreed upon by anyone else. An objective truth can be verified by a test that everyone agrees on. An absolute truth does not depend on what anyone believes.

Thank you for mentioning solipsism. When I first read Descartes' "I think, therefore I am," I thought he meant that he could at least believe he existed. He may have had doubts about everyone else.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

Let me try. A subjective truth is one that may not be agreed upon by anyone else. An objective truth can be verified by a test that everyone agrees on. An absolute truth does not depend on what anyone believes.

Thank you for mentioning solipsism. When I first read Descartes' "I think, therefore I am," I thought he meant that he could at least believe he existed. He may have had doubts about everyone else.

well put. I now know that I can overcomplicate almost anything.

 

[country boy]

And I probably oversimplify everything.;-)

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

touche. Perhaps we're both delusional.

 

[heusdens]

The point of this thread is to post my own currently developed philosophy and see how it holds to everyone's scrutiny.

I'm an agnostic theist. I personally believe that God exists, and that objectively, humans can't know if God exists or not. I believe there are two types of truth, subjective and objective. Subjective truth is true for each individual, due to their own personal experiances, and objective truth is true to all of humanity, so long as the individual observing an objectively true statement agrees on the methods that support the objective fact observed.

For example, in Mathematics, one has to set up rules to go by before a problem can be worked out, and via the application of those rules implies that the one using those rules is in agreement with them. In other words, when we use math, we agree to a contract which states that we must follow the rules of math for any conclusion to be valid (we must agree to the rules of logic in order for the logic to work correctly). The reason I make this distinction is because someone can look at a red object and say it is green, simply because they go by their own rules. Since humanity has agreed that red objects have a characteristic wavelength range in the lower visible spectrum, then the objective truth is that light with frequencies in the lower visible spectrum are red. So a person has to also agree to refer to that color as red too in order to abide with some way to standardize common experiances among all persons. And so we also must agree to make a discinction between our left and right sides of our bodies in the same way. As long as we agree on common things like these, we are in the world of objective truth. We must agree to the definitions of the words we use to communicate for them to mean anything at all. In other words, subjective truth comes first, and objective truth is a consequence of agreements of definitions and rules and the like.

Objective truth therefore requires that an individual agree upon the commonalities underlying objectively true arguments. For example, we can say that it is objectively true that the sky is blue because we all agree on the definitions of blue and sky. So if someone believes that "sky" means "the atmosphere on Mars", then the statement "the sky is blue" is not true to them. However, they must conclude that the atmosphere on Earth is blue. This can easily become a problem in semantics, so let's keep in mind that the whole purpose of establishing an objective truth is to make things easier for ourselves, and complicating a fact as simple as "the sky is blue" doesn't make things easier for everyone. So this illustrates the point that it is best to go by the standard definitions and clarify using other words and/or more commonly understood and accepted words when extra clarity is needed. The details of objectively true statements can be followed point by point using its own agreed upon rules of common logic, and so objective truth stands by itself, since it is supported by it's own basic rules and definitions. Objective truth becomes true to an individual (subjectively) so long as he/she agrees on the commonalities. So objective truth is devoid of it's own sentient perception, and behaves deterministically, like a machine or a tool, for those (sentient beings) trained to use it. It is something used to help humanity help itself, it is created by people, and it's used for people.

Science is a rigorous manifestation of objective truth. It is founded on basic premises such as the scientific method, and all the conclusions made through its use are the most honest forms of objective truth known to man. Therefore, it is best to regard it as the overall persuit of mankind for truth, and so it is wise to accept the premises and definitions, because even if one were to look at the world with their own definitions, they will still observe the same conclusions (in their own understanding) about the world. For example, if one uses a different word for "blue", then they can still make some statement about the sky (to themself) that means the same thing as the "sky is blue" (to science), much like how a system of particles can be described with any set of coordinates, but all sets of coordinates will still make correct predictions of their movement (for each respective set of coordinates) although the predictions of one set can't be used for a different set.

Science can't conclude as to whether God exists or not because it's premises aren't powerful enough, but it is a good thing because its premises are conservative enough for it to be reliable for individuals who use it. For example, Science can't "feel" the existence of God, because science is not a sentient being--it can't perceive things on it's own, only minds (personalities, consciousnesses, awarenesses) can. So therefore, it lacks the ability to "feel", which makes it less powerful at establishing truths. Another example, I can touch a hot plate, and I can feel pain (as long as my nerves are working correctly), and through my perception of that feeling, I can conclude truths to myself, such as "it is true to me that don't desire to touch a hot plate" or "it is true to me that I do desire to touch a hot plate". What can I say, some people like to feel pain, and to them it is true that they desire to touch a hot plate. So, science can't conclude (by its definition) one way or the other on such topics where it would require first hand perception (such as that which an awareness would experiance). This is the meaning of objectivity in the first place, something true regardless of personal experiance. It is objectively true that one can touch a hot plate, but not objectively true that that person will like or dislike the feeling, although science can establish probabilities, and we can tally how many people like or dislike things, then the probabilities are true, but no decision one way or another can be objectively made. The descision one way or another is only true subjectively.

If there is one thing that science can't explain, it is the mind. In other words, Science can only view the positions and motions of human bodies in space-time (such as an orchestra), but it can't view the thing that is moving those bodies (the will, the soul, the sentient being). So if two musicians are playing a song perfectly, Science can view the system and try to understand how the two dynamical systems (human bodies) interact with each other, but it may run into problems when seemingly faster than light travel occurs between the two systems (i.e. they both start playing the same note at the same time, but there is no Scientific way to explain this since information couldn't have been exchanged that fast between the two systems. When viewed scientifically--i.e. deviod of the knowledge that the two dynamical systems of particles (human bodies) are controlled by something untouchable by science (awareness/the mind/experiance)--humans seem to be undetermined. In other words, Science can't explain what it is that makes human bodies move the way they do--it can't explain the thing that moves them (the mind).

With all these clarifications made, now I'd like to say that I agree with all the principles of science, and all the definitions of words common between me and the individual I'm conversing with. Therefore I accept all the conclusions made via science. I can use science to prove things to other people, and if they accept science then they will accept my proof, and I theirs. I recognize that I can't prove the existence of God objectively, but I can prove it to myself with my own supporting personal experiances. Likewise, I could've personally experianced things which subjectively proved the non-existance of God. I can explain my own reasons as a function of my experiances to someone else, but those reasons aren't automatically true to them because they didn't experience them, I did. Therefore, the existence or non-existance of God can only be proven subjectively, not objectively. In a way, those who come to a full ontological descision aren't being scientific, they are reaching beyond science into something that science can't touch to do so--the perspective and experiances of a sentient being--which I believe is a valid thing to do.

In my exposition, I've established that truth comes in two forms--subjective and objective. Subjective truth comes first because it has to do with one's personal experiances, and by definition, one's personal experiances can't be understood objectivly (only you know what you experience and not anyone else). Objective truth requires a "standardization" of definitions and premises--ss long as one abides by that, then they won't have a problem accepting all the conclusions made by that. I've also shown that due to this idea, God's existence can't be proven objectively, but it can be proven subjectively. Therefore, one can know that God exists, but won't be able to prove it to someone else, and one can know that God doesn't exist, but can't prove it to someone else. One can only convince someone else one way or another, not prove. This means that the burden or proof doesn't rest on atheists or theists, since God's existence can't be objectively proven either way. As far as science is concerned, it can't conclude one way or the other, and God both exists and doesn't exist at the same time, much like how science concludes that Schrodinger's cat must be both dead and alive at the same time (only when we can all open the box will we know the true state of the cat). However, a sentient being can conclude one way or the other, he or she can guess the answer to the problem by reaching into something beyond objective truth. They can draw upon personal experiance--subjective truth--whereas Science can't. So the burden of proof lies on oneself. One can prove to themself as to what they feel is true when all of humanity can't conclude on the true answer objectivly.

Like you stated there is no way of objectively proving God.
It means that God is just a subjective manifestation in one's mind.

The question is however, where does God come from? Or better stated, since we deal with just a manifestation of mind, the idea of God, how did it get here in the first place?

From what do we conclude or imagine there to be a God?

In practice this is answered with that the idea of God is that it is that what provides sufficient reason for why we are here, for why there is a world, etc.

God is thought of as the final cause of all this happening, and the idea of God was shaped in different fashions according to local traditions and mythologies.

Wether there is a God, or better stated, wether there is a subjective proof for the existence of God, this depends on one's ontology.

The idea that such a being can actually exist, and not mere in the imagination, however can not be well grounded on a philosophical basis.
It would for instance raise the idea that mind came before matter, that mind can exist in the absence of matter, that consciouss could be well-defined in the absence of anything to be consciouss of, and that matter can be created from nothing. Since this is far from obvious and defies experience and our knowledge, this can only be taken on the basis of faith.

A ground for the existence of the world can be formed on the basis of matter, which itself has no ground outside of itself. Matter itself is uncreatable and indestructable and in eternal motion, thus removing any need for some outside cause, or begin and delivers sufficient ground for understanding the material world of motion.

We know from experience and scientific explorations that also the brain is just material and can in principle be understood at the basis of motion of matter, like also the existence of living organisms can be explained by matter in motion.

This is not to argue that science can understand matter in all totality, as obviously, there are limitations to how far we can understand matter, and as far as this is concerned, we will always have a limited knowledge about matter at every stage of discovery, however a limit that keeps being pushed further away, which is scientific progress.
Absolute and complete knowledge about the material world however can not be delivered. We always have an incomplete picture of the material world, and move forward with relative and only approximately correct knowledge.

The idea of God in this respect is just the ultimate and unreachable limit of all knowledge, etc., which just exists as an ideal in the mind, never to be realized in reality.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

A ground for the existence of the world can be formed on the basis of matter, which itself has no ground outside of itself. Matter itself is uncreatable and indestructable and in eternal motion, thus removing any need for some outside cause, or begin and delivers sufficient ground for understanding the material world of motion.

We know from experience and scientific explorations that also the brain is just material and can in principle be understood at the basis of motion of matter, like also the existence of living organisms can be explained by matter in motion.

The idea of God in this respect is just the ultimate and unreachable limit of all knowledge, etc., which just exists as an ideal in the mind, never to be realized in reality.[/QUOTE]

We can't say that matter isn't uncreatable or indestructable, nor can we say it's in eternal motion and still speak absolute truth. Besides, that's not the whole story, you have to explain how time and space came to be.

You can attempt to describe living things as dynamical systems, but with such systems, you have to make many assumptions (in order to reduce complexity, and even then you're dealing with a non-linear system) in order to get tiny pictures of macro behavior, which may reveal some aspect or a portion of the full picture. With things like this, the system is inherently chaotic, and large changes in emergent behavior come with even the most miniscule numerical approximation (have you heard of the butterfly effect?). So, due to the uncertainty principle (you can measure position or energy but not both at once), there is no way of getting around approximations, so therefore it is impossible to model a real living thing. The only closed solution for an atom is the hydrogen solution, and so every other atom is just an approximation. It took a year to figure out hydrogen after Schrodinger introduced the equation for slow speeds, and it only consists of a proton and an electron. It took ten years to get reasonably approximate solutions to helium, which is just two electrons, two protons, and two neutrons. You can only imagine how much computing power you need to approximate a molecule. The most powerful supercomputer in the world was made in order to model how protiens fold, and it can only yield approximations, as long as enough assumptions are made in order to reduce complexity. The point is, since these efforts end up with mere approximations, and not exact solutions, when you model a living thing, the error in "knowable initial state" increases more than factorialy, and when you simulate this over time, the behavior of the system will be drastically different from reality, and every time you run the model, you'll get different answers. Even if you had a universal computer (a computer that can calculate anything exactly--which isn't physically realizable), you'd still have to contend with the uncertainty principle, and every time you simulate your model, you'll end up with the wrong behavior of the system due to chaos.

This is, as far as my knowledge and understanding of objective truth serves me, objectively true, so you must accept it. As for now, you'll have to trust me, but go ahead and learn all the things needed in order to know why. You made a remark about what I just explained in detail, so I guess you would accept it. I got to go right now, I'll come back later and finnish replying to your post.

 

[country boy]

It seems that you are mistaking inaccuracy in calculations, a computational limitation, with the uncertainty principle, which is a statement about what is ultimately knowable. There is no "certain" state obscurred by the uncertainty principle.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

It seems that you are mistaking inaccuracy in calculations, a computational limitation, with the uncertainty principle, which is a statement about what is ultimately knowable. There is no "certain" state obscurred by the uncertainty principle.

I said how diffacult it is to model things, and the models have to be done by brute force numerical methods, and since living things are complex non-linear systems, their behavior has chaotic properties.

I then stated that even if you had a universal computer (which wouldn't have problems due to rounding off irrational numbers), you'd still have to contend with the uncertainty principle. One generally solves a quantum mechanical system for all possible (bound) energy states, and for scattering states, you solve for a continuous spectrum of states, given an initial condition. Sure, you know all the "certain states" of a system, but this doesn't tell you the whole story. You can know the energy exactly, but you can't know the position at all and vice-versa. This is a big problem when you have to account for the observer, because when you make an observation, you change the character of the system. It is the observation that renders a possibility real (in the perspective of the observer), so if you don't have a "virtual observer" somehow taken into account, even a universal computer can't model a macro quantum system. In other words, the flaw in the determinist argument is that it requires you to know both the position and momentum of every particle at a given snapshot in time, and then supposedly, you can predict the entire future behavior of the system. But the requirement is overturned by the fact that it's impossible to know both the position and momentum at once.

When we try to make the argument that the way the brain works can be determined by physical laws, we run into unavoidable problems in chaos theory and quantum theory. The chaos part is due to the complexity of the dynamical system, the quantum part is due to the indetermite intitial state. Put the two together, and you'll get a different emergant behavior every time you try to model it. In conclusion, there is no way to accurately explain if a mind is the emergant property of the brain.

 

[heusdens]

We can't say that matter isn't uncreatable or indestructable, nor can we say it's in eternal motion and still speak absolute truth. Besides, that's not the whole story, you have to explain how time and space came to be.

Space and time have no separate existence from matter, it is just because matter is in motion, that there is space and time.

General relativity is correct in this sense, because space and time are replaced with gravity which is a material cause -- this is also the problem with uniting quantum mechanics with general relativity, because QM and QFT work with a "fixed" background of space and time (which then somehow would exist independend from matter) and for this reason we can't unite QM or QFT with general relativity. Which in fact means we have two fundamental different descriptions of reality, which we can't unite, and which therefore means, we don't have a unique physical theory to describe the very early universe, we can only approximate it and with some serious limitations on our knowledge about possible states before the Big bang.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying about matter in eternal motion, do you think matter could exist without motion, or that it is not something fundamental?

 

[country boy]

Jonny_trigonometry: From your explanation, you may not be confusing them. But this is the statement that got me: "...due to the uncertainty principle (you can measure position or energy but not both at once), there is no way of getting around approximations..." The uncertainty principle is not about approximations, but about the inability to perform arbitrarily accurate measurements on two complimentary quantities (i.e., momentun and position). But I see from your follow-up that you mean that the uncertainty principle adds an extra layer of difficulty in describing the state of the world beyond the limitations of modeling innaccuracies. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[heusdens]

You can attempt to describe living things as dynamical systems, but with such systems, you have to make many assumptions (in order to reduce complexity, and even then you're dealing with a non-linear system) in order to get tiny pictures of macro behavior, which may reveal some aspect or a portion of the full picture. With things like this, the system is inherently chaotic, and large changes in emergent behavior come with even the most miniscule numerical approximation (have you heard of the butterfly effect?). So, due to the uncertainty principle (you can measure position or energy but not both at once), there is no way of getting around approximations, so therefore it is impossible to model a real living thing. The only closed solution for an atom is the hydrogen solution, and so every other atom is just an approximation. It took a year to figure out hydrogen after Schrodinger introduced the equation for slow speeds, and it only consists of a proton and an electron. It took ten years to get reasonably approximate solutions to helium, which is just two electrons, two protons, and two neutrons. You can only imagine how much computing power you need to approximate a molecule. The most powerful supercomputer in the world was made in order to model how protiens fold, and it can only yield approximations, as long as enough assumptions are made in order to reduce complexity. The point is, since these efforts end up with mere approximations, and not exact solutions, when you model a living thing, the error in "knowable initial state" increases more than factorialy, and when you simulate this over time, the behavior of the system will be drastically different from reality, and every time you run the model, you'll get different answers. Even if you had a universal computer (a computer that can calculate anything exactly--which isn't physically realizable), you'd still have to contend with the uncertainty principle, and every time you simulate your model, you'll end up with the wrong behavior of the system due to chaos.

This is, as far as my knowledge and understanding of objective truth serves me, objectively true, so you must accept it. As for now, you'll have to trust me, but go ahead and learn all the things needed in order to know why. You made a remark about what I just explained in detail, so I guess you would accept it. I got to go right now, I'll come back later and finnish replying to your post.

This is correct in my understanding, although computational uncertainty is different from Heizenberg uncertainty relationship, as argued by the previous poster.
Any way, this dispermits us to make a realistic computational model of matter that can describe exactly how some more complex systems evolve in time.

For that particular reason we have physics, biology, etc., since else, we could all reduce the materialistic science to some fundamental physics theory, and even develop economic models including that of human behaviour at the basis of that.
As we know we can't reduce everything in any meaningfull way to physics, which makes it obvious we need other sciences too.

 

[country boy]

It seems like we're getting off the thread a bit here. Its pretty clear from this discussion that we cannot be certain about our description of the world. But we do recognize some ideas as true and others as false, don't we? To me, the question is: How do we make that determination?

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

Space and time have no separate existence from matter, it is just because matter is in motion, that there is space and time.

General relativity is correct in this sense, because space and time are replaced with gravity which is a material cause -- this is also the problem with uniting quantum mechanics with general relativity, because QM and QFT work with a "fixed" background of space and time (which then somehow would exist independend from matter) and for this reason we can't unite QM or QFT with general relativity. Which in fact means we have two fundamental different descriptions of reality, which we can't unite, and which therefore means, we don't have a unique physical theory to describe the very early universe, we can only approximate it and with some serious limitations on our knowledge about possible states before the Big bang.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying about matter in eternal motion, do you think matter could exist without motion, or that it is not something fundamental?

The big bang had a beginning, and the universe will most likely end in a cold freeze. Therefore, there is no eternal motion, everything will stop, just like everything had a beginning. Regardless of the problems with unification, there still is no reason why space and time exist let alone matter-energy.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

Like you stated there is no way of objectively proving God.
It means that God is just a subjective manifestation in one's mind.

The question is however, where does God come from? Or better stated, since we deal with just a manifestation of mind, the idea of God, how did it get here in the first place?

From what do we conclude or imagine there to be a God?

In practice this is answered with that the idea of God is that it is that what provides sufficient reason for why we are here, for why there is a world, etc.

God is thought of as the final cause of all this happening, and the idea of God was shaped in different fashions according to local traditions and mythologies.

Wether there is a God, or better stated, wether there is a subjective proof for the existence of God, this depends on one's ontology.

The idea that such a being can actually exist, and not mere in the imagination, however can not be well grounded on a philosophical basis.
It would for instance raise the idea that mind came before matter, that mind can exist in the absence of matter, that consciouss could be well-defined in the absence of anything to be consciouss of, and that matter can be created from nothing. Since this is far from obvious and defies experience and our knowledge, this can only be taken on the basis of faith.

A ground for the existence of the world can be formed on the basis of matter, which itself has no ground outside of itself. Matter itself is uncreatable and indestructable and in eternal motion, thus removing any need for some outside cause, or begin and delivers sufficient ground for understanding the material world of motion.

We know from experience and scientific explorations that also the brain is just material and can in principle be understood at the basis of motion of matter, like also the existence of living organisms can be explained by matter in motion.

Do you agree that everything you've experianced is undeniable, and therefore true to you? Every dream you've had is an experiance, and so it is real to your perception, everything you've felt, either with your five senses or by other means, was something that you experianced, and so you can't say that any of it didn't actaully happen to you, so it is true to you. This is what we've been referring to as "subjective truth". You have made it clear that what is true to you is that God doesn't really exist beyond conception, and that reality is completely explainable as only material. The way I understand this is that you've had many experiances in your life that support this belief, and it is true to you (i.e. subjectively true). The objective truth of our situation is that neither you're right, nor am I, objectively we can't conclude or even believe anything, because objective truth doesn't require belief (one doesn't need to believe facts in order for them to be true).

You speak of your beliefs as if they are objective truth, but some just aren't, although I don't doubt your personal perspective serves you well. To you, you are right, and I don't want to tell you that you're wrong just because you disagree with me, because I could be wrong too. The fact is we are speaking from different perspectives, which have their own interpretations of reality. Suppose there is an absolute truth--of which objective truth is a subset. Then right now is the case that you are speaking your interpretation of what the absolute truth is, from your perspective, which is quite alright as far as I'm concerned. The point of this thread was originally to see how my philosophy holds to everybody's scrutany, well I admit I might be a little bit "clingy" with my perspective, but I believe that the objective truth of the current situation should require that we recognize that we all have different interpretations, and that they all may or may not be wrong, or be partly right, or whatever, but we can't prove to each other the full absolute truth. When it comes to the perennial questions (the ones which science can never answer), the best we can do is develop our own interpretations (based on subjective truth). The fact that we are all different people means that we won't be able to fully explain our reasons to each other, since we all see things in our own ways. The sentance I just wrote means something different to you than what it means to me. It most likely makes you think of other things than what I think when I read it, since you have experienced different things than I have.

Your reasoning that God existing makes a weak philosophical basis because it would mean that mind came before matter presupposes that a mind is the emergant property of a material thing. Inherently in your argument lies your own personal truth (that the mind is a manifestation of the brain's inner workings), and it is fine and right for you to believe it. You have experienced the things that support your conclusion and you believe it to be true, otherwise you wouldn't spend the time and effort to type it into this handy dandy internet we ingenious humans have made. I can make an unfalsifiable claim too, that brains are tranceivers of the mind. The mind doesn't exist in space-time. I won't expand on it unless you would like me to, but let it be known that neither of us are being scientific in the sense that we're both reaching beyond objective truth. Science can't conclude either way, and it isn't allowed to guess, but we aren't held down by this restriction because we have first hand experience with being conscious, and we've experienced things in our own vantage points, and so we can reflect upon our thoughts and feelings and develop a hunch about the true nature of our minds while science can't. So let me reiterate, both of us aren't being scientific when we make such statements as "the mind couldn't have existed before matter" and "the mind existed before matter".

This is not to argue that science can understand matter in all totality, as obviously, there are limitations to how far we can understand matter, and as far as this is concerned, we will always have a limited knowledge about matter at every stage of discovery, however a limit that keeps being pushed further away, which is scientific progress.
Absolute and complete knowledge about the material world however can not be delivered. We always have an incomplete picture of the material world, and move forward with relative and only approximately correct knowledge.

The idea of God in this respect is just the ultimate and unreachable limit of all knowledge, etc., which just exists as an ideal in the mind, never to be realized in reality.

I agree, well put. We've been referring to the absolute truth that we know as objective truth, but it is just a subset of absolute truth, of which we can never fully know. Therefore, we can't objectively know if God exists or not, we can only guess, or even subjectively know (based on one's ontology, as you put it). Although your calim that God only exists as an ideal in the mind may not be absolutely true (in the meaning that I think you're conveying).

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

Jonny_trigonometry: From your explanation, you may not be confusing them. But this is the statement that got me: "...due to the uncertainty principle (you can measure position or energy but not both at once), there is no way of getting around approximations..." The uncertainty principle is not about approximations, but about the inability to perform arbitrarily accurate measurements on two complimentary quantities (i.e., momentun and position). But I see from your follow-up that you mean that the uncertainty principle adds an extra layer of difficulty in describing the state of the world beyond the limitations of modeling innaccuracies. Thanks for the clarification.

I apologize for not being clear. When I first write down a thought, I haven't fully thought it through. Making it more clear not only helped for you, but to me too.

 

[heusdens]

The big bang had a beginning, and the universe will most likely end in a cold freeze. Therefore, there is no eternal motion, everything will stop, just like everything had a beginning.

I think this is an important point, that explains our philosophical different positions on this.
Now where did you arrive the conclusion that the big bang had a beginning in the first place?
I can think of it as being true only in the sense that it is true that the sun and the Earth and you and me had a begin, but not as an absolute begin (with no prior state before the big bang).

That is I hold on to the idea that matter itself, did not begin, so that in this way, the big bang is in no way a "special" event in the entire history of the universe, but just an event like every other event in which matter transforms from some state to another state. Like it always does and lik everything constantly changes, moves and transforms.

How could "everything" have a begin, to begin with? If "everything" began then necessarily it began in or from nothing. But nothing is not a begin, nothing is just nothing.

If you cling on to the idea that "everything" (I mean here: everything in totality, not just every particular thing) could have had a begin, then you in fact are confusing yourself.

Let us rephrase it a bit, and call the existence of everything as being, which is taken as something very abstract and without anything determined.
Now the idea or assumption that being and non-being (which is the direct opposite of being) are only and absolutely seperate, is what causes the trouble, because then the begin (of anything) is already effectively made impossible. Instead we need to take the approach that being and non-being must be regarded as separate moments of becoming, and that becoming is the truth of being and non-being.

Like the being of water turns into the being of gas by the process of heating, in which the being of water turns into non-being and the non-being of gas turns into the being of gas. This is just a transition of the state of the water molecules, which we experience daily.
It is necessary that being and non-being belong together and in fact form this unity of opposites. Being and non-being can not be taken separate (that is: regarded outside of this unity of opposites), since seperatedly, they mean nothing. Their only reality and truth is their unity, which is becoming.

So for this obvious reason we have to conclude that the universe and everything is in an eternal state of being and non-being the whole time, since everything constantly evolves, moves, changes, etc. eternally.

Regardless of the problems with unification, there still is no reason why space and time exist let alone matter-energy.

Matter/enery and motion, and therefore also space and time, have no "reason of existence" or cause outside of it self.

Neither there is a "cause" for being, and in fact here too, one has to approach from a dialectical point of view. The "being" of matter and the "non-being" of matter, have to be seen also in this dialectical unity of opposites, which truth is the motion and transformation and change of matter, which leads to the various manifestations of matter.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

I think this is an important point, that explains our philosophical different positions on this.
Now where did you arrive the conclusion that the big bang had a beginning in the first place?
I can think of it as being true only in the sense that it is true that the sun and the Earth and you and me had a begin, but not as an absolute begin (with no prior state before the big bang).

That is I hold on to the idea that matter itself, did not begin, so that in this way, the big bang is in no way a "special" event in the entire history of the universe, but just an event like every other event in which matter transforms from some state to another state. Like it always does and lik everything constantly changes, moves and transforms.

How could "everything" have a begin, to begin with? If "everything" began then necessarily it began in or from nothing. But nothing is not a begin, nothing is just nothing.

If you cling on to the idea that "everything" (I mean here: everything in totality, not just every particular thing) could have had a begin, then you in fact are confusing yourself.

Let us rephrase it a bit, and call the existence of everything as being, which is taken as something very abstract and without anything determined.
Now the idea or assumption that being and non-being (which is the direct opposite of being) are only and absolutely seperate, is what causes the trouble, because then the begin (of anything) is already effectively made impossible. Instead we need to take the approach that being and non-being must be regarded as separate moments of becoming, and that becoming is the truth of being and non-being.

Like the being of water turns into the being of gas by the process of heating, in which the being of water turns into non-being and the non-being of gas turns into the being of gas. This is just a transition of the state of the water molecules, which we experience daily.
It is necessary that being and non-being belong together and in fact form this unity of opposites. Being and non-being can not be taken separate (that is: regarded outside of this unity of opposites), since seperatedly, they mean nothing. Their only reality and truth is their unity, which is becoming.

So for this obvious reason we have to conclude that the universe and everything is in an eternal state of being and non-being the whole time, since everything constantly evolves, moves, changes, etc. eternally.
Matter/enery and motion, and therefore also space and time, have no "reason of existence" or cause outside of it self.

Neither there is a "cause" for being, and in fact here too, one has to approach from a dialectical point of view. The "being" of matter and the "non-being" of matter, have to be seen also in this dialectical unity of opposites, which truth is the motion and transformation and change of matter, which leads to the various manifestations of matter.

well I'm sure it all makes sense to you. Could you make distinctions between what you think is true and what is objectively true? This post is riddled with subjective truth, and I'm not sure what is objectively true and what isn't, since I'm not familiar with these concepts. Could you point me in the direction of a proof for some of your objectively true statements?

From what I know to be objectively true, science can't say anything about what happened before the big bang. There are some different unification schemes in the works that try to predict this, but so far none have been experimentally verifiable. As it stands now, there is no objective answer to what happened before the big bang, and so the objective truth is that matter-energy, and space-time had a beginning. When you say it didn't you're reaching beyond objective truth and you're taking a guess, which is supported by your subjective truth. Keep in mind, not all subjective truths are shared with everybody, and in fact, some people have unreconcilable subjective truths. Perhaps one day mankind could know if there is a better theory to use, which explains everything better and makes new experimentally verifiable predictions, but as of now there isn't. I'm not going to discount the possibility that the universe could've never had a beginning though, but I'll go with science for now. The only reason I do is because of the principle we've developed earlier, "when objective truth is in opposition to subjective truth, objective truth wins".

Here's an unfalsifiable claim that you may enjoy (and is not objectively true). Suppose you're right, and the universe has always existed. Further suppose that minds are the emergent property of a physical dynamical system. Now imagine the vantage point you would see if you could sit on top of an electron (as if it were earth) in a rock on the road. It is true that atoms are 99.9% empty space, so when you look around, you'd see a bunch of empty space, and some other protons, electrons and such, just wizzing around in a black backdrop. Now suppose that a human walks by, and even steps on you. Would you even be able to recognize it as a human? Wouldn't it look like just a huge, chaotic "storm" of other particles wizzing around? With that in mind, we humans can't know when we look out into space if all those galaxies and clusters are merely part of a giant living thing, with it's own organs, including a brain. So, what if the mind is the emergent property of dynamical systems, and the universe has existed forever? Then what if the entire universe is the dynamical system that is the brain of God? Then God has always existed because the universe has.

 

[heusdens]

well I'm sure it all makes sense to you. Could you make distinctions between what you think is true and what is objectively true? This post is riddled with subjective truth, and I'm not sure what is objectively true and what isn't, since I'm not familiar with these concepts. Could you point me in the direction of a proof for some of your objectively true statements?

From what I know to be objectively true, science can't say anything about what happened before the big bang. There are some different unification schemes in the works that try to predict this, but so far none have been experimentally verifiable. As it stands now, there is no objective answer to what happened before the big bang, and so the objective truth is that matter-energy, and space-time had a beginning.

It will be perhaps very difficult to tell anything about what was before the big bang because there is little (or no) direct observations that take place.
But I'm sure you heard of the inflation scenario? It describes a possible mechanism that produces just the right universe (flatness, quantum fluctuations, solution to horizon problem) which we can test. So far it stands the test.

I don't think that one can say that matter/energy, time and space had a beginning. How can you conclude that? The singularity (deduced from GR) merely means that GR can not make predictions about that time interval, it breaks down. GR is therefore incomplete.
Scientific truths are not absolute truths. We have to judge our scientific tools on this basis, and know to what extend those theories say something meaningfull. We never had and never will have absolute truths.
For instance, Newton mechanics is still valid within limits. Only in the cases where we reach the limits of Newtonian mechanics, we use either GR/SR or QM/QFT. We know that GR and QM are fundamentally different and can't be united. Therefore in the cases where both GR and QM apply, we do not yet have a theory that can predict what happens.

Btw. people like Penrose, who claimed that the Big Bang started with an absolute begin, have changed their opinion on this.

When you say it didn't you're reaching beyond objective truth and you're taking a guess, which is supported by your subjective truth. Keep in mind, not all subjective truths are shared with everybody, and in fact, some people have unreconcilable subjective truths. Perhaps one day mankind could know if there is a better theory to use, which explains everything better and makes new experimentally verifiable predictions, but as of now there isn't. I'm not going to discount the possibility that the universe could've never had a beginning though, but I'll go with science for now. The only reason I do is because of the principle we've developed earlier, "when objective truth is in opposition to subjective truth, objective truth wins".

Here's an unfalsifiable claim that you may enjoy (and is not objectively true). Suppose you're right, and the universe has always existed. Further suppose that minds are the emergent property of a physical dynamical system. Now imagine the vantage point you would see if you could sit on top of an electron (as if it were earth) in a rock on the road. It is true that atoms are 99.9% empty space, so when you look around, you'd see a bunch of empty space, and some other protons, electrons and such, just wizzing around in a black backdrop. Now suppose that a human walks by, and even steps on you. Would you even be able to recognize it as a human? Wouldn't it look like just a huge, chaotic "storm" of other particles wizzing around? With that in mind, we humans can't know when we look out into space if all those galaxies and clusters are merely part of a giant living thing, with it's own organs, including a brain. So, what if the mind is the emergent property of dynamical systems, and the universe has existed forever? Then what if the entire universe is the dynamical system that is the brain of God? Then God has always existed because the universe has.

I can tell a reason why. Suppose that was the case, that the whole universe was in fact consciouss. The problem then is then in what way can this conscioussness exist. What is 'God' consciouss of?

We call ourselves consciouss, because we can distinghuish between the outer world, which we can know about through sensor perception, and our own inner world.

Since there is nothing outside of it, it can not be consciouss of something apart and outside of itself. I think it would be very problematic to define something as conscioussness in a case where there is no 'outside' world. Is God then only in a state of dreaming, or so? How could God even know that it exists? There is nothing that even in principle could lead to that conclusion.
If you have no way to distinguish yourself from an outside world, you would not know about your existence.
It can be said then that God can not be a natural being, because a natural has it's nature outside itself.

Apart from that, please show me a way in which communication can exist to have a functional organ to think with. This would be some problematic, I guess.

I think the whole issue arises only because this is a human reflection or projection. We attribute the (infinite/eternal) material world with human properties (like all knowing, all powerfull, all good, etc.) because that is a human way of thinking of it.
Anyway, wether this is in fact true, it does not matter anyway, because we can never know the mind of God.

Below a quote from Marx in his Critique of Hegel's philosophy in General on this issue, which discusses that the being of God has no objective meaning.

Here we see how consistent naturalism or humanism is distinct from both idealism and materialism, and constitutes at the same time the unifying truth of both. We see also how only naturalism is capable of comprehending the action of world history.

<Man is directly a natural being. As a natural being and as a living natural being he is on the one hand endowed with natural powers, vital powers – he is an active natural being. These forces exist in him as tendencies and abilities – as instincts. On the other hand, as a natural, corporeal, sensuous objective being he is a suffering, conditioned and limited creature, like animals and plants. That is to say, the objects of his instincts exist outside him, as objects independent of him; yet these objects are objects that he needs – essential objects, indispensable to the manifestation and confirmation of his essential powers. To say that man is a corporeal, living, real, sensuous, objective being full of natural vigour is to say that he has real, sensuous objects as the object of his being or of his life, or that he can only express his life in real, sensuous objects. To be objective, natural and sensuous, and at the same time to have object, nature and sense outside oneself, or oneself to be object, nature and sense for a third party, is one and the same thing.>

Hunger is a natural need; it therefore needs a nature outside itself, an object outside itself, in order to satisfy itself, to be stilled. Hunger is an acknowledged need of my body for an object existing outside it, indispensable to its integration and to the expression of its essential being. The sun is the object of the plant – an indispensable object to it, confirming its life – just as the plant is an object of the sun, being an expression of the life-awakening power of the sun, of the sun’s objective essential power.

A being which does not have its nature outside itself is not a natural being, and plays no part in the system of nature. A being which has no object outside itself is not an objective being. A being which is not itself an object for some third being has no being for its object; i.e., it is not objectively related. Its being is not objective.

A non-objective being is a non-being.

Suppose a being which is neither an object itself, nor has an object. Such a being, in the first place, would be the unique being: there would exist no being outside it – it would exist solitary and alone. For as soon as there are objects outside me, as soon as I am not alone, I am another – another reality than the object outside me. For this third object I am thus a different reality than itself; that is, I am its object. Thus, to suppose a being which is not the object of another being is to presuppose that no objective being exists. As soon as I have an object, this object has me for an object. But a non-objective being is an unreal, non-sensuous thing – a product of mere thought (i.e., of mere imagination) – an abstraction. To be sensuous, that is, to be really existing, means to be an object of sense, to be a sensuous object, to have sensuous objects outside oneself – objects of one’s sensuousness. To be sensuous is to suffer.

Man as an objective, sensuous being is therefore a suffering being – and because he feels that he suffers, a passionate being. Passion is the essential power of man energetically bent on its object.

<But man is not merely a natural being: he is a human natural being. That is to say, he is a being for himself. Therefore he is a species-being, and has to confirm and manifest himself as such both in his being and in his knowing. Therefore, human objects are not natural objects as they immediately present themselves, and neither is human sense as it immediately is – as it is objectively – human sensibility, human objectivity is directly given in a form adequate to the human being.>

Excerpt from:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/hegel.htm

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

It will be perhaps very difficult to tell anything about what was before the big bang because there is little (or no) direct observations that take place.
But I'm sure you heard of the inflation scenario? It describes a possible mechanism that produces just the right universe (flatness, quantum fluctuations, solution to horizon problem) which we can test. So far it stands the test.

I don't think that one can say that matter/energy, time and space had a beginning. How can you conclude that? The singularity (deduced from GR) merely means that GR can not make predictions about that time interval, it breaks down. GR is therefore incomplete.
Scientific truths are not absolute truths. We have to judge our scientific tools on this basis, and know to what extend those theories say something meaningfull. We never had and never will have absolute truths.
For instance, Newton mechanics is still valid within limits. Only in the cases where we reach the limits of Newtonian mechanics, we use either GR/SR or QM/QFT. We know that GR and QM are fundamentally different and can't be united. Therefore in the cases where both GR and QM apply, we do not yet have a theory that can predict what happens.

Btw. people like Penrose, who claimed that the Big Bang started with an absolute begin, have changed their opinion on this.I can tell a reason why. Suppose that was the case, that the whole universe was in fact consciouss. The problem then is then in what way can this conscioussness exist. What is 'God' consciouss of?

We call ourselves consciouss, because we can distinghuish between the outer world, which we can know about through sensor perception, and our own inner world.

Since there is nothing outside of it, it can not be consciouss of something apart and outside of itself. I think it would be very problematic to define something as conscioussness in a case where there is no 'outside' world. Is God then only in a state of dreaming, or so? How could God even know that it exists? There is nothing that even in principle could lead to that conclusion.
If you have no way to distinguish yourself from an outside world, you would not know about your existence.
It can be said then that God can not be a natural being, because a natural has it's nature outside itself.

Apart from that, please show me a way in which communication can exist to have a functional organ to think with. This would be some problematic, I guess.

I think the whole issue arises only because this is a human reflection or projection. We attribute the (infinite/eternal) material world with human properties (like all knowing, all powerfull, all good, etc.) because that is a human way of thinking of it.
Anyway, wether this is in fact true, it does not matter anyway, because we can never know the mind of God.

Below a quote from Marx in his Critique of Hegel's philosophy in General on this issue, which discusses that the being of God has no objective meaning.
Excerpt from:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/hegel.htm

um. What am I supposed to say? To me, not much of this is coherent. You just keep trying to explain how you think that God doesn't make sense. I don't doubt that you have problems with this if you're a materialist. Do you not agree that you can't objectively prove it? Isn't it kind of useless to try to convince me that I should believe differently than I do? I can imagine that in your perspective I must look stubborn or something, just because I don't agree with you. I'm trying to explain that I think there is a reason for this, but you don't listen. I'd like to not focus on our beliefs about God, but rather on some of the other issues we've touched.

As far as the whole big bang thing... Einstein's theory states that time and space started at the big bang. Thats what I was trying to say. The early universe was much too energetic for elementary particles to form in the first moments, and so they came to be later along in the cosmic evolution. This is the source of my argument, that particles haven't existed forever.

You just stated that scientific truths aren't absolute truths. Prove that for me. If your statement is true, then it is absolutely true, right? Given that you agree on the definitions of math, do you mean that bessel's inequality is not absolutely true? Are you saying that it isn't absolutely true that for slow speeds, Newton's physics is a good approximation? If you spin a top, is it not absolutely true that it will precess under the influence of gravity? These questions may give you an idea of what I'm talking about. Objective truth requires commonalities, and agreements between those who use it. If there is any misunderstanding, more words need to be used to describe the situation. If you went by your own definitions, you wouldn't be able to communicate your subjective truths with others, since others don't know what you're talking about. If there is a common understanding, then things can be said that are objectively true. Unlike point charges attract. That is objectively true, as long as you know what "unlike", "point charges" and "attract" mean. Objectively true things such as these are true for everybody, as long as they understand the language used to state them. If none of us communicated with each other, we will all still notice that we are pulled toward the earth, but we won't all call it gravity, and we won't all think of it in the same way, but we all observe it to be true, in this case in our own unique ways. You and I are educated, and we speak the same language, and we call this thing gravity, and we both know that it exists, and it doesn't act differently for different observers. In the knowledge of how we define it, we will always recognize its character as gravity, and so it is an absolute truth that we're aware of. When we see repulsive effects, we won't call it gravity, because by definition, that's not what gravity is, so there will be no case where our definition of gravity fails us, just as there is no situation where our definition of addition fails us. Therefore, these are absolute truths. I agree that we will never know all of absolute truth, but the things that are true among us all--the objective truths, which don't rely on personal experience--are a subset of the absolute truth. And you're saying that scientific truths (objective truths) aren't absolute truths? Isn't it absolutely true that 1+1=2?

You said so yourself that science helps us to uncover the truth, and it will continue onward, but it will never reveal everything for what it absolutely is. So I think we both actually agree here, and we're getting caught up in semantics.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

Ok. I think I'm not being fair to Heusdens. I'll make a little outline of things.

key point A: God can't be objectively proven to exist or not exist

key point B: three types of truth
1. Subjective
2. Objective
3. Absolute

Maybe I should've made a better format, and ask first of all if posters agree or disagree to key point A. Perhaps we should focus more on point A for now. Hopefully, we could try to speak in terms of the different proposed truths, and see if they can help us communicate better or not.