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

[Jonny_trigonometry]

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.

 

[verty]

For example, Science can't "feel" the existence of God, because science is not a sentient being

No one can feel the existence of God.

 

[Ghostfaith]

No one can feel the existence of God.

And yet, people feel that they can!

 

[Evo]

Science can't conclude as to whether God exists or not because it's premises aren't powerful enough,

That's not correct, you cannot prove or disprove something that cannot be tested for.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

That's not correct, you cannot prove or disprove something that cannot be tested for.

Yes, quite right. Metaphorically, we can't test if the cat is dead or alive, so we can't objectively conclude one way or the other. If I flip a coin in the wind, science can't tell me if it is heads or tails, but I have the option to guess, and science doesn't.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

No one can feel the existence of God.

I could ask you to prove it, but you'd be proving something true to yourself, and not true for all of humanity. It is not true to me, so I guess I'm not you.

 

[gerben]

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).

We usually try to convince others (and ourselves) of the truth of certain statements by arguing how they can be applied to things we can experience/measure. You can just hold certain statements for true (and call them subjective truths) just because it feels good, but if that is the only requirement such statements will generally not have much use. They may even prevent you from developing ones that would be useful.

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.

Of course if you do not want to convince anybody that’s all good, but I don’t think it’s fair to say that in case of the existence of a God the burden of proof doesn’t rest on the theist. Atheists just state that they do not believe in the theists’ proposal, if the theist wants the atheist to believe he should come up with arguments.

You could come up with many “explanations”. I could come up with a story saying that there is one large pink elephant that blows large expanding bubbles and that our universe is the 5th bubble it blew. It would be unfair to then go on to state that the burden of proof would not only lay with me but would lay just as much with the people who do not believe in my story.

 

[verty]

How comforting it must be to have truths that are true for you alone.

 

[Ghostfaith]

How comforting it must be to have truths that are true for you alone.

Have you ever loved someone, or hated someone, that no one else love or hated?

Or, not to the same degree?

Is truth that which is true for all people at al times...??

Or is it a function... a statement of affairs around us?

Linguistic alchemy turns it into a *thing*... with all the properties thereof.

Is proof only that which can be tested for? I wonder... proof of what?

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

We usually try to convince others (and ourselves) of the truth of certain statements by arguing how they can be applied to things we can experience/measure. You can just hold certain statements for true (and call them subjective truths) just because it feels good, but if that is the only requirement such statements will generally not have much use. They may even prevent you from developing ones that would be useful.

Possibly and possibly not, it depends on how open-minded a person is. I do understand your point though, but I think that a person is never complete, and nobody will ever stop changing their perspective of what is true. If you think about it, do you really believe that what you said is true? You must, otherwise you might not have said it right? Suppose someone thinks you're wrong, then who is right? My answer is that you're both right, because these differences occur due to the fact that you two are different people who have had different experiances.

Of course if you do not want to convince anybody that’s all good, but I don’t think it’s fair to say that in case of the existence of a God the burden of proof doesn’t rest on the theist. Atheists just state that they do not believe in the theists’ proposal, if the theist wants the atheist to believe he should come up with arguments.

If you have your idea about God, and you don't want to change your mind about what you think is true, and someone is trying to prove to you something else, then we get into these arguments about who has the "burden of proof". That is a distraction from the real issue; since God can't be proven to exist or not exist objectively, there is nothing to prove to each other, and nobody has any burden. Objective truth is true for all of humanity, and there ought to be evidence to support any conclusions, either by experiment or by logic or otherwise. So if you could objectively prove the non-existance of God, then you must do so using these methods, but we both agree that nobody can do it objectively--likewise is you wish to prove the existence of God. My point is that it is an empty venture to try to objectively prove it one way or another. What I say is that whatever you think about the subject is true to you, and if you want to see things the other way, the burden of proof is on yourself. Like I said, I'm a theist, but if I wanted to change my opinion, I'd have to look for evidence in my own life, and draw from my own personal experiances, because no doubt the things that I've experianced are true to me. In a way, personal truths (opinions) are like self-fulfilling prophecies, contained in the individual. Whatever your stance, you will find evidence for it in your life to help support what you think is true, and if one day some experience powerful enough makes you re-evaluate what you think is true, and suppose you do end up changing your mind, then the process will go on again. If you never let yourself settle on anything, then that is just how you are; you wouldn't bother with debates like this since you wouldn't have any opinion, so as far as your impact on humanity, there's nothing wrong with it as far as I'm concerned (but that's just what I think is true).

You could come up with many “explanations”. I could come up with a story saying that there is one large pink elephant that blows large expanding bubbles and that our universe is the 5th bubble it blew. It would be unfair to then go on to state that the burden of proof would not only lay with me but would lay just as much with the people who do not believe in my story.

You're illustrating the problem with the burden of proof when it comes to this subject. Sure, burden of proof has a place in the search for objective truth, but it doesn't have a place in this debate, since nothing can be objectively proven either way in this case. Surely if it could be proven, we wouldn't be having this debate. This debate is the remnants of a clash between different thoughts and opinions about what is true. Those truths are held by different people who have all had experiances in their lives that reinforce what they think is true. Surely if I was you, and had all your experiances, then I would think the same way as you. I think that both the genetics and environment (nature and nurture) play a part in shaping who a person is. I also think that we all have the same mind, but due to our different circumstances (genetics, environment--nature and nurture), we all develop different personalities. So if I had all the initial conditions (genetics, family/environment/time period/culture) as you had, I would be you, since I would've had all the same experiances and so on, so everything true to me would be what is true to you, and we wouldn't disagree on anything. What I'm trying to explain is the notion that all people have their own lives, and therefore have had their own experiances, and so a person can't deny anything that they have experianced (whether it be a thought or a feeling). For an abstract example, if I went to school today, I can't say to myself that I didn't experience going to school, because there is no doubt in my mind that I did, so that is true to me. Now suppose that nobody witnessed me going to school today (i.e. I can't objectively prove it for some reason), you can either believe me or not when I say that I went to school today, and I can come up with many explanations as to why I did, but you don't have to believe me if you think otherwise, since I can't prove it. Similarly, if I experience a spiritual moment in my life, I could try and explain it to someone, but if there is no way for me to prove it objectively, then nobody needs to believe me, but that doesn't make it untrue to me, for I personally experianced it.

 

[Evo]

then nobody needs to believe me, but that doesn't make it untrue to me, for I personally experianced it.

Have you considered the fact that what you believe to have happened or what you have felt may simply be delusional? That it never really happened, you just imagined whatever you felt? Perhaps brought on by your beliefs and the desire to experience something?

 

[mosassam]

I personally believe that God exists

From your experience, can you define 'God' in a sense that takes it out of the realm of purely personal experience and into a more 'objective' realm? Or would any definitions regarding personal experience always be subjective?

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

Have you considered the fact that what you believe to have happened or what you have felt may simply be delusional? That it never really happened, you just imagined whatever you felt? Perhaps brought on by your beliefs and the desire to experience something?

That is the question we must all consider, so yes. I might add, it is a very good question.

How can I know if I'm not imagining something to be real when it really isn't real? Before we ask that question, we must first have a good idea of what "real" is.

I don't like Pablo Picasso's work. How do I know that? Good question. I don't have the answer. Perhaps I'm actually delusional, and I'm imagining the feeling that I don't like his work, but in reality, I truly do. I like my friends, but perhaps I'm delusional, and I really don't like them. I don't know how to answer your question, so let it be that I am whatever you want me to be. If you think I'm delusional, then it suits you best to think of me with that attribute.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

From your experience, can you define 'God' in a sense that takes it out of the realm of purely personal experience and into a more 'objective' realm? Or would any definitions regarding personal experience always be subjective?

This is a very good question. I don't think I can. I have my own idea, but I can't say that other people's ideas are wrong.

As far as your second question goes, hmm... what do you think? It is interesting though. I think that there are some things that we can all relate to, such as the feeling of the pull of gravity, or hunger, though it is impossible to test and see if person A actually feels the exact same sensations as person B for these cases. Even though we may not feel the exact same sensations, we can know what we're talking about, as you know the personal experiances I'm referring to.

 

[gerben]

Possibly and possibly not, it depends on how open-minded a person is. I do understand your point though, but I think that a person is never complete, and nobody will ever stop changing their perspective of what is true. If you think about it, do you really believe that what you said is true? You must, otherwise you might not have said it right? Suppose someone thinks you're wrong, then who is right? My answer is that you're both right, because these differences occur due to the fact that you two are different people who have had different experiances.

If you have your idea about God, and you don't want to change your mind about what you think is true, and someone is trying to prove to you something else, then we get into these arguments about who has the "burden of proof". That is a distraction from the real issue; since God can't be proven to exist or not exist objectively, there is nothing to prove to each other, and nobody has any burden. Objective truth is true for all of humanity, and there ought to be evidence to support any conclusions, either by experiment or by logic or otherwise. So if you could objectively prove the non-existance of God, then you must do so using these methods, but we both agree that nobody can do it objectively--likewise is you wish to prove the existence of God. My point is that it is an empty venture to try to objectively prove it one way or another. What I say is that whatever you think about the subject is true to you, and if you want to see things the other way, the burden of proof is on yourself. Like I said, I'm a theist, but if I wanted to change my opinion, I'd have to look for evidence in my own life, and draw from my own personal experiances, because no doubt the things that I've experianced are true to me. In a way, personal truths (opinions) are like self-fulfilling prophecies, contained in the individual. Whatever your stance, you will find evidence for it in your life to help support what you think is true, and if one day some experience powerful enough makes you re-evaluate what you think is true, and suppose you do end up changing your mind, then the process will go on again. If you never let yourself settle on anything, then that is just how you are; you wouldn't bother with debates like this since you wouldn't have any opinion, so as far as your impact on humanity, there's nothing wrong with it as far as I'm concerned (but that's just what I think is true).

You're illustrating the problem with the burden of proof when it comes to this subject. Sure, burden of proof has a place in the search for objective truth, but it doesn't have a place in this debate, since nothing can be objectively proven either way in this case. Surely if it could be proven, we wouldn't be having this debate. This debate is the remnants of a clash between different thoughts and opinions about what is true. Those truths are held by different people who have all had experiances in their lives that reinforce what they think is true. Surely if I was you, and had all your experiances, then I would think the same way as you. I think that both the genetics and environment (nature and nurture) play a part in shaping who a person is. I also think that we all have the same mind, but due to our different circumstances (genetics, environment--nature and nurture), we all develop different personalities. So if I had all the initial conditions (genetics, family/environment/time period/culture) as you had, I would be you, since I would've had all the same experiances and so on, so everything true to me would be what is true to you, and we wouldn't disagree on anything. What I'm trying to explain is the notion that all people have their own lives, and therefore have had their own experiances, and so a person can't deny anything that they have experianced (whether it be a thought or a feeling). For an abstract example, if I went to school today, I can't say to myself that I didn't experience going to school, because there is no doubt in my mind that I did, so that is true to me. Now suppose that nobody witnessed me going to school today (i.e. I can't objectively prove it for some reason), you can either believe me or not when I say that I went to school today, and I can come up with many explanations as to why I did, but you don't have to believe me if you think otherwise, since I can't prove it. Similarly, if I experience a spiritual moment in my life, I could try and explain it to someone, but if there is no way for me to prove it objectively, then nobody needs to believe me, but that doesn't make it untrue to me, for I personally experianced it.

You are using the concept of “something being true” as being synonymous with “suspecting something to be true”, two people can suspect opposite things to be true and you can call that “their subjective truths” but I don’t think you gain much by doing so.

Being true is a special property of a statement, and usually a valuable one. In any language you can construct a countless number of statements, but only a very small proportion of them will be true, so whenever someone comes up with one the burden of proof is on them, as it is (not considering any proof you might already have) probably false.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

You are using the concept of “something being true” as being synonymous with “suspecting something to be true”, two people can suspect opposite things to be true and you can call that “their subjective truths” but I don’t think you gain much by doing so.

I don't know if I am, is that how you interpret it? If I experience something mentally or physically, how could it not be something I experiance? That is the fulcrum of this idea. If you feel something, how can it not be truly something you feel? If you feel cold, there is no suspecting, the truth is you're cold. The person next to you doesn't have to also feel cold for it to be the truth.

Being true is a special property of a statement, and usually a valuable one. In any language you can construct a countless number of statements, but only a very small proportion of them will be true, so whenever someone comes up with one the burden of proof is on them, as it is (not considering any proof you might already have) probably false.

The nitty gritty comes when you consider emotive statements, not rational ones. Usually, when someone is trying to explain an objective truth that they have discovered, the only way to do it is through reason. "All elephants are bright green." is no doubt a false statement due to reason. I object to giving too much leeway to subjective truth also, I'm not going to let someone think that all elephants are bright green, because it is an objective truth that they aren't. Maybe I should tack on another clarification, that when objective truth is in opposition to subjective truth, objective truth wins. So if you find that what you thought before is said to be incorrect, then you should learn why, and you will be enlightened.

 

[gerben]

It is statements about how or what you feel that can be considered true or false. The things that happen are just the things that happen, there is no use in saying they are true or false they just happen (be it you feeling cold or whatever).

You could state “I feel the presence of God”, based on my idea of what God is I would then assume that you are telling me that you feel the presence of some eternal, omniscient, omnipotent being and I would tend not to believe that so readily. Instead of saying that it is your “subjective truth” that you feel the presence of God, I would say that whatever you are feeling you suspect to be the presence of God.

(We could then have a discussion in which you try to convince me that what you are experiencing really is the presence of an omnipotent entity)

 

[octelcogopod]

Maybe I should tack on another clarification, that when objective truth is in opposition to subjective truth, objective truth wins. So if you find that what you thought before is said to be incorrect, then you should learn why, and you will be enlightened.

But that doesn't seem very productive.. I can say that there is an invisible elephant over my head, and I KNOW that it's there, but science can't disprove this fact so that automatically makes me less insane?

I believe there is always an explanation for everything, and that believing something based on experience should only lead to you doing extensive research on what you experienced, NOT blindly believing it.

In fact in the perfect society nobody would believe anything.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

But that doesn't seem very productive.. I can say that there is an invisible elephant over my head, and I KNOW that it's there, but science can't disprove this fact so that automatically makes me less insane?

What I'm trying to show is that if someone actually thinks/senses/knows there is an invisible elephant over their head, then to their perspective, there is. Insane people are insane because they are actually experiancing things like these, otherwise they wouldn't be insane. There is no reason why that person is less insane because of it.

I believe there is always an explanation for everything, and that believing something based on experience should only lead to you doing extensive research on what you experienced, NOT blindly believing it.

I share your belief. I've never accepted "forget about it" as an explanation.

In fact in the perfect society nobody would believe anything.

This isn't objectively true, since humanity doesn't have a collective idea of what a perfect society is.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

It is statements about how or what you feel that can be considered true or false. The things that happen are just the things that happen, there is no use in saying they are true or false they just happen (be it you feeling cold or whatever).

Please expand on this, I don't quite follow just yet.

You could state “I feel the presence of God”, based on my idea of what God is I would then assume that you are telling me that you feel the presence of some eternal, omniscient, omnipotent being and I would tend not to believe that so readily. Instead of saying that it is your “subjective truth” that you feel the presence of God, I would say that whatever you are feeling you suspect to be the presence of God.

You more or less just asked me this question in your previous post. There are two things going on in this hypothetical situation, my perspective and your perspective. In my perspective, it is true that "I feel the presence of God" (I have no idea what that would mean or feel like, but oh well), this is the case at hand, and there is no doubt that it is what I experiance. In your perspective, you interpret this statement as me suspecting it, rather than have actually experianced it, and so to you, it is true that I suspected something.

As we all are aware, statements can be misinterpreted, and even the person making a statement can unintentionally say the wrong thing and think they said the right thing. It could've been the case that I truly meant to say that "I suspected to have felt the presence of God" (in this hypothetical situation), and you would've interpreted what I was trying to say correctly even though I didn't say it correctly. More words would be needed to clarify what things both of us would've been experiancing and interpreting in order to get a concrete idea of what was going on.

It is a really simple idea that I'm trying to explain, and I bet you've grasped it for the most part. The main idea is that I postulate that everything a person experiances is undeniable (i.e. a true event or feeling or whatever, for that person). If you witness an apple falling to the ground, you can't deny that it happened, and so you must accept that it is true to you. This particular example isn't simply true to for you, but it's true for everybody, so I make the distinction that things true for everybody are called objective truths, and the others are subjective.

(We could then have a discussion in which you try to convince me that what you are experiencing really is the presence of an omnipotent entity)

I haven't attempted it at all so far, and I won't. This current thread is about my philosophy, it's not about me trying to make people believe in God. I don't believe it is incumbant on me to enforce my beliefs on others.

By the way, I'm glad you're asking all these finely tuned questions and I thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts.

 

[mosassam]

The main idea is that I postulate that everything a person experiances is undeniable

How do you expand on this statement in terms of your philosophy? I can agree with the above quote and I think I understand what you say about objectivity but I don't understand how this is a philosophy as opposed to, let's say, an observation.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

How do you expand on this statement in terms of your philosophy? I can agree with the above quote and I think I understand what you say about objectivity but I don't understand how this is a philosophy as opposed to, let's say, an observation.

Do you give it that much credit? For some reason I think that observations are more "down to earth" than a philosophy. Do you agree that with this observation, it follows that experiances perceived by an individual must be true in that individual's perspective? Would you then agree on the distinction between subjective truth and objective truth?

If you do, then the hard part is over, because I think that my main ideas reside in this distinction.

 

[mosassam]

I agree that every experience, sensation, feeling, thought process etc, that a person undergoes, consciously or un(sub)consciously can be true for that individual, even if they misinterpret or are delusional, because these remain experiences. As you say, the subjective truth. However, and I'm being pedantic here, I am wary of an objective truth. Relativity is one among many reasons why, but I will say that if two individuals can fully agree on an issue, they may share an objective truth but that is their truth and no-one elses, if you see what I mean. I don't really agree with a full on, true-for-everyone truth.

 

[gerben]

Please expand on this, I don't quite follow just yet.

What I meant was simply that being true or false is a property of statements, it is not a property of the world.

It is a really simple idea that I'm trying to explain, and I bet you've grasped it for the most part. The main idea is that I postulate that everything a person experiances is undeniable (i.e. a true event or feeling or whatever, for that person). If you witness an apple falling to the ground, you can't deny that it happened, and so you must accept that it is true to you. This particular example isn't simply true to for you, but it's true for everybody, so I make the distinction that things true for everybody are called objective truths, and the others are subjective.

I agree that the experience is there, but the way in which the person describes this experience is what can be false. It is a description of a subjective experience and this description like any description can just as well be false, so it should not be called their “subjective truth”, it could be called their “personal interpretation” or something like that.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

I agree that every experience, sensation, feeling, thought process etc, that a person undergoes, consciously or un(sub)consciously can be true for that individual, even if they misinterpret or are delusional, because these remain experiences. As you say, the subjective truth. However, and I'm being pedantic here, I am wary of an objective truth. Relativity is one among many reasons why, but I will say that if two individuals can fully agree on an issue, they may share an objective truth but that is their truth and no-one elses, if you see what I mean. I don't really agree with a full on, true-for-everyone truth.

When you mention that a person can misinterpret their own experiances and be delusional, I have to ask, delusional to what? To what should have been experianced? How could there be any objective truth about what a person should subjectively experiance? 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.

 

[country boy]

Discussions of how religion and science agree or disagree never seem to examine the common human basis for these two institutions. Fundamental to both science and religion is a desire to know the unequivocal, absolute truth about the world and its relationship to man. But humans know intuitively that if we rely only on our own reasoning, because of our fallibility the knowledge could be wrong. Instead, in our search for absolute truth we want to appeal directly to what we perceive as an ultimate authority. This is where the difference between religion and science enters. In religion we seek "revelation" of truth directly from a deity. In science, we perform experiments that “reveal” natural truths. The methods applied by the two disciplines are very different and the answers obtained by one often do not satisfy the other. But underlying this conflict is a shared yearning for certainty.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

What I meant was simply that being true or false is a property of statements, it is not a property of the world.

Ok, I agree with that. Suppose I feel cold right now. "I feel cold." and "electrons have a negative charge." are both true statements, since I said them. The first one is true to me only (because I said it) but is also true for others who say "me too", the second one is true to anyone who cares to learn what electrons and charge means (according to how people agree to define them). I've been referring the the first as subjective truth and the last as objective truth.

I agree that the experience is there, but the way in which the person describes this experience is what can be false. It is a description of a subjective experience and this description like any description can just as well be false, so it should not be called their “subjective truth”, it could be called their “personal interpretation” or something like that.

When I describe an experience I had, you may not agree with it, or simply not understand. But ask yourself, false according to what? According to the one who experianced the thing? Or according to how the person 'ought to have explained it to someone else? Then what is this "true" way of explaining a subjective experiance?

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

However, and I'm being pedantic here, I am wary of an objective truth. Relativity is one among many reasons why, but I will say that if two individuals can fully agree on an issue, they may share an objective truth but that is their truth and no-one elses, if you see what I mean. I don't really agree with a full on, true-for-everyone truth.

Ahh yes, I hoped someone would touch on this idea. I haven't fully throught this through myself. But here's an example, suppose there is a classroom of students, and they all know (they have all agreed, but yet the room has no windows, or a tv or radio) that it is raining outside. There could be an absolute truth of the situation, that even if everybody agrees unanimously, everybody could still be wrong.

Or perhaps, a better example would be the case of a jury for the trial of an accused criminal, but I guess in the context of this thread, neither are great analogies, but I'll continue. Suppose the case is scientifically inconclusive, that you can't prove what happened either way, but the jurors must reach a unanimous verdict. If you apply science, then the objective truth of the situation results in probabilities. This is the most honest and true answer known, and everyone who agrees with the methods of science will agree with the answer it gives, but that isn't good enough in this case. So ultimately everyone must draw upon their personal perspectives (which are all based on subjective experiances) in order to decide one way or another. Juror 1 might decide that the defendant is innocent due to the "vibe" she senses, because from her personal experiance, she has noticed subtle things (based on her experiances with people) in the defendant that she goes by in order to get that "vibe". Juror 2 may see other things in the defendant that spark his decision to think said defendant is guilty--and those things he notices are based on his personal experiances. These things are intuitive, they are hunches, and they aren't scientific because they are subjective. My interpretation of someone is my hunch or intuition or feeling, and it is supported by (and/or a function of) the things I've experianced previously, but nevertheless my interpretation is something that I experience and can't be denied, so if I'm honest with myself and Science can't tell me otherwise, I've got to go with my intuition, for it is true to me through my undeniable experiances. This will lead my way in a debate with the other jurors, and eventually, we will all come up with a verdict even if I have to compromise my own interpretations and trust others in order to help reach a unanimous decision. The uninanimous desicion isn't the objective truth in the situation anymore, we went beyond the limits of science long ago, before we entered into debate (in fact, it is why we debated). If it is contrary to what I truly think, then it is not true to me, however I must support it because of my knowledge of what is desired of us all (all jurors must uninamously decide). So the verdict isn't the scientific truth, but it's the best thing we can get, and for all practical purposes, and it isn't my subjective truth, but it is at least agreed upon by everybody. Now, there is an absolute truth in this case, either the accused is absolutely innocent or absolutely guilty. The verdict can still be wrong even though it is unanimous (though it was forced unaniminity, and not scientific, but rather simply the best guess given limited knowledge). Suppose the verdict is absolutely false, and everyone's collective guess was wrong, science is still at least partially right since it output some probabilities, and my subjective truth was the same as the absolute truth in this case, though science didn't fully support it. So there is a link between subjective and absolute truth.

In many situations, we don't have enough information in order to ask questions which may be answered objectively true or false. In those situations, an objective answer is split into probabilities. The overall probability distribution is objectively true, but if you want to pick heads or tails, you're reaching beyond the objectively true answer into your own intuitive answer, which is only true to you, based on your hunch, or gut feeling that you may have about it. Suppose the true state of either heads or tails is never revealed, reasonably, a coin can't be half heads and and half tails at once (as science says)--this is the notion of absolute truth. The coin must be either heads side up or tails side up absolutely, just like it must be either raining or not raining outside in the first example, and the defendant is either guilty or not guilty. So there is really three types of truth; subjective, objective, and absolute. And now we can talk more about these three, and try to make some more refined definitions and standardizations of which to draw from so that we can know better what we all are trying to explain and understand.

 

[country boy]

But in an analogy between law and physics, you could define the jury's verdict as the only truth, just as a measurement of a physical state collapses it to one of the possible states in the superposition, and that becomes the true state. Legally it could be regarded as meaningless to ask what was "really" true before the verdict. The verdict is the absolute truth. A view which is, of course, quite subjective.

 

[Jonny_trigonometry]

But in an analogy between law and physics, you could define the jury's verdict as the only truth, just as a measurement of a physical state collapses it to one of the possible states in the superposition, and that becomes the true state. Legally it could be regarded as meaningless to ask what was "really" true before the verdict. The verdict is the absolute truth. A view which is, of course, quite subjective.

Yes, but your personal inclination to define the verdict as absolute truth is a subjective truth, which I think you clarified at the end. Yeah, these ideas need more clarification, I don't fully understand how we could put absolute truth into the mix. Maybe a venn diagram or two is in order to help explain... How do you post images?

 

[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.