I'm going to butt in here because I think what Baldeee says about objectivity is very important indeed and you show signs of not understanding it. The whole of science depends on relying on observations that are as objective as possible. It is a key component of what is often called the "scientific method". The fact that the experience of a single observer may contain a subjective element is precisely why observations in science need to be reproducible. That means they are taken more seriously once they have been obtained by multiple observers, in multiple locations and ideally using multiple methods. The fact that subjectivity cannot be totally excluded does not invalidate the attempt to be as objective as possible. This principle (reliance on objective observation of nature) is what has driven the success of science since the Renaissance and is also its big limitation. Science sets out to exclude from consideration anything that is subjective. But, as the rest of your discussion with Baldeee makes clear, subjective experience is an inherent feature of the human condition. Thus we cannot look to science to help us with everything in life - and in practice nobody sane does. But do not belittle or deny the struggle for objectivity. It has proved to be a treasure beyond price, not only in science but in law and in other aspects of human affairs too.
Why do you say that dark matter is inferred by effects that appear to exist outside standard science? Dark matter inferred from applying astrophysics to astronomical observations. Observed astronomical structures such as spiral galaxies seem to require more gravity to hold them together than can be accounted for by the mass of what's seen. Which has generated all kinds of speculation about where the additional gravity is coming from. Certainly there are lots of assumptions implicit in that. Among them are the idea that the astronomical structures are the result of gravity, that gravity is associated with mass in the ways we expect, and that we are seeing all of the mass. It seems like the last assumption is the most reasonable one to attack, and that's where most of the dark matter speculations have been concentrated. That looks like perfectly good scientific hypothesis generation to me. The validity of science isn't dependent on the ability to "prove" it "in the lab". Science doesn't typically result in proofs (though one might get that impression from some of the mathematical metaphysics being promoted by physicists). And a great deal of science doesn't take place in laboratories. Basing the inference upon what? The inference of the possible existence of dark matter is based upon fundamental theories of gravity, on the observed masses of stars of various spectral types and so on. There's all kinds of evidence supporting the host of assumptions that go into the inference. True. That's why I think that agnosticism is the best position to take regarding the big metaphysical questions raised by natural theology. How? Based on what? We don't have any scientific theory of divine reality-creation that bears any resemblance to fundamental theories of gravity. In physics, we can observe the relationship between mass and motions and calculate forces in many different contexts. Patterns emerge that in our limited experience seem to be invariant. The assumption that those patterns continue to remain invariant in the astrophysical case is what justifies our hypothesizing that there may be some mass that we can't see involved in some astrophysical motions. In the case of divine creation, have we observed lots of different kinds of gods creating things from out of nothing? Have we identified any seemingly invariant patterns in how this seems to happen, patterns that allow us to solve for x in effect and infer both the existence of a god and something of his qualities from some observed qualities of our universe? I don't think that your analogy is very good.
Can you be more specific? What doesn't change, and to whom? What has been objectively true? What do you mean by the question ''Objectively exist''? Do you currently have any experience of God, objective or subjective? I don't, and I don't. I simply take it to the level of atheists. If you remove a carpet, there is no carpet. Does that mean carpet doesn't exit? Why are you? What can manifest itself? So you believe exams can be passed without any comprehension of the subject? The fact that you have to get people to comprehend for themselves, and given it a title, is dubious, as you have no real knowledge of anything, according to your reasoning Kind of like, the blind leading the blind. Not to mention arrogant. Define how it is possible that God could be evidenced in the way you require the evidence to be? Given that they are all written documents, how are they unique to scriptures? It can easily equate to divine inspiration, but that's not the point. Was the information subjective or objective? Yes you don't know if God, as defined by you, exists. I guess he will exist if you want him to. What a priori assumption? I accept the information, and it makes sense to me. You deny the information, and make up your definition. If you insist that God can only be proven the way you say,, then you must know what you're talking about when it comes to God. Yet you know that God is unknowable You must have some idea of what God is, in order to only accept Him on those terms. Your whole philosophy, and reasoning is subjective. You believe what you write without objective evidence. Now all of a sudden you want strictly objective evidence of God, just to accept the information. How obvious are you? Can you just give me a simple yes or no answer? Are you telling there is NO information about God? Can you answer the question? That's your answer to everything. It means nothing. You can give a real answer, but you choose not. How do you know we all know very little? jan.
No sign whatsoever? Who's denying that? So in order for God exist, He must be observed via the scientific method, otherwise it must be understood that God does not exist. Is that what is being implied by Baldee? What objective as possible mean in this context? I'm not aware of any information that state gods creating things out of nothing. Perhaps you enlighten me. What are you talking about? I'm as objective as any other natural person. Another case of arrogance. jan.
if something is objective then it does not change depending on opinion, on perspective etc. If something exists objectively then it doesn't matter if some think it exists or not: it exists. If something has no objective existence then it likewise doesn't matter if people think it exists or not: it doesn't exist. Apologies but I have no intention of trawling through the various posts and highlighting those things that are objectively true or not. When you grasp what it is for something to be objective rather than subjective, perhaps you might want to go through and highlight them yourself? It was a question looking for clarification of your question asking "does God exist...?" to ask if you meant "does God objectively exist...?" Assuming that is what you meant, I replied that I don't know. Nothing objective. Subjective, nothing with regard God, only with regard the concept of God (so as to distinguish between the two - I wouldn't want us talki cross purposes). I think we'll simply have to disagree on those, then. If you remove the carpet from objective existence then no, the carpet would not exist. If you simply mean remove it from view, then the carpet still exists. If these answers don't satisfy you, perhaps you would care to elaborate on the question. For the explanation I gave in my post following that sentence. Feel free to reread it. The emotion we call "love". But the manifestation is not the thing itself, it is merely the physical result of the subjective pattern of activity. Some, yes. You simply have to remember things. I recall doing a Latin translation on a set text with no comprehension of which words I was translating. I had been taught the English and simply regurgitated the correct passage when I recognised the Latin. You have little regard for critical thinking, it seems. As they say, give the poor a fish and they can eat for a day. Teach them how to fish, though... So sayeth the blind. You find the idea of people learning how to think for themselves to be arrogant??? We've been through this. I can't. I don't know what the evidence would be. They each tell different stories. It can indeed. But I do not know that it is. Which information specifically? So you don't define God as "original cause"? If God is subjective, then perhaps. You said "What would be the point of accessing this information on the assumption that God doesn't exist?" I took this to mean that you access the information on the assumption that God does exist. After all, you seem adamant that those are the only two options available. It makes what to you? If you meant that it makes sense, then so do many theories in psychology. And subjectively they may work. That is a far cry from them being objectively true. Again, if you don't agree that God is defined as "original cause" then you may have a point. But I seem to have read elsewhere that you see this as the definition of God? Why must I know? To me either God exists objectively or he doesn't exist objectively. There are no other alternatives with regard objective existence. Subjective existence is just that: subjective. It may still be as meaningful to those who hold to this subjective existence, but a subjective God doesn't exist for me at the moment, but that is irrelevant with regard whether or not God exists objectively. God does not currently exist to me subjectively. I don't need objective evidence if all I'm talking about is subjective reality. If that is all you think God is, part of a subjective reality, then we have reached agreement. I do not know what evidence could bring God into my subjective reality. I guess I'll know it when I see it. Or perhaps one day I'll just wake up believing. With regard the objective reality of God's existence or not, I also don't know what would constitute evidence. Not sure how many more times I can say that. I don't know. As previously explained. You asked me if I believed in anything. How is what I wrote not an answer to that? And previously you said that you don't struggle with people who claim not to know. If the answer I gave means nothing to you then you clearly do struggle with such people. I gave you the only answer I can honestly give. Either accept it for what it is or take your insults elsewhere. Because there are infinite pieces of information, and infinite amount of information has been lost to us. Some undoubtedly know more than others, but such is merely a relative measure.
Exchanges such as this: Baldeee "One seeks to eliminate the subjectivity involved and then one gets to as close to the objective reality as is possible." You: "Does one eliminate it subjectively or objectively?" seemed facetious to me, indicating that you mock, or at least call into question the value of seeking, objectivity. If you tell me that is not your point of view, then I am relieved. As for, "So in order for God exist, He must be observed via the scientific method, otherwise it must be understood that God does not exist. Is that what is being implied by Baldee?", I take no position with regard to what Baldee was saying. My own position is that science does not try to answer the question as to whether God exists, since it is solely concerned with the physical (observable) world. Science can say there is no objective evidence for God's existence, that's all. That is not proof of anything either way, but many people take the view that without objective evidence they are entitled to be sceptical. Those who have had certain subjective experiences may take a different stance. As to what being "as objective as possible" means, in the context of science, it means looking for sources of bias and trying to ensure they do not skew the observations. I'm not sure why you think I am arrogant. You seem remarkably aggressive about all this.
Yes, it has a distinct and repeatable pattern. But love is a feeling, we know people feel feelings. We don't know if the object of their love is real.
How do you that objective reality, is what you think it is? Is that objective thing the same thing at a quantum level, without having any previous notion of what it is on this level? So apart from the word, and all that pertains to that word, God does not exist for you in actuality. Your agnosticism is purely intellectual, subjective. There is nothing practical about it. God is simply a word to you. Those are just words that have no real meaning. We can't remove the carpet from objective existence. But if we change the definition, qualities, uses, and so on, what was originally known in our minds as the carpet, is now no longer the carpet. Over time people who still believe the carpet exists could in for a rough time philosophically. But the reality is, the carpet, is what it is, and that essential quality actually exist objectively, even though no body can perceive what a carpet is. Doe it exist because it is in view, or regardless of view? So what then, is love (bearing in mind it exists)? You mean remember things that you once comprehended, or comprehend how systems work? How does that make them unique to scriptures? The information man had before the introduction of modern science. You know, the examples I gave earlier. Based on the information? Yes. What is your definition of the God you claim not objectively exist, and what is the source of you definition?? And currently doesn't exist now because you don't want Him to? Maybe? Eh! What is wrong with coming to the agreement that God is the original cause based on the information? Okay. How will you know that God exists objectively, if He actually does? How do you know He doesn't exist objectively? Fine, but don't keep making statements that rely on some kind of knowledge of God to make. Because you didn't tell whether or not you believed, or have believed in anything. Don't worry, it doesn't matter. How do you know this? jan.
Stating the obvious sometimes has that effect. How do they know there is no objective evidence for God? How do they know that they are simply claiming something which is only a part of something else, and so on? It seems to me that in order to claim that there is no objective evidence for God, one would know what they are looking for. What is the standard of knowledge that leads them to claim there is no objective evidence of God? So if it's not purely objective, science is allowed to be subjective? I didn't say you were arrogant (I don't know you). I said it was a case of arrogance. I am as objective as you are (if you are human), because I am a human being. jan.
The scientific method is clear about evidence: It is never necessary to prove a negative. In other words, it is always the responsibility of the person who makes a positive assertion to provide the supporting evidence. Thus, before any of us has to so much as get up our of his chair to argue against the existence of gods, angels, demons and other preposterous supernatural phenomena from Bronze Age legends, someone must first present evidence showing that they do in fact exist. And of course, then the Rule of Laplace comes into play: An extraordinary assertion must be supported by extraordinary evidence before anyone is obliged to put forth the effort of testing it. In other words, if you tell me that a bison wandered into your yard in the middle of a city, well okay, I'll come to see if it's true. But if you tell me that a flying saucer landed in your yard, you have to show me a photo before I'll get out of my chair. And if you tell me that the entire compendium of science is wrong because there's an invisible man orchestrating everything from his vantage above the clouds, well then you'll have to provide some truly extraordinary evidence. About the same as the standard of logic that leads us to claim there is no objective evidence for the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus. So far, the only evidence anyone has presented to support any religious claims is a tortilla (out of hundreds of millions fried every year) with a scorch mark that is said to be the likeness of a figure mentioned in the Bible, of whom no portraits exist against which to compare it.
Did the scorch mark look surprisingly white for someone supposedly living in the "holy" land 2000 years ago?
There is no objective evidence for God? Well if there were, there would be reproducible observations that unambiguously indicate His existence. But how could anybody decide what observations would do that unambiguously? Have you got any ideas? Because nobody else ever has. The whole Intelligent Design movement set out to find such evidence - there is even a lab in Seattle supposedly devoted to it - and has made no observations whatsoever to support its case. (You are being silly over this business of objectivity in science. Earlier I wrote: "The whole of science depends on relying on observations that are as objective as possible. It is a key component of what is often called the "scientific method", and you replied: "Who's denying that?" Yet, now, you pretend to think I'm saying that subjectivity is "allowed" in science! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!)
I can only assume that you are now asking questions simply out of spite. I have answered these questions numerous times. I therefore have no intention of furthering discussion if you intend to simply ignore what I have repeatedly said, and to claim I have said what I have clearly not said. Let me know if and when you can hold a grown-up conversation.
You're the one who stated ''as objective as possible''. That implies full objectivity cannot always be possible.. jan.
