Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is god an objective reality?
pelican
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 1 of 22 (472399)
06-22-2008 3:18 AM


Is it possible that god could be an 'objective' reality using the dictionary definition of objective?
ob·jec·tive (b-jktv)
adj.
1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.
3.
a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic.
b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
Or is it more likely that god is a subjective reality as in the given definition?
sub·jec·tive (sb-jktv)
adj.
1.
a. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
b. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
2. Moodily introspective.
3. Existing only in the mind; illusory.
4. Psychology Existing only within the experiencer's mind.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-23-2008 10:00 AM pelican has replied
 Message 4 by Granny Magda, posted 06-23-2008 10:26 AM pelican has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 22 (472550)
06-23-2008 8:14 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 22 (472558)
06-23-2008 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by pelican
06-22-2008 3:18 AM


Is it possible that god could be an 'objective' reality using the dictionary definition of objective?
Yes, I would say it's possible.
Or is it more likely that god is a subjective reality as in the given definition?
I dunno.... where's the data?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by pelican, posted 06-22-2008 3:18 AM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by pelican, posted 06-23-2008 7:20 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 11 by pelican, posted 06-23-2008 7:41 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 12 by pelican, posted 06-23-2008 7:45 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 4 of 22 (472563)
06-23-2008 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by pelican
06-22-2008 3:18 AM


Recognising Objectivity
Is it possible that god could be an 'objective' reality using the dictionary definition of objective?
Firstly, the claim that God exists is a claim about an objective reality, whether that claim is true or not. We are discussing an objective being here.
Of course it is possible that God is an objective reality but the question is how we would know. What criteria does an object need to possess before we judge it to be objectively real? I would suggest that the most important quality would be repeated observability. One person observing God is not very convincing, as they could just be experiencing a subjective delusion. The observation must be repeatable, not just for theists, but for anyone and furthermore, the results of these observations should match up and agree with each other.
Of course, the God hypothesis has no such objective (in the third sense presented above) evidence, only subjective claims that differ almost as widely as the number of believers. Without such the evidence from such observations, I don't see how we can judge that God has any objective existence, indeed, it is extremely suggestive that he is merely subjective.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by pelican, posted 06-22-2008 3:18 AM pelican has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-23-2008 11:05 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 22 (472571)
06-23-2008 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Granny Magda
06-23-2008 10:26 AM


Re: Recognising Objectivity
Of course it is possible that God is an objective reality but the question is how we would know. What criteria does an object need to possess before we judge it to be objectively real? I would suggest that the most important quality would be repeated observability. One person observing God is not very convincing, as they could just be experiencing a subjective delusion. The observation must be repeatable, not just for theists, but for anyone and furthermore, the results of these observations should match up and agree with each other.
Lets say I'm standing in front of a big curtain. I ask if anyone is behind it and someone says "Yes." Then I poke at the curtain and someone pokes back.
In comes another person who asks me if there is anyone behind the curtain. I say yes. They then try to find out for themselves. The guy on the other side doesn't respond to thier voice nor thier pokes. So they conclude that there is nobody behind the curtain because of the lack of repeatable evidence.
If god is a conscious being, then how can you get repeatable evidence if he decides who he reveals himself to?
If he doesn't reveal himself in a repeatable way, how can we conclude that he doesn't exist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Granny Magda, posted 06-23-2008 10:26 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Shield, posted 06-23-2008 12:17 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 8 by Granny Magda, posted 06-23-2008 2:18 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Shield
Member (Idle past 2862 days)
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-29-2008


Message 6 of 22 (472584)
06-23-2008 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by New Cat's Eye
06-23-2008 11:05 AM


Re: Recognising Objectivity
quote:
If he doesn't reveal himself in a repeatable way, how can we conclude that he doesn't exist?
I do not think that any one, ever, concluded that God does not exist.
But why would you even bring something into the equation if you cannot prove it's existance and it does not seem neccesary?
You do know, that me claiming i created the earth last thursday, bares as much merit as any other creation myth?
You do know, that Santa could just as easily exist, as a god could.
Besides.. god is not even an answer... turtles upon turtles upon turtles..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-23-2008 11:05 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-23-2008 1:10 PM Shield has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 22 (472593)
06-23-2008 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Shield
06-23-2008 12:17 PM


Re: Recognising Objectivity
I do not think that any one, ever, concluded that God does not exist.
Granny said it was "extremely suggestive that god is merely subjective". If you want to reserve the word "conclusion" then that's fine. But you gotta be careful with those absolute statements. All I have to do is find one person, who one time concluded that god does not exist for your statement to be false.
But why would you even bring something into the equation if you cannot prove it's existance and it does not seem neccesary?
Because, to me, it seems like god does exist. And I don't feel the need to prove something's existence for me to believe in it. I cannot prove that my mother loves me but I think she does.
You do know, that me claiming i created the earth last thursday, bares as much merit as any other creation myth?
It depends on how you measure merit. But this is about god, not creation myths. And FYI, I'm not a CreationistTM, but a Thiestic Evolutionist.
You do know, that Santa could just as easily exist, as a god could.
Just as easily? Where's the data?
Besides.. god is not even an answer... turtles upon turtles upon turtles..
Infinte regression is a problem for the First Cause argument, which I am not making.

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"
He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.
-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Shield, posted 06-23-2008 12:17 PM Shield has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by pelican, posted 06-24-2008 7:32 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 8 of 22 (472607)
06-23-2008 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by New Cat's Eye
06-23-2008 11:05 AM


Re: Recognising Objectivity
Lets say I'm standing in front of a big curtain...
I'm not especially convinced by your analogy.
Both of the observers can at least see the curtain. They have presumably observed other curtains and are familiar with the idea that they are opaque and thus capable of concealing objects. This makes the hypothesis that someone is behind the curtain much more convincing. I'm not sure sure what observable real-world phenomenon is meant to be analogous to the curtain in your example. Where is God hiding?
It is probably also worth noting that the seeming stricture in your example is that neither man is allowed to just look behind the curtain like a normal person would. This is completely arbitrary and yet without this stricture, the whole allegory breaks down.
Also, you have a human being hiding behind your curtain. Both observers are presumably familiar with humans. The hypothesis that humans (in general) are objectively real is easily confirmed and the observation is repeatable. This makes the hypothesis that there is a human behind the curtain much more reasonable than one that invokes God, since we are unable to confirm that gods (in general) exist.
If god is a conscious being, then how can you get repeatable evidence if he decides who he reveals himself to?
This seems to assume that God's powers of hiding are absolute, another unmerited assumption. That you can construct a scenario in which God remains flawlessly hidden unless he chooses to reveal himself, does not mean that his existence should be considered significantly more likely. One could construct such a scenario about Russell's Teapot or an invisible angel. Only positive evidence, available to any observer raises the chances of the object being real.
If he doesn't reveal himself in a repeatable way, how can we conclude that he doesn't exist?
I am not suggesting that I have absolute knowledge that he doesn't exist, but rather that the most parsimonious (and in my opinion, the most convincing) explanation for the lack of evidence for God is that he does not objectively exist.
All I am suggesting here is that in order to claim with any degree of confidence that something has an objective existence, we must first have objective evidence for it. Without such caution, we might as well believe in Russell's Teapot or any other evidence-less proposition, just because it gives us comfort to do so.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-23-2008 11:05 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-23-2008 4:57 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 22 (472626)
06-23-2008 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Granny Magda
06-23-2008 2:18 PM


Re: Recognising Objectivity
I'm not especially convinced by your analogy.
Yeah, you totally missed the point by focusing on the details, which were unimportant. Oh well.
That you can construct a scenario in which God remains flawlessly hidden unless he chooses to reveal himself, does not mean that his existence should be considered significantly more likely.
No, it just point out that requiring repeatable observation does not apply to a conscious being who could render the observation un-repeated.
That it is un-repeated doesn't suggest non-existence.
Only positive evidence, available to any observer raises the chances of the object being real.
The chance? Either god exists or not, no matter the evidence.
I am not suggesting that I have absolute knowledge that he doesn't exist, but rather that the most parsimonious (and in my opinion, the most convincing) explanation for the lack of evidence for God is that he does not objectively exist.
Parsimony doesn't necessarily lead to the TruthTM.
If god exists, then he exists even with the lack of evidence no matter how parsimonious we want our theories to be.
All I am suggesting here is that in order to claim with any degree of confidence that something has an objective existence, we must first have objective evidence for it.
Yes, but if god revealed himself to you, personally, in an objective sense that he chose to not repeat and he did so in a way that was convincing to you, then you could easily believe in him without the repeatable evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Granny Magda, posted 06-23-2008 2:18 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Granny Magda, posted 06-24-2008 10:22 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 10 of 22 (472640)
06-23-2008 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by New Cat's Eye
06-23-2008 10:00 AM


god of the imagination?
Is it possible that god could be an 'objective' reality using the dictionary definition of objective?
Yes, I would say it's possible.
Or is it more likely that god is a subjective reality as in the given definition?
I dunno.... where's the data?
I would think that if someone is objective (without emotional attachment and prior knowledge) then it is impossible for god to exist in their reality.
Is it possible the subjective data lies in the perceptions formed from personal experiences?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-23-2008 10:00 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-24-2008 10:26 AM pelican has replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 11 of 22 (472643)
06-23-2008 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by New Cat's Eye
06-23-2008 10:00 AM


duplicate
Edited by pelican, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-23-2008 10:00 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 12 of 22 (472644)
06-23-2008 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by New Cat's Eye
06-23-2008 10:00 AM


duplicate
Edited by pelican, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-23-2008 10:00 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 13 of 22 (472702)
06-24-2008 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by New Cat's Eye
06-23-2008 4:57 PM


Re: Recognising Objectivity
I'm not especially convinced by your analogy.
Yeah, you totally missed the point by focusing on the details, which were unimportant. Oh well.
Sorry. I just think that your analogy is a very bad fit for the situation.
No, it just point out that requiring repeatable observation does not apply to a conscious being who could render the observation un-repeated.
That it is un-repeated doesn't suggest non-existence.
It ,most certainly does when this kind of weak evidence is the only kind available. You have no evidence other than subjective experience. That makes your God claim completely indistinguishable from subjective delusion for any other person. Even another person who also claims to have "sensed" God cannot know whether your god and their god are one and the same (oh, by the way, what "senses" exactly were involved in this observation?).
Presenting exclusively subjective evidence for a supposedly objective being is completely useless because it does nothing to distinguish it from delusion.
Further, you are assuming that God is able to remain flawlessly hidden unless he chooses to reveal himself, a further layer of unfounded assumption. Another assumption is that he wishes to do so.
I would also like to point out that if this business of revealing himself to some whilst hiding himself from others is extremely poor behavior, inconsistent with a wise and benevolent being. I would not wish to worship such an entity.
The chance? Either god exists or not, no matter the evidence.
Yes and my first comment in this thread was to that effect. The point is that without God being universally observable we are left assessing the chances of the arguments "God is objectively real" and "God is merely subjective" being correct. However, it should be obvious that real things create real evidence by which they can be observed and re-observed. Claiming that God is an exception to this rule strongly suggests that he is imaginary.
Parsimony doesn't necessarily lead to the TruthTM.
If god exists, then he exists even with the lack of evidence no matter how parsimonious we want our theories to be.
True, but in the absence of more convincing evidence, we are left comparing propositions about God's reality. All other things being equal, the more parsimonious explanation is to be favored. I am not saying that this automatically makes it correct, because that would be retarded, merely that explanations which build assumption upon assumption, as yours does, tend to be wrong. They also require more evidence for each assumption, leaving you digging yourself further and further in.
if god revealed himself to you, personally, in an objective sense that he chose to not repeat and he did so in a way that was convincing to you, then you could easily believe in him without the repeatable evidence.
In such an extreme case as the revelation of God's existence I'm not sure that would be sufficient to convince me. I think I might have myself checked in for a psych evaluation, since, once again, there is nothing here to separate this experience from delusion. That strikes me as OK in regards to ordinary every day experiences, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
In order to convince me of a claim so unusual and extreme, I think I would require independent verification, just to reassure me that I wasn't losing my marbles.
The problem would be even more pronounced for an outside observer hearing me describe my experience. What reason would they have to believe me?
Your little conspiracy theory about God choosing to remain hidden sometimes, reveal himself other times reads like desperate rationalization and is the kind of argument that can be constructed for absolutely anything (faeries are invisible to people who don't believe in faeries, etc.). It does nothing to differentiate between reality and delusion and is therefore unhelpful.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-23-2008 4:57 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-27-2008 10:38 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 22 (472704)
06-24-2008 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by pelican
06-23-2008 7:20 PM


Re: god of the imagination?
I would think that if someone is objective (without emotional attachment and prior knowledge) then it is impossible for god to exist in their reality.
But you don't know. So do you have a point to argue or are we exchanging opinion?
But you are wrong because if the above was true, then the concept of god could have never emerged.
Is it possible the subjective data lies in the perceptions formed from personal experiences?
Sure, its possible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by pelican, posted 06-23-2008 7:20 PM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by pelican, posted 06-24-2008 7:43 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 15 of 22 (472806)
06-24-2008 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by New Cat's Eye
06-23-2008 1:10 PM


Re: Recognising Objectivity
Because, to me, it seems like god does exist. And I don't feel the need to prove something's existence for me to believe in it. I cannot prove that my mother loves me but I think she does.
Your mother does exist though?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-23-2008 1:10 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024