Evidence for God from Science

Objectivity by its definition is something that is independent of human knowledge and experience.

And WHO defines what is objective?

I'm sorry but that is just flat out wrong. You can't say oh well for math and physics yes objective truths do exist but for others well it doesn't. It's either objective truths do exist or they don't. When you look at the laws of nature such as math and physics it becomes strikingly clear that object truths do exist independent of our knowing them and that is the point I was trying to have you see when you asked me to prove that objectivity exists independent of our knowing it. Again, those are totally different subjects (the existence of something and our knowing about it). The same can be said of objective morality, it exists independent of its discoverability.

And you can prove these "objective" things OUTSIDE of human perception and human reality as we know it?

PaulSacramento wrote:

I'm sorry but that is just flat out wrong. You can't say oh well for math and physics yes objective truths do exist but for others well it doesn't. It's either objective truths do exist or they don't. When you look at the laws of nature such as math and physics it becomes strikingly clear that object truths do exist independent of our knowing them and that is the point I was trying to have you see when you asked me to prove that objectivity exists independent of our knowing it. Again, those are totally different subjects (the existence of something and our knowing about it). The same can be said of objective morality, it exists independent of its discoverability.

And you can prove these "objective" things OUTSIDE of human perception and human reality as we know it?

I don't have to prove anything. Objective truths testify of themselves as to their objectivity, unless that is, you want to admit that the objective truths of the laws of math, physics, chemistry, and biology are not objective in and of themselves unless and until humans and their perceptions came along. Are you certain you want to admit that or do you concede that objective truths do exist independent of our perceptions?

I don't have to prove anything. Objective truths testify of themselves as to their objectivity, unless that is, you want to admit that the objective truths of the laws of math, physics, chemistry, and biology are not objective in and of themselves unless and until humans and their perceptions came along. Are you certain you want to admit that or do you concede that objective truths do exist independent of our perceptions?

I appreciate that you don't have to prove anything.
Again I ask, you made these things "objective"? who stated and proved them to be such?
We did, based on our perception of reality as we know it.
Remember, not to long ago it was the objective truth that no woman could give birth AND be a virgin ( never had sexual intercourse), correct?
Is that the case now?
No.
Not too long ago the object truth was that atoms were made of proton, neutrons and electrons and now?
Now we have quarks that are also part of the atomic structure.
In our reality 1 + 1 = 2, until we discover that it doesn't or discover an alternate reality/universe/dimension where it doesn't, then what?
It is the objective truth that people die and after they are dead there is NOTHING, no afterlife and certainly no ressurection, there is no object proof of those things.
That we die and do not come back to life is a truth that testifies to itself, correct?

PaulSacramento wrote:

I don't have to prove anything. Objective truths testify of themselves as to their objectivity, unless that is, you want to admit that the objective truths of the laws of math, physics, chemistry, and biology are not objective in and of themselves unless and until humans and their perceptions came along. Are you certain you want to admit that or do you concede that objective truths do exist independent of our perceptions?

I appreciate that you don't have to prove anything.
Again I ask, you made these things "objective"? who stated and proved them to be such?
We did, based on our perception of reality as we know it.

And again I answer that things are objective in and of themselves, they are not objective because someone perceived them as such (that is why no proof is necessary). The law of gravity exists as a physical law regardless of the fact that humans discovered it. Same with all the natural laws, they exist regardless of our perceptions or even our very existence.

PaulSacramento wrote:Remember, not to long ago it was the objective truth that no woman could give birth AND be a virgin ( never had sexual intercourse), correct?
Is that the case now?
No.
Not too long ago the object truth was that atoms were made of proton, neutrons and electrons and now?
Now we have quarks that are also part of the atomic structure.

Whoever told you those are objective truths? They certainly aren't.

PaulSacramento wrote:In our reality 1 + 1 = 2, until we discover that it doesn't or discover an alternate reality/universe/dimension where it doesn't, then what?

Let's talk about it if that happens but until then we are bound by this little universe we call home so let's stick to that. Inside our little universe there are objective truths that have existed since the universe popped into existence, whether or not they were discovered is irrelevant. They simply are.

PaulSacramento wrote:It is the objective truth that people die and after they are dead there is NOTHING, no afterlife and certainly no ressurection, there is no object proof of those things.
That we die and do not come back to life is a truth that testifies to itself, correct?

Oh so you do believe there are some objective truths then . Seriously though, that is just way beyond what I intended with this discussion which is simply to have you acknowledge that there are in fact some objectively universal truths that exist regardless of our knowledge or perception of them. If you can grant that, we can then take the discussion further but if not, I really don't see the point of bringing up life after death and all that.

Byblos wrote:

Proinsias wrote:

Byblos wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Objectivity exists independent of our knowing (or not) that it exists.

You base that on what?

If there were no life forms (intelligent or otherwise) to verify it, what would 1 + 1 be?

irrelevant?

Seriously? Oh okay so let me ask a slightly different question then. Did the laws of mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology exist before they became discoverable by humans? Care to amend your answer now or is it still irrelevant?

I'll stick with it. I'm not really convinced we are discovering laws, more that we come up with ideas. We keep and fine tune the ones that are useful, we discard the ones that are not. There is the odd shake up. We may on occasion be approaching objective truth in these endeavors we may on occasion be straying away from it, or the objective/subjective division and the notion of truth may simply be another theory we find useful to hold on to. I always liked Einstein's quote: "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

I assume you believe that Jesus broke laws of physics, chemistry, biology and mathematics by way of the Ascension, turning water to wine, being born of a virgin, and feeding the multitude amongst others. If there is ample evidence of these laws being broken when intelligent lifeforms are around to record and verify it what makes you so sure they always hold up when no one is around? If we are going to exist for all eternity there is little scope to prove the point of what happens when no one exists.

The law of gravity exists as a physical law regardless of the fact that humans discovered it.

Newton's laws have been broken and Einstein's theories have proved a challenge for nigh on 100yrs. The best we have are some theories and hypothesis that can't be proven, don't fit with the rest of physics or both. A theoretically sound and demonstrable theory of gravity, basically a unified theory, is the holy grail of modern physics. Our current laws of gravity are algebraic formula with tolerable inaccuracies within certain limits, they are not truth.

1+1=2 implies that there are two identical things in existence which can be added together, it's proving tough to show that two things can be verified as identical at the any one time.

And again I answer that things are objective in and of themselves

My head hurts. If it's in and of themselves surely it's subjective? Is a unicorn objective in and of itself or does it need a subject to verify it?

Byblos wrote:

waynepii wrote:

Byblos wrote:

waynepii wrote:I understand where the concept of "objective morality" comes from. My problem with OM is that way too many people claim they know what OM says is "right" & "wrong" but cannot give a clear and definitive answer as to just how they gained their knowledge of what is right & wrong according to OM.

You are conflating two different things. Whether or not objective morality exists (an ontological statement) has nothing to do with how we come to know right from wrong (an epistemological statement).

OK, prove that OM exists (an ontological statement). Those who claim OM exists then use its presumed existence as the basis of their view of right and wrong.

Are you saying you deny OM exists (irrespective of whether or not it is knowable)? It is a very strange position to hold if that's what you're saying, considering its inescapably nihilistic outcome.

I fail to see why it "is a very strange position to hold [ ... ] considering its inescapably nihilistic outcome".

I ask again, prove the existence of OM. Just because you (collectively) believe it exists (or that must exist, or can't conceive it doesn't exist, or whatever) has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it actually does exist.

Proinsias wrote:I'll stick with it. I'm not really convinced we are discovering laws, more that we come up with ideas. We keep and fine tune the ones that are useful, we discard the ones that are not. There is the odd shake up. We may on occasion be approaching objective truth in these endeavors we may on occasion be straying away from it, or the objective/subjective division and the notion of truth may simply be another theory we find useful to hold on to. I always liked Einstein's quote: "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

You are going further and further away from science and reason. We're not discovering laws? We're making up ideas? Really? Wow, never did I imagine an atheist/agnostic utter such nonsense. But I do understand why you would take such as stance though, faced with the reality of admitting certain universal truths do in fact exist, better to make everything due to our imagination, including the laws of physics that have governed this universe from the moment of its inception and will continue to govern it until the moment it disappears. No, we most certainly do NOT make up ideas, we discover truths, undeniable truths. We may not discover the fullness of these truths and that's what science is all about and that is precisely why I keep on telling you, Wane, and Paul that the existence of universal truths and us knowing about them are two completely different subjects you keep on insisting on conflating. One only need look at the laws of mathematics and how our discoveries of them over time have converged so beautifully with the laws of physics in describing the universe. Look at the simplicity of 2nd order differential equations or Maxwell's equations and tell me it was his imagination that those equations describe so intimately the universe in which we live. If science is not in the business of discovering truths we might as well just give up on science altogether.

Proinsias wrote:I assume you believe that Jesus broke laws of physics, chemistry, biology and mathematics by way of the Ascension, turning water to wine, being born of a virgin, and feeding the multitude amongst others. If there is ample evidence of these laws being broken when intelligent lifeforms are around to record and verify it what makes you so sure they always hold up when no one is around? If we are going to exist for all eternity there is little scope to prove the point of what happens when no one exists.

It is not unreasonable to believe in an uncaused cause. From there it becomes equally as reasonable to believe an author of certain laws can choose to suspend such laws to achieve a particular purpose.

Proinsias wrote:

The law of gravity exists as a physical law regardless of the fact that humans discovered it.

Newton's laws have been broken and Einstein's theories have proved a challenge for nigh on 100yrs. The best we have are some theories and hypothesis that can't be proven, don't fit with the rest of physics or both. A theoretically sound and demonstrable theory of gravity, basically a unified theory, is the holy grail of modern physics. Our current laws of gravity are algebraic formula with tolerable inaccuracies within certain limits, they are not truth.

And for the last time please try to remember that because we do not fully understand all there is to understand about the law of gravity does not in any way negate the fact the law of gravity actually does exist.

Proinsias wrote:1+1=2 implies that there are two identical things in existence which can be added together, it's proving tough to show that two things can be verified as identical at the any one time.

And who said anything about adding identical things? We're talking about a mathematical concept which, at its purest is governed by the laws of logic and reason. It is not unreasonable to state 1 + 1 = 2 is a universal truth in any universe. In fact it is quite unreasonable to state otherwise and that's where you are.

Proinsias wrote:

And again I answer that things are objective in and of themselves

My head hurts. If it's in and of themselves surely it's subjective? Is a unicorn objective in and of itself or does it need a subject to verify it?

With an imagination like yours that produces seemingly universal truths where none exist, why would you find it strange that a unicorn is an objective truth?

waynepii wrote:...OK, prove that OM exists (an ontological statement). Those who claim OM exists then use its presumed existence as the basis of their view of right and wrong…

I ask again, prove the existence of OM. Just because you (collectively) believe it exists (or that must exist, or can't conceive it doesn't exist, or whatever) has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it actually does exist.

I’ve been out of town for a few days and returned, and I am surprised this topic has come back to the forefront!

Okay…

Waynepii, what makes your terms the only basis for deriving truth?
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:

waynepii wrote:...OK, prove that OM exists (an ontological statement). Those who claim OM exists then use its presumed existence as the basis of their view of right and wrong…

I ask again, prove the existence of OM. Just because you (collectively) believe it exists (or that must exist, or can't conceive it doesn't exist, or whatever) has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it actually does exist.

I’ve been out of town for a few days and returned, and I am surprised this topic has come back to the forefront!

Okay…

Waynepii, what makes your terms the only basis for deriving truth?
-
-
-

How do you get from my asking for proof that OM exists to "what makes your terms the only basis for deriving truth"?

In our reality 1 + 1 = 2, until we discover that it doesn't or discover an alternate reality/universe/dimension where it doesn't, then what?

Paul, Pro, Wayne,
We might as well all go and beat our heads on the asphault, as to have a discussion. If this is your genuine perception of reality, then you have no basis by which to ask such questions. And we have no basis to answer. Nothing has meaning.

Math isn't just some ambiguous method that we use till we discover a better truth. That is the antithesis of truth. In fact, this comes across as stubborn and unwilling to accept any explanation of objective reality. To put it bluntly, this is just evoking absurd conditions to avoid the answers you don't want to accept.

waynepii wrote:

B. W. wrote:

waynepii wrote:...OK, prove that OM exists (an ontological statement). Those who claim OM exists then use its presumed existence as the basis of their view of right and wrong…

I ask again, prove the existence of OM. Just because you (collectively) believe it exists (or that must exist, or can't conceive it doesn't exist, or whatever) has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it actually does exist.

I’ve been out of town for a few days and returned, and I am surprised this topic has come back to the forefront!

Okay…

Waynepii, what makes your terms the only basis for deriving truth?

How do you get from my asking for proof that OM exists to "what makes your terms the only basis for deriving truth"?

You only desire a ontological statement as the criteria as you so stated, and then you cite that OM uses its presumed existence as the basis for right and wrong; therefore, what makes your point of view as the only right that exist?

Next, are you certain of this?
-
-
-

Objectivisim and Subjectivisim are philosophical questions, along the lines of Kant and others.
We can discuss them and debate them, but we really can't do much beyond that.
It's all in good clean fun.

For US the accept an Objective Moral, a moral that exists independent of Us and our perception, then we must accept a rality far beyond our own where everything is subject to our perception of the things.
For believers that is quite possible to do, but for those that view things as "this is all their is and our reality is all that there is", then that might be asking fro too much.
Reductionalist materialsim is not really compatiable to Objectivism since it must, eventually be reduced to the one thing that is core to reality, US and how we precieve reality.

PaulSacramento wrote:Objectivisim and Subjectivisim are philosophical questions, along the lines of Kant and others.
We can discuss them and debate them, but we really can't do much beyond that.
It's all in good clean fun.

For US the accept an Objective Moral, a moral that exists independent of Us and our perception, then we must accept a rality far beyond our own where everything is subject to our perception of the things.
For believers that is quite possible to do, but for those that view things as "this is all their is and our reality is all that there is", then that might be asking fro too much.
Reductionalist materialsim is not really compatiable to Objectivism since it must, eventually be reduced to the one thing that is core to reality, US and how we precieve reality.

This is simply tantamount to holding your hands to your ears, closing your eyes and singing 'na na na na na na na'. Better to ignore the reality in which you live than to face the consequences. Have at it.

Byblos wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Objectivisim and Subjectivisim are philosophical questions, along the lines of Kant and others.
We can discuss them and debate them, but we really can't do much beyond that.
It's all in good clean fun.

For US the accept an Objective Moral, a moral that exists independent of Us and our perception, then we must accept a rality far beyond our own where everything is subject to our perception of the things.
For believers that is quite possible to do, but for those that view things as "this is all their is and our reality is all that there is", then that might be asking fro too much.
Reductionalist materialsim is not really compatiable to Objectivism since it must, eventually be reduced to the one thing that is core to reality, US and how we precieve reality.

This is simply tantamount to holding your hands to your ears, closing your eyes and singing 'na na na na na na na'. Better to ignore the reality in which you live than to face the consequences. Have at it.

Great come back.
And its "sha na na na na", not "na na na na".

PaulSacramento wrote:

Byblos wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Objectivisim and Subjectivisim are philosophical questions, along the lines of Kant and others.
We can discuss them and debate them, but we really can't do much beyond that.
It's all in good clean fun.

For US the accept an Objective Moral, a moral that exists independent of Us and our perception, then we must accept a rality far beyond our own where everything is subject to our perception of the things.
For believers that is quite possible to do, but for those that view things as "this is all their is and our reality is all that there is", then that might be asking fro too much.
Reductionalist materialsim is not really compatiable to Objectivism since it must, eventually be reduced to the one thing that is core to reality, US and how we precieve reality.

This is simply tantamount to holding your hands to your ears, closing your eyes and singing 'na na na na na na na'. Better to ignore the reality in which you live than to face the consequences. Have at it.

Great come back.
And its "sha na na na na", not "na na na na".

Well, if you want to be a nitpicker then first it's a comeback (one word) and second, I was actually going for 'la la la la la' as in refusing to listen (evidently).