I am questioning, please review my thoughts below and let me know if you have any input, Thanks!
Is God Real?: A Thought Experiment.
The definitions of objective and subjective are as follows:
Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, opinions, or experiences.
Which is of greater importance, being objective or subjective?
Being objective means to seek truth based on facts that are not influenced by personal feelings, opinions, or experiences. The truths that you seek can be proven to be real outside of your mind. For example: if you throw a ball in the air it will come back down based on the laws of nature. This is an objectively proven truth because you can observe the balls actions and can use mathematics to prove that what the ball is doing is in fact real.
This shows that truth can exist not just in our minds, but outside of our minds as well.
Being subjective means to seek truth based on personal feelings, opinions, or experiences. The truths that you seek can only be proven to be real to yourself. For example: I believe God is real because I have proven it to myself. This is a subjectively proven truth because you can not prove that God exists outside of your mind.
This shows that God may not exist outside of our minds, but can exist in our minds.
We can prove that truth can be both subjectively and objectively real, but we can only prove that God is subjectively real. Only God himself can prove that He is objectively real. This leads to the question:
Why doesn't God objectively prove to all people that he exists?
Follow my logic below:
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21)
You would all agree that we are logical beings, correct? Using logic is crucial in understanding and proving anything. Using logic will also lead us to be as objective as humanly possible. Even the Bible says to prove all things. Which makes complete sense, why shouldn't we at least attempt to prove all things? With all this in mind, follow my logic and feel free to add more logical thoughts.
Surely God wouldn't instruct us to prove all things, while leaving Himself to be unprovable. Yet the only way to truly prove something exists, is to have a full objective understanding of that which is objectively provable. For example: We can objectively prove that truth exists by observing the objective laws of nature.
This leads to the question: Can God be understood and proven objectively?
"But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." (Hebrews 11:6)
Christians believe in order to have a full understanding of God you must first believe He exists and then seek His Word/Will. If we break that statement down logically using objectivity and subjectivity, it reads like this: In order to understand God objectively you must first subjectively believe He exists. How can objectivity possibly come from subjectivity? If you must first be subjective in order to achieve objectivity, you are still only achieving subjectivity. This is absolute logic that can't be denied (if you can use logic to deny it, please do!).
This begs the question: Why has God allowed it to be impossible for us to objectively prove that He exists? (please reference my thought experiment to better understand the importance of this question)
I'm a believer because I believe God is objectively proving He exists through prophecy and miracles and potentially creation itself. Yet its clearly not enough to prove to all people He exists otherwise everyone would believe! I believe if God is real He will objectively prove to all people that He is real because He MUST! Otherwise why allow us to be logical beings, when our logic leads us to the conclusion that we can not objectively prove that God exists, only He can prove this!
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them . . . " (Romans 1:18-20)
However, the fact that God has made it impossible for any of us to objectively prove His existence also makes it impossible to follow His instruction to prove all things (1 Thessalonians 5:21), unless He is only referring to subjective truths, this is the only logical answer. I want to believe in God, but the logic that he has supposedly allowed me to have prevents complete objective belief, thus I will always have doubts unless I submit to subjective belief.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Lot's of words to polarize good/bad from objective versus subjective in the context of accepting the existence of a god.
Strict critical thinking (objective) dismisses the notion of god as the realm of novel writers in a free thinking society. Subjective thinking puts the belief in a god in context with survival in closed minded societies. The question diffuses itself at this juncture.
Using a skeptical mind, God does not exist. Just a products of man's wildest imagination.
god is simply 'the air' & wind is what god does. thats why no one can see god or touch god- yet god can touch us. we can see what god does, but cannot see god because 'god is inside the wind & inside every cell of our bodies & god is found 'within the storms. 'air, is a driving & molding-source of all 'earth, fire & water. all 4 of these elements are what is found in our physical-bodies. the Xstian-god is just a myth. god is (the-air)... :) thats why god is closer to you than your breath. inside of you & outside of us...'all at once; omnipresent/omnipotent
You forgot to define your "god".
It's not Yahweh/Jesus or Allah. So what then? A pure deist god?
Is god the inanimate four "classic" elements, earth, fire, water and air?
Also, god is easily pushed around by a fan. Additionally, he can be handily compressed in a can, so as to utilize him to dust off a computer.
: )
Rose, what do you think happens to you when you die? Do you just wither away like nothing ever happened? Do you think you have a soul? I am a cristian and With all due respect , I would like to change your mind.
The burden of proof falls on the one making the extraordinary claim. This is merely an attempt to shift the burden of proof. If you think a god exists prove it. Provide verifiable evidence of your claim.
I agree 100%. The burden of proof is with the person, or persons insisting that something, or someone exists, that isn't there. You say something is there...PROVE IT!!
You lack faith. You do not trust in god. Why?
begging the question: by asking why someone does not trust god, you are implying that they believes god is real, but does not trust him; which is clearly not the case.
You state "You would all agree we are logical beings, correct?" I would disagree with that statement. In-fact, I would argue that humans are generally much more emotional than logical. In my experience, it is emotion and subjective experience that drives human behavior much more than objective evidence. If, as a species we valued objective evidence, religion would be non-existent. We wouldn't need the platitudes and hand holding that religion provides. The majority of people would look at the numbers and come to the conclusion that atheists have, that god does not exist and that the universe is run by the laws of physics that we know to exist.
Religious folks try to make their arguments sound objective and logical, but ultimately they fall back on emotion (belief, fear, servitude, honor etc….) and lose all logical credibility.
Excellent post. I agree 100% It is a logical statement that religious arguments are based on emotion, and superstition. All logical credibility is lost.
Every conclusion that we come to and consider that conclusion to be objective began with subjectivity. Using reason and the sense we come to a subjective hypothesis, then we create an experiment either a scientific experiment or a thought experiment. we observe the outcome of the experiment to see if our initial conclusion is correct or not. If we find that it is. We perform the experiment again and encourage others to conduct the same experiment if you and others repeatedly get a result that supports the conclusion then and only then is it considered objective. So subjectivity always precedes objectivity.
This is a great point! Thank you. This also affirms that it is impossible for us to truly know an objective reality, even though we may exist in it we can never really see it because we are bottled up in our brains. So how can we know an objective reality exists? I think according to the logic you've presented the answer is we can't.
Its either we continue to test and verify using our subjective minds and continue to find truth, but never find absolute truth because absolute truth can only exist in absolute objective reality, or we continue to test and verify using our subjective minds and eventually God reveals that He is the absolute objective truth that we've all been seeking. Put simply its either absolute truth can not be understood by us or God is absolute truth and He will reveal it to us. Thanks again for your input!
Wouldn't this make objectivity a simple summation of many subjective view points? How is a position any less subjective for having been held by many people?
A summation of many subjective view points is still only achieving a degree of objectivity, never achieving absolute objectivity.
"This is absolute logic that can't be denied (if you can use logic to deny it, please do!)."
Easy, the mistake is in your first assumption that god is real and that he can make conditions like:
"In order to understand God objectively you must first subjectively believe He exists. "
This is they type of shit logic that comes out when you start from the answer.
Not only that, the fact that god made that claim to unbelievers to make them believers, makes him contradict himself right there.
"I want to believe in God, but the logic that he has supposedly allowed me to have prevents complete objective belief, thus I will always have doubts unless I submit to subjective belief."
Doubt is a sin.
So you are saying that your god created you sick and demands you to be well.
Please grow up.
Thank you all for you input, please review my revised thought experiment. The purpose of this thought experiment is to engage believers in critical thinking about their beliefs. If God is proved or disproved in the process, so be it. Right now I'm looking for feedback from believers and non-believers alike. Thanks!
Is God Real?: A Thought Experiment.
Lets define a few key concepts before we begin.
Definition of reality: the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
Now lets define reality for the purposes of this thought experiment: That which one perceives to be real and that can be tested and verified by a third party.
Definition of truth: (This isn’t the dictionary definition, but it makes sense to me especially considering the problem of relativism) Truth must be discovered in order to be defined. In other words we are continuously finding new truths, thus truth can not be fully defined at this point.
Now lets define objective reality and subjective reality:
Objective reality: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Example: Scientific facts are objective as are mathematical proofs; essentially anything that can be backed up with solid data can be considered objective reality.
Subjective reality: based on or influenced by personal feelings, opinions, or experiences.
Example: When someone describes how a work of art makes them feel, they are using subjective reality.
Now lets compare how using objective reality and subjective reality relates to the concept of God.
Using objective reality means to seek truth based on facts that can be verified by third parties. The truths that you seek can be tested and verified outside of your mind. For example: if you throw a ball in the air it will come back down based on the laws of nature. This is an objectively testable truth because you can observe the balls actions and can use mathematical proofs to show that what the ball is doing is predictable and thus supports our current model of objective reality.
This shows that truth can exist not just in our minds, but outside of our minds in objective reality.
Using subjective reality means to seek truth based on personal feelings, opinions, or experiences. You can convince yourself and others of the truth that you seek, but you cannot test it or verify it. For example: I believe God is real because I have convinced myself that He is real. This is subjective reality because you can not test and verify that God exists outside of your mind, thus God can be thought of as a construct of the mind because it can not be externally tested and verified by third parties.
If God is a construct of the mind then God may not exist outside of our minds, but only in our minds.
We can verify that truth can be both subjectively and objectively real, but we can only verify that God is subjectively real. If God is in objective reality only He can prove that He is objectively real. This leads to the question:
Why doesn't God objectively prove to all people that he exists?
You would all agree that we are beings capable of employing logic, correct? Using logic is crucial in testing and verifying anything in objective reality. Why shouldn't we at least attempt to prove all things? With all this in mind, follow my logic and feel free to add more logical thoughts.
The only way to test and verify that something exists, is to have an objective understanding of that which is in objective reality. For example: We can test and verify that truth exists in objective reality by observing the laws of nature that exist in that same reality.
This leads to the question: Can we have an objective understanding of God in objective reality?
Christians believe in order to have a full understanding of God you must first believe He exists and then seek His Word/Will. If we break that statement down logically using objective reality and subjective reality, it reads like this: In order to objectively understand God you must first subjectively believe He exists. How can objectivity possibly come from subjectivity? If you must first be subjective in order to achieve objectivity, you are still only achieving subjectivity. Is this not logical?
This begs the question: Why has God allowed it to be impossible for us to objectively verify that He exists?
If God is objectively proving He exists through prophecy and miracles and potentially creation itself then its easy to believe. Yet its clearly not enough to prove to all people He exists otherwise everyone would believe! I believe if God is real He will objectively prove to all people that He is real because He MUST! Otherwise why allow us to be logical beings, when our logic leads us to the conclusion that we can not objectively prove that God exists, only through subjective reality can we convince ourselves of His existence. Based on this logic only God can prove that he is objectively real.
The logic that he has supposedly allowed me to have prevents complete objective belief, thus I will always have doubts unless I submit to subjective belief. Until we find God in objective reality, He will never be objectively true. Only He can reveal Himself.
You can make the same exact argument for lepricorns, unicorns, fairies, dark vader, etc...
They could all be subjecitve beliefs.
But does that mean that there is any chance that they exists for real?
No, your argument practically boils down to the acceptance that we can believe what we want unless we effect other people with our believes.
The thing you missed is the last part where theism does indeed effect others.
So it is not about just the belief but also it's implications.
If I believe that every James must die and act upon it, then yes a subjective belief is not tolerated in an objective reality.
It will be subject to objective tests and if it is deemed wrong, that belief will be deemed wrong and not tolerated.
That is why some of those beliefs we call them terrorists, like suicide bombers, etc....
You can't test and verify that lepricorns, unicorns, fairies, dark vader do not exist, so there is always a possibility that they do, but we shouldn't live like they do, because the likeliness of there existence is not worth our attention until verification of their existence arrises. Yes, the same can be said for God.
Its either we continue to test and verify using our subjective minds and continue to discover truths, but never find absolute truth because absolute truth can only exist in absolute objective reality, or we continue to test and verify using our subjective minds and eventually God reveals that He is the absolute objective truth that we've all been seeking. Put simply its either absolute truth can not be understood by us(which the current state of science would easily support this claim because we do continue to find new truths) or God is absolute truth and He will reveal it to us.
I subjectively know that Darth Vader exists - don't even start.
Ah, yes. But Batman, The Dark Knight, is the one true saviour.
"but we shouldn't live like they do, because the likeliness of there existence is not worth our attention until verification of their existence arises. Yes, the same can be said for God."
So why are you a Christian if you think that you "shouldn't live like they do"???
Apart from that, all those characters are good characters, while the christian god is the most horrible and evil character anybody could possibly imagine.
Not only he punishes his creations for his own failures, but created the most evil thing imaginable, Eternal torture for everybody.
Why any sane person would even wish to worship such an asshole, is beyond me.
The bottom line is, anyone can believe any outrageous thng they make up their minds to believe. But it dosen't mean these things exist. If someone believes in something that sounds crazy, and defies logic, let that person, or persons prove it. Many times I've heard a theist say "well prove that it DOSEN'T exist." There is simply no way to have a sensible conversation with this stuff. The thing thsat makes me laugh, is that sometimes a theist will say about someone else," That person is really out there...some of their beliefs are crazy," Oh really...who's to say what persons belief is crazier than the other...they ALL don't make any sense!!
Jeff leone,Why are you so closed minded? Have you even TRIED to listen to who god is ? Are you an athiest becouse you lack knolage or becouse you disagree with that knolage?
After reading that, I must say that I must have missed the thought experiment, it must have been lost in all the dilemmas you were presenting. What is the experiment?
Did you read the first more simplified version or the second more complicated version? Basically the idea is to present a thought experiment in such a way that causes believers to truly question their beliefs. Its still a work in progress, just trying to get feedback to improve it. It can't be too complicated or many believers will burn out and stop trying to understand, on the other hand it can't be too simple or they wont be convinced to question anything.
Have you read 'Questions to Ask Yourselves' by Charles Templeton? http://the-militant-atheist.org/religious-questions.html
Yes, it all makes sense, but it still doesn't explain the real question which is: How can we discover absolute truth in an objective reality, when using a subjective mind? Answer this question and receive your nobel peace prize. For me the answer is that we can't, unless there is something else that exists in that objective reality that can some how allow us to understand absolute truth.
"How can we discover absolute truth in an objective reality, when using a subjective mind?"
I don't like the term "mind" as that adds unnecessary baggage to the equation, so I will re-frame as this to answer:
"How can we discover absolute truth in an objective reality, when using subjective experience of that reality?"
That is easy, we can't. It is impossible to find absolute truth using subjective means, good thing we don't actually have to! All we need do is figure out what works and is useful in the context of our experiential reality, not in realm of reality that may be unaccessible to us.
Pages