I know God exists & the court of highest appeal is me.

If you can't tell the difference, what is the point in assuming there is a difference? If both manifest the same way, the same logic applies in describing them both. Only in places where the two would of necessity be different (which, you assert, is nowhere) would this line of reasoning be in any way meaningful.Both theistic and atheistic approaches depend upon some external source of reality. This, you believe, puts us in the same boat, and renders all our claims about reality utterly subjective and completely equal in validity. I can understand this logic. That boat is the "external reality" boat (as opposed to the "subjective reality" boat).So, the question is, either the "external reality" is the right boat, or it's the wrong boat. If it's wrong, then both theists and atheists are wrong together. If it's not wrong, at least one of us is still wrong (because, in an external, objective reality, we can't both be right).So, we're only in the same boat if we're all wrong. This doesn't drive the argument to stalemate, because it only stalemates under the condition that everybody's wrong. This effectively polarizes the argument (i.e. leaves no room for middle ground).Therefore, if reality is objective and external, the interpretation of reality that is most objective and external is most likely to be correct. Well, seeing how religion relies on personal feelings and interpretations, while science relies on outside observation and repeatability, I submit that science is more objective and more external. So, here are the two options that this entire line of reasoning permits:(1) Subjective reality: We're both wrong
(2) Objective reality: You're wrongEdited by Bluejay, : Clarification.Edited by Bluejay, : Added my own Subtitle.

---

There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams

Yes, in fact, I do: thank you for catching me on it. This first paragraph was part of an altogether different line of reasoning from the rest. In the interest of brevity, I erased a few paragraphs that would have bridged the gap. Crap!I'll try to clarify my line of reasoning.This quote... ...was aimed at the "brain in a jar" analogy. If there's no way to discern between your perception of reality and true reality, there's no reason to assume your perception isn't real. So, if your perception is that the universe is external and objective (which iano has stated as his belief), you should apply that logic (objectivity and externality) to describe it, which theism doesn't make a particular effort to do.However, if reality really is subjective (regardless of our perception), then both of our interpretations are completely wrong. This would effectively be a "stalemate," which is iano's goal.But, the stalemate only comes when everybody's wrong. If we're together in assuming an external, objective reality (even if it isn't objective or external), the one of us whose system of interpretation actually is objective and external is much more plausible (because subjectivity cannot have any bearing on an objective world).Anyway, I have to go teach a lab. I may write more later.Thanks for the critique, Catholic Scientist.

---

There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams

I'm pretty confident that you can't simultaneously be a walking, talking being and a brain a jar. But, I don't think this is what you're asking.What kind of combination of subjectivity and objectivity do you believe could exist? And, how would this differ from complete subjectivity?Edited by Bluejay, : Added last question.

---

There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams

I stand with PaulK in wanting to know what senses you are talking about. Surely you don't mean to say you've seen, smelled, tasted, touched or heard God?

---

There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams

I actually rather like Iano. His ideas are weird (and wrong, I think), but he at least has the awareness to admit the limitations of his own thinking and the intelligence to acknowledge them. Further, he at least understands the basic principles of debate (which most theists do not).His perspective is very interesting to me, and has caused me to think very hard about my system of reason. I have concluded that objective reasoning is still the best way to obtain real knowledge, even if what he says is true (of which I am very skeptical).My trouble so far on this thread is sorting out what everybody means by "subjective" and "objective." This is how Wikipedia compares the two:

quote:

---

In reason, subjectivity refers to the property of perceptions, arguments, and language as being based in a subject's point of view, and hence influenced in accordance with a particular bias. Its opposite property is objectivity, which refers to such as based in a separate, distant, and unbiased point of view, such that concepts discussed are treated as objects.

---

Using these definitions, the brain-in-a-jar analogy is not truly subjective, because reality is still being fed from an external source, and is not based on the point of view of the experiencer.A truly subjective reality would be one the experiencer creates and constantly modifies him/her/itself. Or, more precisely, it would be a reality that responds to, conforms to or relies upon the experiencer's interpretations. Thus, we would have the power to change it by willingly altering our perception of it (which could explain things like faith moving mountains and stuff).However, my experience in this universe has taught me that no amount of personal viewpoint therapy or pious prayers will change how much I can lift (Yoda notwithstanding) or how much I have to study to get an "A" on a test.When I was a missionary a few years back, I had convinced myself that I had enough faith to move mountains. I was wrong. I couldn't even stop my stupid bike from wrecking.

---

There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams

Rob, you're putting words in his mouth: he didn't say this (unless you meant to reply to this post). Maybe he has personally taken a belief that God does not exist, but this is really not much different from your (and my) belief that God does exist: neither one is based on anything that any of us could ever prove definitively and unobjectively without direct divine intervention (i.e. without Him showing up before us). So, your implication that you are being more scientific in regards to God's existence is inaccurate. Straggler's signature (though quite accurate) is not a definition of what is and isn't "scientific."Ichthus wrote this same thing in a fairly recent thread called God vs Science: This is NOT what science says. Science simply holds no position on the existence of non-existence of God. This is what Chiroptera said (very well, I think) about this here: In fact, this theme is everywhere on EvC. Evolutionists here have to constantly explain that there is no "belief system" associated with science, except in regards to the relatively few things in this universe that have actually been demonstrated.

---

There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams