If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature....

How does that follow? If there are thoughts that are not connected to any 'reality", how do you know that any thoughts are connected to an "actual reality"? How do you know there is a "what" doing the thinking? I would disagree thoroughly with that. The difference between subjective and objective is that objective is collective. If you and I and a thousand others all measure the weight of a hydrogen atom, we will get the same value (allowing for experimental uncertainty). That does not in any way suggest that a hydrogen atom actually "is" something. We could also agree objectively on the definition of a unicorn, whether unicorns exist or not.What you're describing is absolute, not objective.

Dear Ringo,I pray your day is going well. As you stated in Message #564I did not originate what you wrote in response to my posts; therefore you are a ‘real’ ‘something’ that is not a part of my thought processes; therefore you are a ‘reality’ external to me.You are one of the ‘what’s’ doing the thinking; and I am one of the ‘what’s’ doing the thinking.That is how I know there is a "what" doing the thinking? This is how we got started down ‘the rabbit hole’ you spoke of.As I stated in Message #156 according to the Dictionary the word ‘objective’ means: Again, according to the Dictionary the word ‘absolute’ means: So, maybe it would help if you could explain to me why you think the word ‘objective’ means collective.God bless,
JRTjr

There are spambots that pretend to be humans and register on this forum. They are not "real"; they are virtual, like any fictional character. Hypothetically, a spambot program could be written by another program which could be written by another program.... The only "reality" there is an internally self-consistent fiction.You don't "know" I exist. You believe I exist because I'm creating a fiction of myself that fits into the fiction that you're creating. One person has an opinion. If two people agree, it's a conspiracy. If ten people agree, it's a cult. If a hundred people agree, it's "objective truth".At one time it was "objective truth" that the sun moves around the earth. Everybody "knew" it. But then scientific observations showed that it wasn't "true" at all. Eventually it became "objective truth" that the earth moves around the sun. Today the "objective truth" is that motion is relative within a given reference frame.Collective agreement is all we have. It's how science works. If there is a "real reality" of some kind, the only way we can "know" it is by collective agreement about what it's like.

Dear Ringo,Wonderful hearing from you again. When you say They are not "real"; do you mean They are not "real" people; or do you mean they do not exist?If ‘they do not exist’ than does that not mean there are no ‘spambots that pretend to be humans’?You stated that There are spambots that pretend to be human; this would mean that they are actual things; that is, that they do indeed exist.So, they are ‘Real’ {I.e. adjective 1. true; not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent: the real reason for an act.} therefor your statement is self-contradictory. Sorry, but at no time in the history of the universe was it ‘Objectively True’ that the sun moved around the earth. It was thought to be true; but just because everybody thinks it ‘is so’ does not make it ‘so’.I think this is the heart of our disagreement. You seem to think that if enough people agree something is true that makes it true.Example: So, let’s put that to the test.If, as you say, Collective agreement is all we have. Then Christianity is undeniably true. ‘What?’ you say?Take these into account: So, if Christianity is ‘True’ using your methodology, then there is a ‘Truth’ outside of what everyone thinks because that is what Christion Doctrine teaches {I.e. The Bible}.Therefore, there is a ‘Truth’ outside of what people think, either way you cut the cake.One last thing; you state: Collective agreement is all we have.Do you have any evidence that this is ‘True’ {I.e. adjective 1. not false, fictional, or illusory; factual or factually accurate; conforming with reality}?God bless,
JRTjr{Please Note: I do not subscribe to the notion that ‘something is ‘True’ just because a large enough group of people agree it is ‘true’’; I am simply saying that your logic does not hold because it forces itself into circular reasoning.}Edited by JRTjr01, : Minor editing.

I mean you have no way of knowing. You can not say, "It is true that ringo exists," or "It is not true that ringo exists," because you can't tell the difference between a virtual presence and a "real" presence. Sure it was, just as it was once objectively true that God created the earth in six days. It was objectively true until we decided that it was objectively false. What is thought to be true is true to the best of our knowledge. I think that makes it true to the best of our knowledge. You seem to think that there is something beyond the best of our knowledge. But Christianity is NOT true by collective agreement. There are many gods in the popularity contest, which means that belief in any of them is thoroughly subjective. Your question is circular - it rests on your own definition of "true", which I don't accept.

Dear Ringo,I pray you are doing well. You are asserting this as if it were a fact, so, what evidence do you have to support the supposition that you do not, in fact, exist?You are telling me that I cannot say, "It is true that ringo exists because you assume I can't tell the difference between a virtual presence and a "real" presence., so, give us some evidence that you are not ‘real’.Unless you can provide evidence that you are not ‘real’ (by any Dictionary definition of the word ‘real’); It is appropriate to state that you are in fact ‘real’. So, my question to you would be: Why should I throw out ‘my definition’ of ‘True’ and be forced to use yours?(By the way; it is not ‘my definition’ it is the dictionaries' definition.) Of course it is, according to your own logic.Remember you are the one that said: Collective agreement is all we have. It's how science works. {Message #572}So, according to the stats I quoted 86% of the world’s population agree that god or gods do exist.Therefor the Collective agreement is there is a god; or are gods.Of those people the single largest group believes in Christianity (The God of the Bible) I.e. if an election was held to see which religion was ‘true’ (‘True’ by your definition) the clear winner would be Christianity; therefor, by Collective agreement Christianity is true. Now, I could weigh in on the whole ‘Six Creation Days’ thing here, however, that is another rabbit to chase another time; anyway, I have already posted on this particular subject; you can click here to see my posts. {P.s. This is my first alias; I was forced to use a new one because someone hacked this one and change my login information. }If you are interested in the subject of the ‘Six Creation Days’, I would suggest a book by Dr. Hugh Ross called ‘The Genesis Question’.As always Great fun,
JRTjr

I'm not asserting that I do not exist. I'm asking you how you can tell that I do. I'm asking you how you can tell the difference. If you assert that you can tell the difference between a "real" Bigfoot and a guy in a Bigfoot suit, the onus is on you to tell us how you can tell the difference. Surely you can see that that's nonsense. By that standard, it would be necessary to provide evidence that leprechauns or unicorns or are not real. You have it backwards. We do not conclude that anything is real until we have evidence that it does exist.So where's your evidence that I am real? I couldn't care less whether you accept it or not. You're quite welcome to run away declaring victory and waving your almighty dictionary.I'm just asking you to think about what "real" really means. No. The only collective agreement is that there is a god.If 86% of the world agrees that ice cream is good and the largest group of that 86% - let's say 22% - says that chocolate is best, that does NOT in any way constitute evidence that chocolate is best. 78% disagree. That's just an example. Once it was objectively true (by collective agreement); now it's objectively false (by collective agreement).That doesn't mean it's absolutely true or false. We have no way of knowing that.

It is also objectively false by weight of evidence.What JRT has presented is that by weight of evidence a large percentage of people believe there is a god. That is only proof that a large percentage of people believe there is a god, not evidence that there is a god.What is needed is not just belief (collective agreement) but also evidence and so far no one has presented any evidence that a god, any god, exists.

I am interested in hearing what you have to say about the consequence of this with regard to the notion that the existence of god(s) is objectively true.Does 'objectively true' require collective agreement alone? Or something more?

As far as I'm concerned, "objectively true" implies "based on the evidence". I've said in other topics that "evidence is evident" - i.e. it must be "evident" by collective agreement.

I know it's message-board dogma that God-is-God-ain't is a crucial evidentiary matter that forms the foundation of all analysis of religion, but could it be that this question is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things? What if the important question is What does belief or nonbelief in God mean?Edited by MrHambre, : No reason given.

While I believe there is a GOD I also understand that I have no evidence or even a clue how there could be evidence that a GOD exists. I strongly believe that even if the answer were relevant, in fact absolutely essential, that there is absolutely no way as long as we are alive to find out whether or not there is a GOD or if it is important or relevant to know there is a GOD.But behavior is both important and relevant. If I try to impose my belief or my non-belief on others it is relevant.So it seems to me that what we need to do as a functioning society is question any and all beliefs but at the same time stop trying to impose personal beliefs or lack of beliefs on others.

I'm not saying the question isn't relevant at all. But as a nonbeliever, I don't find the question of The Big G's existence as important as people's reasons for believing or disbelieving. The notion of collective construction of meaning is more relevant than the let's-call-it-literal truth of the belief.

As you point out there is a fair amount of collective agreement that there is a god.There is also some collective agreement that the existence of 'a god' is evidenced by religious experiences and suchlike.Does the existence of 'a god' qualify as being 'evident by collective agreement' do you think?

It would qualify if the collection of collective agreements agreed with each other. If the believers accepted the same evidence as evident and interpreted it the same way, that would be an objective interpretation. But of course they don't so it isn't.