(December 22, 2011 at 12:13 pm)Perhaps Wrote: The only reason I began with a philosophical analysis of the topic was because it related to the premise of the original argument. I'm not one to impose deep thought on others if they don't wish to think deeply. I don't think, however, that this argument can be simply thrown away because of its philosophical nature.
I'd say philosophy is the way we first grasp what may eventually become science. Most of science was the domain of philosophy until ways were found to decide things empirically. Consciousness is something I expect will gain more sure empirical footing eventually.
(December 22, 2011 at 12:13 pm)Perhaps Wrote: That being said, I do agree that any God which man claims to know or understand can be determined false by methods which man also knows such as science. If, however, God is objective and simply exists outside of our conscious being we cannot apply something that is subjective to ourselves - namely science - to the outside existence.
You just lost me. You seem to begin by saying that anything which man may say god is, can be shown not to be so. With you so far.
I'm not sure what you mean by the premise: if god is objective (material?) and outside of our conscious being (but possibly an aspect of our unconscious being?). I need clarification here.
The conclusion seems false by any interpretation I can think of. I don't think of science as being anything that is "subjective to ourselves" and I'm not at all sure what that phrase means. But by "outside existence" I assume you mean the objective world, whatever is and would be whether or not anyone were there to perceive it. If that is what you mean then I think that is exactly what science is for. It is our formal attempt to exclude what is subjective from our understanding of what is objective.
(December 22, 2011 at 12:13 pm)Perhaps Wrote: If we do apply a subjective analysis to an objective existence then we create a warped view of something which is outside of ourselves entirely. This warped view could be disproved using our subjective analysis again, but the objective existence still remains, no matter how we choose to subjectively view it.
I am fully aware that just as an objective existence outside of ourselves cannot be disproved, it also cannot be proven. It all comes back to the discussion we had pages back about metaphysical solipsism vs. objectivism. Once one assumes the answer to this discussion then they are able to construct the rest of their thought processes and beliefs.
I assume that there is an objective world and that is what effects my field of consciousness to give rise to perception. Is the objective world exactly as it is perceived? I have no way of knowing. But our manner of perception has been at least as useful for interacting with the objective world as that of every other creature that still survives, and given the degree of our domination of the biosphere some might even say more so.
Now if God is not a part of the objective world, then I would say He either does not exist at all or He exists only in our psyches. If He is part of the objective world then I see no in principle reason why we should not be able to discover Him scientifically. Are you suggesting some other place for God to be?
(December 22, 2011 at 12:13 pm)Perhaps Wrote: [Edit:] I would like to also add a question for any who feel they wish to answer. It relates to a thought experiment I've been constructing for the past month or so. Assuming evolution is true, is there an end goal to evolution? Does it conceivably have a purpose or reason? If the answer is no then does that simply mean that evolution is and that the process of natural selection will never end even as 'perfection' is reached?
Not in my opinion. I don't think evolution has any teleological intentions. But how should I know really?
