What the God debate is really about

[*Deidre*]

I think where you're going with this is that my objective reality is different say from another species' objective reality, based on how our consciousness is "wired."

A whole 'nother can of worms! It never ends!

So, if someone believes in a god, might one exist?

Exactly. But only as a conscious thought. How real is that? Is it less real than any other thoughts in my head, which would obviously include everything I perceive?

But, objective reality for other species is still observable. No one can "observe" an idea. God is just an idea that people have of him/it. No one to date, has ever observed him. Which is why the Jesus story took shape, a human being serving as "God incarnate."

Well sure, I can't argue that the Christian story is entirely retarded. And I can't argue that mankind has imagination and that this works differently then however our sensual perceptions work. I'm more focused on our sensual perceptions, and you could throw language in there (for example, how do you describe the color red to a blind person?). What is the nature of imagination exactly? Is it just part of everything else? That is, is my conception of myself as a physical being, my physical brain AND my "mind's eye", all these things that I perceive as objective reality and subjectivity reality (and they always increase through scientific discovery, as do their distinction), merely "wired" into my consciousness that way, which is itself fundamentally unknowable?

The imagination of man isn't objective reality.

But are you sure? Think about how mankind as a whole perceived objective reality 150 years ago. 500 years ago. 2,000 years ago. 50,000 years ago. Does it really resemble the "objective reality" we seem to live in now, where practically everything is primarily composed of ridiculously microscopic particles jumping around in empty space? Where will we be in 500 or 1,000 years? Will "objective reality" still look like anything we perceive now? Yes, I suppose on a very practical, macroscopic level. Or perhaps our human brains are wired in such a way that we will continually compartmentalize matter into even smaller definitions ad infinitum? I don't know if we can ever really know these things, or objective reality, if that's what it is that always just seems a few steps ahead of us.

---

I also realize we could easily slip back into Platonic philosophy if we take this too far. Lol.

I view it like this, if you say you went fishing out on the ocean yesterday and saw a whale, I would have no reason to doubt you, because I know whales exist. Other than pictures, I've never seen a whale, however. But, because whales ARE real, they are observable by someone. Same with your example of the color red and how to explain it to a blind person. Because the color red has been proven to exist, it is observable and despite a blind person having no reference point for colors, it is objective reality.

Objective reality is based on either observations or scientific theories that offer plausible evidence. Just because our minds can't perceive various particles in the atmosphere, scientists have conducted studies to determine that they exist.

Now, if you were to say you talked to Santa Claus yesterday, I wouldn't believe you. For he is a myth, and not part of objective reality.

The paranormal is not part of objective reality either, for it can't be proven through mainstream science.

Mainstream science is the standard of which we base our objective reality.
This is why a god can't be "proven" to exist. Believing legends and hearsay doesn't translate to reality. (objectively speaking)

I have more to say on this; really fascinating topic you have chosen to discuss!