Is there objective Truth?

[Foxaèr]

You must not be good at math.

[Arkilogue]

It's all fun and games until negative potato.

[bennyboy]

"double slit experiment"
Light cancels light out... Okay, so this creates nuetrality? How is it a contradiction?

You really should watch the videos.  The point is that light, which is thought of as a particle, interferes with itself in a double slit, EVEN IF you fire a single photon.  However, if you detect the photon, it will NOT interact with itself in this way.  If you check the state of the photon EVEN AFTER it has passed the slit, it will still get the same results-- wave if not checked, particle if detected.

This is explained by a superposition of states-- the light is both a particle AND a wave (and kind of neither): it is an unresolved function until that function is collapsed by something outside the photon.

So let me refine my search words, since you missed that it was about light.  Search: "photon double slit experiment" and "quantum eraser."

[bennyboy]

"Now, to go beyond this definition and look for some higher definition of truth is pure folly, and pure imagination. How would we ever know if we arrived at such mythical higher truth without using the brain's existing threshold of truth, which would make the process circular and contradictory."

This is why if you believe in a godless universe, you are either forced into absurdity, everything is subjective. Or you have to give a reason, a justification for your use of objectivtivity. See, naturalism cannot justify naturalism, in much the same way the brain cannot justify the brain. But supernaturalism can justify naturalism.

---

OR! You could go the route Dawkins is going, forget reason, not everything needs a reason!

Either 3 ways you are unreasonable

Not everything needs a reason?  You see this as a problem?

Okay. . . what's the reason for God's existence?

[pocaracas]

"double slit experiment"
Light cancels light out... Okay, so this creates nuetrality? How is it a contradiction?

You really should watch the videos.  The point is that light, which is thought of as a particle, interferes with itself in a double slit, EVEN IF you fire a single photon.  However, if you detect the photon, it will NOT interact with itself in this way.  If you check the state of the photon EVEN AFTER it has passed the slit, it will still get the same results-- wave if not checked, particle if detected.

This is explained by a superposition of states-- the light is both a particle AND a wave (and kind of neither): it is an unresolved function until that function is collapsed by something outside the photon.

So let me refine my search words, since you missed that it was about light.  Search: "photon double slit experiment" and "quantum eraser."

Just a small addendum.
The double skit experience works not just for photons, but also for any other elementary particle.
Electrons are particularly easier to work with than photons.

[Ben Davis]

[brewer]

 But supernaturalism can justify naturalism.

Is supernaturalism your objective truth? Is this what we have been waiting for?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Firstly, ‘matter’ is a rather quaint description of fundamental reality. For instance, of what is a gravity wave made? Aether? Secondly with respect to embodied objects, while it is true to say that form instantiates only by means of some material substance, the reverse is also true. A material substance always assumes some form. So anyone who asserts that “all actual objects are made of matter” is making a trivial claim. Unfortunately that tedious refrain masks a tacit and untenable priority given to material. You want to see something immaterial? Try showing me something devoid of form!

Give me one good reason why reducing math to material operations is justified and reducing matter to mathematical relationships isn't.

[Soldat Du Christ]

"You really should watch the videos."
I watched this one, he says light cancels itself out
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Iuv6hY6zsd0

First of all, there are plenty of "paradoxes" we could go over but these are human paradoxes, we can't comprehend or observe what goes on under the hood. Either because we are too limited a species or it's simply impossible.

Now if it's true that governing laws could contradict themselfs then we simply wouldn't exist.

---

"Is supernaturalism your objective truth? Is this what we have been waiting for?"

It's a justification for use of objectivity. Do you have a justification?

---

"Okay. . . what's the reason for God's existence?"

1. Causality only applies to the laws that govern our world
2. At some point there needs to be an uncaused first cause to set it all in motion
3. This uncaused first cause could not possibly be under the law of the laws it created (Gravity, time etc)
4. Therefore this uncaused first cause is not bound by time, no begining.

[pocaracas]

"Okay. . . what's the reason for God's existence?"

1. Causality only applies to the laws that govern our world
2. At some point there needs to be an uncaused first cause to set it all in motion
3. This uncaused first cause could not possibly be under the law of the laws it created (Gravity, time etc)
4. Therefore this uncaused first cause is not bound by time, no begining.

LOL
That's not a reason!
That's ignorant humans back-pedaling to justify their preconceived belief in such a creator god.

1. Define "world"
2. Says who?! Why would anyone say that?
3. Are you poisoning the well by stating that the laws were created? By some other law, of all the things that could create the laws!
4. Are you assuming the inexistence of time in a situation in which actions are possible? Actions, such as creating universes...
You are aware that actions cannot take place without time, right? People are notoriously incapable of thinking in timeless terms and are, thus, super easy to exploit in those terms.
Don't go there... be smart.