God exists subjectively?

[The Grand Nudger]

Is this what Schroedinger and his cat was all about?

That the perception of reality we exist in has different truth's than the 'true' reality?  That the cat may be dead in the real world, but in my perception of the real world, it could be alive or dead, and only by opening the box to see, I effectively make it dead in my perception of the real world, as well.
re concept vs. real, we only experience concepts, because everything we interact with/know is just a data version of it stored in our brain.

No, schroedingers cat was a caricature of quantum mechanics, a specific interpretation of quantum mechanics, that attempted to communicate the absurdity of what was proposed to be present at the quantum level by reference to objects and relationships at the classical level.  So, instead of referring to quantum superposition, it was the superposition of the state of a cat in a box.  People have since -used- schroedingers cat in reference to perception, of a great deal of strange things where not even the caricature applies, lol.

[Rhondazvous]

Concepts that exist purely in the mind are real, to the extent that the individual can conceptualize the existence of something in the mind that clearly does not exist in reality outside of the mind.

But it can get them through the nights. That's why I always keep saying, believe what you want if it rocks your boat. I only get upset if someone tries to shove their individual believes on the population at large.

There’s the rub. When the belief that rocks their boat and gets them through the night tells them anyone who doesn’t share their belief is going to hell, how do we separate the subjective belief from its application? Of course, I don’t appreciate being proselytized, at the same time, xtians who tell me they don’t care what I believe make me wonder: this person believes I’m going to hell and doesn’t care? Eclectic hermeneutics is no better than strict fundamentalism.

[abaris]

There’s the rub. When the belief that rocks their boat and gets them through the night tells them anyone who doesn’t share their belief is going to hell, how do we separate the subjective belief from its application?

Simple enough. By their actions.

I couldn't care less if they believe it. If they don't go out preaching their believes, it's a non issue. It's still a non issue if they haven't got a political lobby to try and enforce their believes. Both points coming together is where it's getting problematic. Not anytime sooner.

No rub at all.

[theologian]

---

We view ourselves as our consciousness, I believe?  While physically, we exist in the true physical world, our consciousness only experiences our perception of the true physical world.  And that perception of the world is stored in our brain.  What sound does a dog make?  "Bark."  Of course, sound doesn't really exist, that's just a wave that we only perceive as what we think of as sound in our head after our brain gets a hold of it.  So is sound real or not?  I'd say subjectively, it is, even though it's not?

So we live in two worlds.  The physical world that obeys the laws of physics, math, logic, science, etc...  And the perception of the world, which does it's own thing.  If I think I can fly, in my perception of the world, I can fly.  At least until I try to fly, at which point I will fail, and the laws of the world stored in my brain will change "Flying" from "yup" to "nope."  

The same goes with Santa Clause.  As adults, we know more about the 'real' world, to know that the physics of flying reindeer and traveling the earth in one night, etc.. isn't possible, and that's reflected in our perception of the world.  

But a kid's perception of the world isn't governed by those things yet.  So in their mind, Santa exists.  And you could theoretically point to where he exists in their reality in their brain.  Much like a dream, the rules that govern our perception are iffy.  In a dream, you could fly, because in a dream you are fully creating your reality outside of the reach of the true physical world, even though you are still inside the true physical world.  Sort of like writing a book.  Bob can fly in the book.  People can't fly, and Bob doesn't exist, but Bob exists in the story, and he can fly.  So what's Bob, and can he fly?

Is God any different.  For a person that believes in God, God exists in their perception of reality.  And our consciousness experiences life through our perception of reality.  So it is real to them.  To the point, theoretically, we could point in their brain where God exists.  We know God doesn't exist in "true reality" because we've updated our perception of reality with more rules and laws than they have.  But believers perceived realities aren't affected by that.  
---

I made this about God, because that's what people here like to talk about.  But my real interest is how much credence we should give to our perception of reality vs. reality.  Which is more real to an individual?  How should we treat the physical aspect of our perceived reality that exists in our brain, and how should we treat others' perceived reality?

If we were to view our perceived reality as valid, we Atheists could also get some things we want (or already haev thanks to this).  Morality?  Boom, got it.  Value?  Sure, got it.  Meaning? Heaps of it!  Those things are just more perceived ideas that don't exist in the real reality, but exist in our perceived reality.

---

I argue that what is subjective is the belief that there is no God (which atheists like to re-phrase as "'lack of belief"). For, like the realization that we cannot fly due to the truth of laws of physics, we can know that there is God, by the truth of laws of metaphysics. But, to know that there is God via the truth of Metaphysics is to know reality, for metaphysics, like physics, is the study of reality in a very larger scope, and whatever studies reality cannot be subjective alone. So, belief that there is God cannot be subjective alone. Further, non-belief in God doesn't have a real basis. Hence, it is the belief that there's no God which is subjective.

[The Grand Nudger]

.......................................it;s starting to seem like "subjective" is just a taboo word you avoid without any understanding of the term.  

[theologian]

.......................................it;s starting to seem like "subjective" is just a taboo word you avoid without any understanding of the term.  

Care to elaborate? May I know in what way I don't understand subjective?

[Silver]

God exists as a concept.

For a concept to be considered reality, there must exist the proper evidence to support it.

There has never been evidence to support the existence of god, despite there having occurred throughout history many proofs for the existence of many concepts.

[Whateverist]

God doesn't exist in the mind. The concept of God exists in the mind. Superman doesn't exist in the mind. The concept of Superman exists in the mind.

Now here's a question: Does the imagination exist? And here's another: Does imaginaryness exist? And here's another: is there a difference between the two previous questions?

I don't know about that.  The mind seems capable of animating what it likes, with or without our deliberate participation. I don't think you should confuse anything one contrives deliberately -like the idea of 'superman', with that which one experiences interactively and subjectively.  A true believer does not have one hand up the god puppet's sock any more than he has one up his own.  Properly planted and cultivated I suspect the mind can animate a presence of god.*

*Disclaimer: the god one's mind can animate had no hand in creation, is omni-nothing and has no existence apart from the mind that animates it.  Then again, I'm not sure who I take myself to be has any existence apart from the mind that is animating 'me' either.  So most likely gods have no more existence than we do.

[theologian]

God exists as a concept. [1]

For a concept to be considered reality, there must exist the proper evidence to support it. [2]

There has never been evidence to support the existence of god, despite there having occurred throughout history many proofs for the existence of many concepts. [3]

1. ...and in reality Please see no. 3.

2. I agree.

3. It is not true that there are no evidence to support the existence of God. The 5 ways of St. Thomas Aquinas is an evidence that God exist and to deny that is to deny both reality and logic, for his 5 ways are arguments which starts from the things we can sense with our 5 senses and it proceed with valid logic and true premises like principle of sufficient reason.

Therefore, God is not a concept which is not derived from reality.

[Silver]

Aquinas has been discredited.