Derek89 said:
You either don't understand what objectivity is or you're projecting your own definition of it to shape the discussion on your terms. Everything observed is subject to interpretation. Someone has to observe it and interpret it to be able to communicate it, and senses are not quite "not subjective" to be able to make such a claim that if you don't see it as I do, then you're seeing it wrong. If you did not learn this in your philosophy class; knowledge, the information you use to form any idea, is just memories. In terms of certainty, you don't really "know" anything. You just remember how you experienced it. Convention of knowledge just places your experiences in context in the enviornment you're in, for which it's helpful to understand and predict scenarios within that environment, but it doesn't make that knowledge any less "true" or "false". This applies to every kind of knowledge, including scientific knowledge which is ever changing and evolving. Saying that you can observe objectively is a sign that you might be an intstrumentalist, which, ironically is a philosophy that is based off empiricism; the philosophy of "experiencing". But either way, even if you're an instrumentalist, you can claim all you want that you can observe objectively, but you can't prove it. Paradox much. With that out of the way; as of now, no. If conventionalism says there is no observable proof of any god, then it can't be "objectively" verifiable. But that's very positivist of me, though. I like the more open minded and yet secular answer; given we think the universe is infinite (observably) and the human understanding of quantum mechanics (and for which its mechanical wave function is actually being debated for ontological attribution, lol), I think yes. Everything that can happen has already happened somewhere. A better question, IMO, is: Is God's inexistence objectively verifiable? |
good post... one thing i always find amusing about such debates is that atheists often expose just how similar they are to religious people with regards to so called irrational thinking
in truth if you ask me i don't think that the thinking process of religious people and atheists is really that different
its just two groups of people supporting beliefs that have been handed down to them
for one its the concept that the holy books handed down to them are absolute truth... which honestly when you think about it is ludicrous
where did these books come from? nobody got their bible or koran or whatever directly from god... which means it was edited and printed by men and as we all know men lie and fabricate things to push agendas
beyond that i've seen very little original thought from religious people outside of what their pastors or other religious authorities tells them
on the other hand now we have the "rational" atheists, but to be blunt i see pretty much the same thing here
very little original though outside of what the main figures tell them, whether it be richard dawkins or hitchens or whoever
a lot of what they believe is imo quite irrational... like we can't measure 95% of what is around us but yet we can claim that supernatural influences do not exist... that's ludicrous, our inability to perceieve something does not mean it does not exist
