Zero Point Field (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by dhw, Tuesday, February 19, 2013, 19:50 (4293 days ago) @ BBella

BBELLA: "IF" there is an, or ONE, objective truth about how we got here, then I would think there would also have to be ONE objective observer to the whole process of how we came to be.-This is the argument that there is no reality without an observer, and of course you are in the very good company of philosophers, mystics and quantum physicists. There is no counter to this, since our only knowledge of what exists or has existed comes from observation. The discussion could end there, but I find such a conclusion deeply unsatisfying because I genuinely believe not only that I am a present reality, but also that you are real and would still be real without my being here, and that dinosaurs would have existed even if people hadn't found their fossils, and that if the whole human race disappeared, there would still be stars in the sky. If this discussion is to continue, we therefore need to decide what level to hold it on.
 
On the premise that you will, at least for the sake of argument, agree that we are both objectively real, that dinosaurs objectively existed, and that there are stars objectively in the sky, I will take up part of David's response, because contrary to his belief that your line of thinking follows his own, his argument actually illustrates mine: "I don't see how there can be more than one first cause to this process. [...]We had one Big Bang, one evolutionary process which, granted, went off in a number of bush-like directions, and one set of humans, tuned into the intelligent universe." Or there was no Big Bang, no evolution etc. David's is a subjective account, but objectively each detail must either be true or not true. However ... and this is the crucial point ... there are NO objective observers (unless David's creator God exists), and so we cannot know what is and isn't true.
 
BBella: But, I personally am not stuck on the idea there HAS to be one object truth. Why would there HAVE to be? Everything that IS, is because of everything else that IS. One objective truth means to me, one objective observer. How could it be otherwise? And if there is one objective truth, wouldn't we ALL have to first step into the realm of acknowledging there is one self-aware creator/observer to even begin to get to scoop on how the process went down so we could begin to comprehend it?-Your last question is precisely the point I am trying to make. IF the universe and life are REAL, they can only have come into existence one way. But the only authority that can tell us that one way would be their creator. And so for us to "get to scoop", it would not even be enough to acknowledge his existence. We would have to have direct contact with him. Or, to take scepticism to its utmost limits, we would actually have to BE him (because otherwise, how would we know he wasn't just telling us a pack of lies?) This is what I was trying to say in my previous post: that your "malleable truth (about the nature of the source) [is] in fact no kind of truth at all, but simply your way of saying we'll never KNOW the objective 'truth'."-
To make sure we don't lose our way between the two philosophical levels, let me sum up. If there is no such thing as objective reality/truth unless there is an objective observer, we can go no further. If we both agree that we/the universe/dinosaurs really exist/existed, there has to be an objective truth about how we/it/they came into existence. But that truth is only accessible to an objective observer (who would presumably be the creator of life and the universe). If there is no objective observer (= atheism), the objective truth can never be known. If there is an objective observer, he/she/it might possibly let us in on all the secrets. But I wouldn't count on that!