Recently watched a Reality-Tv show – Black and White in which the apparent thesis is that ‘if you walk a mile in my shoes then you’d learn to appreciate particular cultural perspective or world view’.
Interesting but glossed over is the reality that an observer to an event, scientific or not, is, in the final analysis, always makes a subjective report of the matter under study. As such, the objective of the observer is always open to interpretation by second or third party observers.
In much the same way that the existence or non-existence of God fragments into a variety of debates that posits that the POV’s informed by the individual’s ‘experience factor’.
That is, any scientific, dispassionate or clinical (objective) attempt to give validity to underlying assumptions or suppositions will fail to convince those who don’t share a similar POV – since their assumptions are subjective. How can this not be so when the objective of the exercise is to prove a notion is clearly subject to the perspective of the observer?
The question as to whether God exists or not becomes irrelevant to any enquiry since the mere expression of the existence of such a being validates that God does, in fact, exist.
The question, really, should be – does God exist outside the Realm of the Believers?
As an observer of the debate over the question of God, in this particular case, I’m agnostic so attempt to maintain a veneer of objectivity that’s informed by the fence sitting. The agnostic (observer) does have a vested interest in the outcome of the question being debated; and to date the score (proof) reads: Believers [1]; Dis-believers/Atheists [0]. The skeptical meter may waver every (once in a while) in either direction but no definitive result has been acquired, to date.
No shock, awe or wow of any significance has been forthcoming from either side of the philosophical fence, so far.
31/01/2022 19:03:07 -0500