Scientific Proof For The Existence of God/ Heaven

[variant]

Yes, but as Radrook says, that is still a simulation. If I am arrogant, narcissist, but believe myself to be a humble person, deeply concerned for the welfare of others, I remain an arrogant narcissist.

What you can convince yourself of is irrelevant, in my example you literally have no evidence to the contrary so it doesn't matter what objective reality is.

 

[variant]

If God has no definitions, then he doesn't exist. Something which is indefinite can't definitely be anything. So God can't "definitely" exist if God is required to be indefinite. And if he doesn't definitely exist, then everything required could have come about without him (because if it couldn't, that would be a definite quality about God, which you said he doesn't have). Thus, God is not required, and we have no reason to believe in him.

Congratulations, you've just defined God out of existence.

(Or should I say, UNdefined God out of existence?)

A definition is something that would allow us to make a distinction, any distinction. In this case we can't make the distinction "God" vs "Not God" via any observation that we have available to us.

This makes God observable, and in the abstract sense, nonsense.

 

[variant]

The fact that we can't tell the difference between the two does not mean there isn't a difference.

You just contradicted your other post. If you CAN'T ever tell the difference the difference is indefinite.

 

[Kylie]

You just contradicted your other post. If you CAN'T ever tell the difference the difference is indefinite.

No, there could still be a difference. It just wouldn't be a difference that we could observe.

Take your car, for example. If you remove the spare tire from inside the boot, your car is different. But you could sit across the street and look at it all day and you could not tell the spare tire was removed. So that's a situation where a difference is undetectable.

You argument only works if we have access to every bit of information about reality, and obviously we don't.

 

[variant]

No, there could still be a difference. It just wouldn't be a difference that we could observe.

Take your car, for example. If you remove the spare tire from inside the boot, your car is different. But you could sit across the street and look at it all day and you could not tell the spare tire was removed. So that's a situation where a difference is undetectable.

You argument only works if we have access to every bit of information about reality, and obviously we don't.

I'm saying there may simply be limitations on what we can know, and that which objectively is true that lays outside those limitations is, true or false, but indefinite.

You argued with my God example that if God doesn't have any definition, a set of distinctions that can be observed in the real world, then it doesn't exist. I agree, without real world consequences of Gods that we can observe as consequences of God, they don't really exist to us, regardless of if one exists.

You argued that if reality is a simulation that was undetectable to the person in it that it was still objectively truly a simulation you just couldn't tell. I say this is the same circumstance, reality's nature as a simulation being undetectable to us has no observable consequences then it is just "reality" to us regardless of it's ultimate nature.

This isn't a car across the street with a spare tire in it, that is obviously information we COULD get. The ultimate nature of reality may simply not be on our radar.

 

[Kylie]

I'm saying there may simply be limitations on what we can know, and that which objectively is true that lays outside those limitations is, true or false, but indefinite.

You argued with my God example that if God doesn't have any definition, a set of distinctions that can be observed in the real world, then it doesn't exist. I agree, without real world consequences of Gods that we can observe as consequences of God, they don't really exist to us, regardless of if one exists.

You argued that if reality is a simulation that was undetectable to the person in it that it was still objectively truly a simulation you just couldn't tell. I say this is the same circumstance, reality's nature as a simulation being undetectable to us has no observable consequences then it is just "reality" to us regardless of it's ultimate nature.

This isn't a car across the street with a spare tire in it, that is obviously information we COULD get. The ultimate nature of reality may simply not be on our radar.

Then we are agreed. Not sure how you figured I was contradicting myself.

 

[variant]

Then we are agreed. Not sure how you figured I was contradicting myself.

It seemed that way from my perspective and I tried to explain it.

No worries though.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Carroll is wrong there. Mixing levels of description is metaphysics; it's in the etymology of the word "meta-physics" itself. It's the goal of any truth-seeker to find explanations which coherently unify various levels and various views of what reality might be.

There's a difference between coherently unifying various levels and various views of what reality might be, and mixing the concepts of the descriptive languages of different levels in the same context - here's a quote from Carroll on it:

"... All the mess comes when people try to mix up vocabularies across different levels. ... We can talk about people as animals with minds and reasons, or we can talk about them as collections of cells and tissues, or we can talk about them as collections of protons, neutrons and electrons. It’s only when you start asking “what effect do my feelings have on my protons and neutrons?” that you start getting syntax errors."​

Having said that, yes, I completely understand that there's some magic which takes place, which allows me to write a beautiful poem about a beautiful woman, that I could not write about the molecules which comprise her.

OK, so you see the point - I'll take the 'magic' as rhetorical.

Just what I said - experiential evidence of experience. I experience a "me", therefore there is a "me", by your definition. You say "a statement is true if it corresponds to a state of affairs in the world". How can you arbitrarily decide that the experience of "2 + 2 = 4" is a true state of affairs, but the experience of the "you" which experiences it is not?

I don't. I've already said I think there's a 'you' because there's a self-identifying experiential 'you'. I'm saying that not all your perceptions necessarily correspond to objective reality (states of affairs in the world), and that some of these perceptions contribute to your sense of self. Just as with a phantom limb, we don't realise that aspects of our experience are mistaken until the discrepancy is demonstrable, e.g. we see evidence of our missing limb or our visual blind-spot, or whatever.

We know from everyday experience that people's perceptions of themselves can be seriously mistaken; I'm saying the evidence suggests that we're all mistaken in our perceptions of ourselves in quite fundamental ways. It feels like we look directly out at the world through our eyes as if through windows, it feels like colours are constant properties of objects in the world, it feels like sight and sound are synchronised within ~500 metres, it feels like what we hear is independent of what we see, it feels like we don't sense something unless we're conscious of sensing it, it feels like we don't make decisions until we're consciously aware of making them, and so-on.

I don't know that the supernatual hypothesis makes any specific prediction.

So how can it be verified? how can we know anything about it? how is it more than just a label for not knowing?

I didn't say it was better than those things.

I'm looking the reasons why you invoke it at all.

I can't read every book recommendation you give me for purposes of responding to you in this wordy thread. But the book synopsis says he has at least one "radical hypothesis", which is always a red flag that I'll likely be getting some non-science passed off as science.

The relevance is not so much in any radical hypothesis he proposes (although the hypotheses about their field by experts in the field are usually pretty interesting), but in the depth and breadth of empirical evidence he summarises.

Anyway, I could just as easily make this a "science-of-the-gaps" issue: we may be able to explain it with God in the future, which will show you to be wrong then, therefore you are wrong now.

You'd have to make God a well-defined hypothesis first, and I don't see how that's likely to happen. The abductive criteria (for inference to the best explanation) rest primarily on testability and fruitfulness, i.e. testable predictions and how well they correspond to observations. Then there's explanatory power - how well does an explanation help us understand the phenomenon itself, how it arises, and how much that explanation unifies our knowledge; an explanation that raises more questions than it answers, particularly if those questions are unanswerable is no explanation at all - you can't explain the unexplained with the inexplicable.

It can't be deconstructed as you described. Set aside complexity. Before you can have any "simple logical steps", you have to have axiom from which to build logical steps. It's the ability to magically "see" and understand how and why a thing is or is not self-evident.

The 'magical' ability to see what is or isn't self-evident is the activity of the unconscious mind (System I), an automatic, fast, involuntary, highly parallel processing system based on simple heuristics, associations, habits, and conditioning. It's usually 'good enough' to get by, but has biases, often gets things wrong (not least because it has a tendency to answer a simpler question or problem than that actually posed).

It's an uncomfortable but demonstrable fact that the majority of the content of conscious awareness, i.e. what 'comes to mind' - the words and phrases that pop into your head as you speak, the answers you give without deliberation, the hunches and intuitions you have, etc., is the product of this rather unreliable system. If I had to recommend one book that can give you an insight into this aspect of the mind, it's Kahneman's 'Thinking, Fast and Slow', because it's full of little exercises and examples you can try for yourself to demonstrate the way it works.

If you're going to insist that mice or any animals have this ability, I think the burden is on you to show that.

I've explained what the mouse example was intended to be; but inference is generally thought to be required for problem solving that doesn't involve trial and error, and various creatures are capable of that - for example, some birds are pretty good puzzle solvers, particularly the crow family (corvids) and old world parrots, particularly the African Grey. They can solve multi-stage puzzles using tools and an understanding of the natural world, e.g. how dropping stones into water will raise its level, how bending a twig or a wire will make a hook tool, etc.

Other primates (chimps, gorillas, etc) are known to draw pragmatic inferences from social contexts - see Social cognition and pragmatic inference in primates.

Oh, and I just saw an article describing how wasps show transitive inference.

It's one thing to say something is of little interest, it's another to denounce it as wrong.

Agreed. The point is that, in critical thinking, let alone scientific investigation, when one has a plausible mundane explanation that fits well into an established body of knowledge, it will inevitably be preferred over an exotic and unsubstantiated explanation that invokes a whole new unexplained ontology, appears to contradict the established body of knowledge, and raises multiple questions that cannot be answered.

But the empirical evidence does not support any one interpretation to the exclusion of others.

It strongly supports the brain being the system that performs the various aspects of cognition we call the mind. Specific areas have been identified with specific functions, and specific changes in these areas, or communications between them, produce specific changes in the way the mind works. Brain plasticity has been demonstrated at the neuronal level in the way neuronal connections are reinforced with repeated training (activation). There is no supporting evidence for the mind being external to or independent of the brain, and no known means by which this could be achieved.

Hypothetically, if there come to be consistent experiements where a subject's brain is actually shown to make a decision, even seconds rather than milliseconds, before the subject was aware of the decision, that still would not prove anything one way or another. Let me give you a passage from C. S. Lewis:

And suddenly all was changed. I saw a great assembly of gigantic forms all motionless, all in deepest silence, standing forever about a little silver table and looking upon it. And on the table there were little figures like chessmen who went to and fro doing this and that. And I knew that each chessman was the idolum or puppet representative of some one of the great presences that stood by. And the acts and motions of each chessman were a moving portrait, a mimicry or pantomime, which delineated the inmost nature of his giant master. And these chessmen are men and women as they appear to themselves and to one another in this world. And the silver table is Time. And those who stand and watch are the immortal souls of those same men and women.​

Now that is just a fantasy dream vision, but the point is this: even if our brains appear to have made a decision before "we" do, that does not at all imply that "we" didn't make the decision. I'm not asking you to accept this vision, I'm just asking you to be scientific; to not rule out what the evidence does not rule out.

No, that's broadly my view also; this is why I previously mentioned that it's a mistake to think of the conscious self as somehow separate from the rest of the system; it's all 'us', but only a superficial part, involving the focus of attention, is consciously aware.

I didn't say you could change the content of the signal.

But the signal is what is broadcast, and when I asked if you thought "messing with the receiver can change the content of the broadcast", you said,
"Of course. Why do you think it wouldn't?"

So now I'm wondering whether you really didn't understand the question or whether you're being deliberately obtuse.

But everything you've said so far could just as easily lead to the conclusion that "consciousness is fundamental". And doesn't your materialist view lead to solipsism?

Consciousness is certainly fundamental to appreciating the world, and the evidence suggests it's something the brain does. Solipsism is an extreme form of idealism; I don't see how materialism could lead to solipsism, they're metaphysically incompatible.

If your brain can produce your experience of your self, it could also produce your experience of me, and this conversation, and your chair, and everything.

That would be idealism. The evidence of our senses can be metaphysically interpreted in various ways. Going by what I think I have good reason to accept and what I have good reason to doubt, I incline towards naturalism.

 

[SelfSim]

I'm saying there may simply be limitations on what we can know, and that which objectively is true that lays outside those limitations is, true or false, but indefinite.

You argued with my God example that if God doesn't have any definition, a set of distinctions that can be observed in the real world, then it doesn't exist. I agree, without real world consequences of Gods that we can observe as consequences of God, they don't really exist to us, regardless of if one exists.

You argued that if reality is a simulation that was undetectable to the person in it that it was still objectively truly a simulation you just couldn't tell. I say this is the same circumstance, reality's nature as a simulation being undetectable to us has no observable consequences then it is just "reality" to us regardless of it's ultimate nature.

This isn't a car across the street with a spare tire in it, that is obviously information we COULD get. The ultimate nature of reality may simply not be on our radar.

Then we are agreed. Not sure how you figured I was contradicting myself.

Thank you, 'variant', for succinctly explaining what has perplexed me about the realist, (even an Atheist), viewpoints commonly held amongst several posters here.

Interestingly though, 'God' does produce observable, (even measurable), effects on those who believe in the concept (eg: 'holy wars', charitable and altruistic acts, etc). These results are therefore, objectively real. Emotions can be real too because they also exhibit evidence in objective reality (signs of affection, murder, etc). Hunger does too (as another example).

The idea that reality is a simulation isn't particularly useful because where the simulation is taken as being beyond our ability to detect, then believing in its existence, seems to produce no new, fundamentally dissimilar distinctions than the belief in 'God' (or 'heaven' etc).
Usefulness at best, (from a practical, exploratory viewpoint), tends to stand out here though.

It seems the belief in the existence of the simulation only serves to prop up the belief in the existence of some 'objective' reality beyond our purview ... which is of course, simply yet another untestable belief and is in-common with the belief in 'God' ... which of course, goes beyond the mere lack of clarity in the definition of the term 'God', (which I don't agree, is a sufficient basis for building fundamental distinctions upon, because even science's definitions are subject to change).

 

[variant]

Thank you, 'variant', for succinctly explaining what has perplexed me about the realist, (even an Atheist), viewpoints commonly held amongst several posters here.

Interestingly though, 'God' does produce observable, (even measurable), effects on those who believe in the concept (eg: 'holy wars', charitable and altruistic acts, etc). These results are therefore, objectively real. Emotions can be real too because they also exhibit evidence in objective reality (signs of affection, murder, etc). Hunger does too (as another example).

The mere idea of God can produce things like holy wars, and atheists don't disbelief in the idea of God, but rather that those ideas are accurate, that the God being spoken of objectively exists.

I go a step further and assert that if there are Gods, that it is likely that humanity doesn't understand them.

The idea that reality is a simulation isn't particularly useful because where the simulation is taken as being beyond our ability to detect, then believing in its existence, seems to produce no new, fundamentally dissimilar distinctions than the belief in 'God' (or 'heaven' etc).
Usefulness at best, (from a practical, exploratory viewpoint), tends to stand out here though.

The simulation idea is to get people thinking about how you know what is real and what you can and can't know and why. It demonstrates the same difficulty as God in that if you have no practical sensory input that you can make a differentiation on a subject, it is essentially always beyond your reach.

The fact that people become motivated by the "usefulness" of God ideas as they scrape their understand of the world together makes the idea of God particularly problematic.

They can come under the influence of people who are simply spouting imaginary ideas that seem true enough to them to act upon. These ideas even become more sophisticated over time and tailored to suit the audiences real psychological needs.

But are we talking about a real God here? How would I even begin to answer that question if I can't detect such a thing. If I can't make an observation that would not point to God, how real can the idea ever be?

It seems the belief in the existence of the simulation only serves to prop up the belief in the existence of some 'objective' reality beyond our purview ... which is of course, simply yet another untestable belief and is in-common with the belief in 'God' ... which of course, goes beyond the mere lack of clarity in the definition of the term 'God', (which I don't agree, is a sufficient basis for building fundamental distinctions upon, because even science's definitions are subject to change).

I am saying that God doesn't even have the beginning of a real world definition. There might be a positive definition meaning essentially: "I'll know it when I see it", it's just that everyone doesn't actually see it as of yet. The lack of a negative "this observation would allow me to conclude that there is no God" is a problem here in that since every observation can lead us to the conclusion that there is indeed a God, then knowledge of God can't actually be attained by any given observation that isn't a direct observation of an, in your face God demonstration.

So, lacking those, I see no real reason to entertain the concept.

An idea of an objective worldview that we merely perceive has some basis in that we can in fact collect consistent data on any number of subjects. It would also be an especially true idea if God were an objective reality, so, this doesn't give us any differentiation between religious and scientific thought (they both share it).

 

[Halbhh]

I don't know how many of you are familiar with writings of Frank Tipler Frank J. Tipler - Wikipedia but his Omega Point Theory has been really important to me when it comes to understanding the Bible from a strictly scientific perspective. I tell as many people as I can about Tipler because, in a way, his books give you all the information you need to refute the tired old atheist talking points. Some of it gets sort of complicated (especially when he gets into quantum theory and the vagaries of cosmic expansion rates) but the core premise behind the OPT theory is actually fairly simple....If you get a chance please listen to this interview that we did with Frank Tipler from back in 2015...

Conflicts between 'science' and Christianity over and over turn out to be artificial and illusory.

None of them have ever been in any way substantive that I can find. (my degree is in Engineering Physics, and my lifelong hobby interest has been reading in astrophysics, so I know the material very well)

It is true that there are certain assumptions that are not in the Bible -- ideas that many believe without any biblical basis -- that do create their own conflicts with science.

But those conflicts with science are from those ideas/assumptions added to the scripture, and not from scripture itself.

For instance (and there is no basis anywhere in the Bible for this assumption) the idea or assumption that little or no time passed during Genesis 1:1 before verse 2 happened.

That's little-or-no-time-duration assumption/idea/theory is not in scripture. Nowhere in the Bible. Nor any suggestion of such.

That idea/assumption is also directly and clearly contradicted by clear evidence that the Universe is much older than our sun and the Earth. (ask if you need me to link information on this)

But to imagine this science on the age of the Universe is in conflict with the Bible is entirely and only an illusion created by adding that non-biblical assumption to scripture.

And that's the pattern also for other things, I've found.

 

[Halbhh]

The mere idea of God can produce things like holy wars, and atheists don't disbelief in the idea of God, but rather that those ideas are accurate, that the God being spoken of objectively exists.

I go a step further and assert that if there are Gods, that it is likely that humanity doesn't understand them.



The simulation idea is to get people thinking about how you know what is real and what you can and can't know and why. It demonstrates the same difficulty as God in that if you have no practical sensory input that you can make a differentiation on a subject, it is essentially always beyond your reach.

The fact that people become motivated by the "usefulness" of God ideas as they scrape their understand of the world together makes the idea of God particularly problematic.

They can come under the influence of people who are simply spouting imaginary ideas that seem true enough to them to act upon. These ideas even become more sophisticated over time and tailored to suit the audiences real psychological needs.

But are we talking about a real God here? How would I even begin to answer that question if I can't detect such a thing. If I can't make an observation that would not point to God, how real can the idea ever be?



I am saying that God doesn't even have the beginning of a real world definition. There might be a positive definition meaning essentially: "I'll know it when I see it", it's just that everyone doesn't actually see it as of yet. The lack of a negative "this observation would allow me to conclude that there is no God" is a problem here in that since every observation can lead us to the conclusion that there is indeed a God, then knowledge of God can't actually be attained by any given observation that isn't a direct observation of an, in your face God demonstration.

So, lacking those, I see no real reason to entertain the concept.

An idea of an objective worldview that we merely perceive has some basis in that we can in fact collect consistent data on any number of subjects. It would also be an especially true idea if God were an objective reality, so, this doesn't give us any differentiation between religious and scientific thought (they both share it).

God is a Person (not an inert object, etc.). So, to find Him, you have to meet Him.

He opens the door only to those that knock with good faith. That's a real leap of faith. Jesus is the one who best knew the way, better than any other. So, to find the way to that door, listen to the words Jesus said to all who would listen.

 

[variant]

God is a Person (not an inert object, etc.). So, to find Him, you have to meet Him.

He opens the door only to those that knock with good faith. That's a real leap of faith. Jesus is the one who best knew the way, better than any other. So, to find the way to that door, listen to the words Jesus said to all who would listen.

Faith isn't a way of knowing things. It's a way for people without evidence to pretend that they know things.

People are objects in the sense they are objective realities that I interact with all the time.

If God wants me to know him he can do what any other person would, introduce himself.

 

[SelfSim]

The simulation idea is to get people thinking about how you know what is real and what you can and can't know and why. It demonstrates the same difficulty as God in that if you have no practical sensory input that you can make a differentiation on a subject, it is essentially always beyond your reach.

Its a belief then! .. Which clearly isn't beyond any human's reach though .. and beliefs are pretty soon excluded from science's objective reality upon following science's operational definitions and method.

The fact that people become motivated by the "usefulness" of God ideas as they scrape their understand of the world together makes the idea of God particularly problematic.

The 'motivation' for doing something can be purely subjective and personal. That motivation doesn't have to factor into the explanations of perceptions, (either individually held, or collectively held ones).
This concept makes science accessible to anyone who chooses to follow the scientific method.

Anything which holds back our capacity for exercising our natural thinking abilities (and suspends tightly held ideologies) is a lost opportunity (IMHO).

But are we talking about a real God here? How would I even begin to answer that question if I can't detect such a thing. If I can't make an observation that would not point to God, how real can the idea ever be?

Depends on what you mean by 'real' here.
Whether 'God' is 'real' or not, is surely moot when attempting to optimise utility value, no?
It seems to me the concept of 'reality' held here is preventing progress(?)
Why not just treat it with indifference and move forward?

I am saying that God doesn't even have the beginning of a real world definition. There might be a positive definition meaning essentially: "I'll know it when I see it", it's just that everyone doesn't actually see it as of yet. The lack of a negative "this observation would allow me to conclude that there is no God" is a problem here in that since every observation can lead us to the conclusion that there is indeed a God, then knowledge of God can't actually be attained by any given observation that isn't a direct observation of an, in your face God demonstration.

Yes .. I call this 'filling in the gaps'.
Sometimes its useful to just let the gaps be.

An idea of an objective worldview that we merely perceive has some basis in that we can in fact collect consistent data on any number of subjects. It would also be an especially true idea if God were an objective reality, so, this doesn't give us any differentiation between religious and scientific thought (they both share it).

The scientific method has no prerequisites for philosophical Realism (at least none that I've ever seen in reputable texts/lectures etc). The only remotely interpretable worldview I've found in science is relentless objective testing. This concept distinguishes science over anything which comes to the table with tightly held 'worldviews' (and desires to reinforce them .. such as reinforcing philosophical Realism).
Science can be taken as the seemingly never-ending investigation into how we explain what we perceive, which has no needs for some worldview which demands the existence of some independent 'objective reality'. Science's own 'objective reality', on the other hand, is what remains following objective testing of something unexplored (and not prior to it). Science has no use for assuming the existence of anything prior to gaining its test results. (Eg: the Higgs boson was not known to exist prior to its discovery at the LHC, planet Pluto was not known to exist prior to its observation, etc .. there are abundant other examples).

 

[variant]

The scientific method has no prerequisites for philosophical Realism (at least none that I've ever seen in reputable texts/lectures etc). The only remotely interpretable worldview I've found in science is relentless objective testing. This concept distinguishes science over anything which comes to the table with tightly held 'worldviews' (and desires to reinforce them .. such as reinforcing philosophical Realism).
Science can be taken as the seemingly never-ending investigation into how we explain what we perceive, which has no needs for some worldview which demands the existence of some independent 'objective reality'. Science's own 'objective reality', on the other hand, is what remains following objective testing of something unexplored (and not prior to it). Science has no use for assuming the existence of anything prior to gaining its test results. (Eg: the Higgs boson was not known to exist prior to its discovery at the LHC, planet Pluto was not known to exist prior to its observation, etc .. there are abundant other examples).

Assuming there are objective realities we don't know about yet isn't really a problem at all. We know we don't know everything, and that is the basis of doing the science in the first place.

To answer your basic idea here we have plenty of evidence for objective reality that is beyond our current understanding. It becomes more clear when we have come to understand it better.

The process of advancement lends credence to the idea that we can access objective realities though objective testing.

 

[variant]

"SelfSim, post: 73967363, member: 354922"]
Depends on what you mean by 'real' here.
Whether 'God' is 'real' or not, is surely moot when attempting to optimise utility value, no?
It seems to me the concept of 'reality' held here is preventing progress(?)

It depends on your goal.

Holding onto an idea that is completely indefinite and explains nothing doesn't advance things aside from human interests in manipulating other humans.

Why not just treat it with indifference and move forward?

I do.

 

[variant]

The 'motivation' for doing something can be purely subjective and personal. That motivation doesn't have to factor into the explanations of perceptions, (either individually held, or collectively held ones).
This concept makes science accessible to anyone who chooses to follow the scientific method.

Anything which holds back our capacity for exercising our natural thinking abilities (and suspends tightly held ideologies) is a lost opportunity (IMHO).

You can't practice the scientific method on such things because God doesn't have any observation that would lead to the conclusion it doesn't exist.

It's a meaningless belief in terms of observations thus simply a non-starter in science.

 

[variant]

Its a belief then! .. Which clearly isn't beyond any human's reach though .. and beliefs are pretty soon excluded from science's objective reality upon following science's operational definitions and method.

No, not a belief, merely an example.

 

[AV1611VET]

If God wants me to know him he can do what any other person would, introduce himself.

Maybe He's waiting for you to quit finding fault with all His children's beliefs?

 

[SelfSim]

Assuming there are objective realities we don't know about yet isn't really a problem at all. We know we don't know everything, and that is the basis of doing the science in the first place.

Ok .. as I said, there can be many motivations for doing something, but no one of these is necessarily a prerequisite for following the scientific method. (Ie: I see no evidence for any such assumptions being necessary, prior to following the method. Thus, it is not subject to any assumptions per se).

To answer your basic idea here we have plenty of evidence for objective reality that is beyond our current understanding. It becomes more clear when we have come to understand it better.

Objective, independently verifiable observations are the foundation. The explanations for those observations may not yet be available but this doesn't necessarily imply anything about (science's) current objective reality .. including 'that it exists beyond our current understanding'.

The process of advancement lends credence to the idea that we can access objective realities though objective testing.

What is 'the process of advancement'?
Can I find a document on this?