And tell me, does science proclaim that any of these ideas (I'd love some examples, btw) MUST be true?
Actually science doesn't claim anything is true, but rather the best idea that fits the observations. The problem is all the ideas that try to explain the universe, its beginning and beyond appeal to ideas that step beyond and into dimensions that well seem like science fiction and can never be verified.
Some of these ideas are M Theory, Multiverse theory, The Hologram Principle which stems from String theory, quantum field theory, Simulation theory, Panpsychism, QBism and the Mental universe to name a few.
I mean, if the Bible was completely removed, completely forgotten about, and all we had was going out and finding archeological evidence, that kind of thing, what evidence of Jesus would there be?
First the Bible is also an historical book on its own about our history without the supernatural claims. It describes the archeology finds, including the places, people and artifacts of that time. It often reveals new knowledge and insight into our past and substantiates the Bible.
But even if we excluded the bible then we would have all these archeological finds and historical texts from other sources outside the bible talking about the same things in the bible except there would be no bible. But when we bring these two together we find each lends weight to their authenticity.
Please show that perceiving something and experiencing something are different to the degree that you can claim that one is objective and the other is subjective.
I think that perception is about our senses. We can be deceived by out sense. For example a stick half in the water looks bent. Light can affect the illumination of objects and people will see things different depending on their vantage point. In fact there are many factors that can cause our perception to trick us. So what we perceive is not an objective fact.
Whereas conscious experience is a different kettle of fish to any mechanical or material thing. Its qualia which is a different phenomena to the material view. Its hard to explain but it transcends the material world so we cannot even measure it with science. Its the sensation (how do you measure sensation) of pain, or eating ice-cream or being taken away in awe at the night sky on a clear night.
The point I am making is which is more real, the objective world or our conscious experience.
Hang on.
You just said we experience it as magenta, but you also said that our experience is subjective. So how can you now say that our experience of magenta is objective?
Though magenta is made up by the brain it is a real colour at least in nature. But that is different to our experience of colours. We experience colours and the world regardless of how it came to be or is measured.
A good example is how a colour blind person can learn everything there is to know about the mechanical processes of eyes, light and the brain they still wouldn't know what having an experience is with colours. If they suddenly were able to see colours again then we could say there experience of red is something new they have come to know about reality.
So you are able to grasp the concept I'm talking about, even if you immediately take it to an extreme in order to ridicule.
I am not taking anything to extreme or trying to ridicule. When I say the only thing we can rely on is our conscious experience I mean its the first filter we have for everything even the physical world.
To to say that conscious experience is subjective is to then bring into question everything about what we think reality is even the physical world and how we measures it. This has been postulated by many theoretical physicists and philosophers that reality may not be what we think it is.
And nope, you've just gone back to missing my point again.
And if I was claiming that people were not experiencing colour, then you'd have a point.
But that's NOT what I am saying, so your argument here is at best a strawman and at worst deliberately dishonest.
I understand your point that conscious experience is subjective. But I am trying to explain that making consciousness subjective or objective is the wrong way to even measure it. I don't think we can measure it. Certainly science cannot even understand what it is to even get to measure it.