All sciences are to some degree inherently subjective because they are based upon human observation. Even while its accepted that the universe is massive and even possibly infinite, we can only measure the observable universe; and from that measurement, we can even assert by our own subjective position that Earth is the center of the universe. Yet if the position of the earth were moved by 100 million light years in any direction, that would new place would be the center of the universe. Even so, the universe itself exists independently of our position within it, and so while we can move from place to place, the universe remains unaffected. We have no proof, of course, of a universe beyond the observable universe, but we assume it exists anyway. Physical evidence is not always required proof, nor is it even sufficient in many cases. A man can be convicted of a crime by the testimony of witnesses without physical evidence. So I also say it is with theology: we study what we can observe, we observe what already exists, and the testimony of witnesses in this study is sufficient. While you may think there is no proof of God, I assert instead that there exists ample proof; that history, all the sciences, and the testimony of men speak to it.
Are you compareing theology to physics, or astronomy?
Look, all you said about the universe and our subjective point of view is truth, but the way we know the universe is a conclusion, a proyection from the know aspects of our portion of space, as they are now, they only began as theories, and slowly proof and calculations came that back them up.
But god? If there were a way to back the claim that there is a god or a divinity in other form than tradition or faith, there would be no diversity of religions and beliefs. Truth is we CAN'T know if there is anything remotly like a "god", much less know that the books that have been written on his name are real.
Yes, apart from our subjective point of view there is a common reality. One that is filtered by our senses, and our thoughts. We are limited in our understanding and perception. To claim knowlodge of a bigger truth is to denie your own human escence. We are still ignorants of the world we live in.
Now, disciplines like theology or aesthetics are not based upon phisical proof or methodical observation(wich is how we can come to the conclusion you mentioned about the universe). They are based on another kind of observation, another set of mind. Yes, still scientific in some of it's ways, but more philosophical. Based on thought and pure ideas. God is an idea that can't be known, a concept pure because it has no single phisical presence on this earth but rather countless man made representations.
GOD IS MADE BY US, IN EVERY WORD OR IMAGE WE CREATE ABOUT HIM.
Not because he doesn't exist, i have no f***ing idea if he does. But what you call god, and what i sense as a divine essence are socio-cultural and philosophical constructions made to fit into an abissmal perception that there is something we cant express from this world.
I question the divinity of a thing if it is not universal. Certainly our understanding of a thing is subjective, but its existence is not dependent upon our understanding.
Yours too, how can you know that your god is anything more than a tale?
A tale made to fit a greater sense of something that can't have an expresion in this world? All religions are wrong, because they asume themselves perfect expresions of that wich can't be expresed.
That is why i don't really define what I think of as a divinity, i would be falling into that game of taking a truth that doesn't belong to me (or you) and try to shove it up everyones collective *sses.
There is where we ought to separate what we create and what was already created. Men did not create the universe.
Well i wouldn't use the word "created", I would just say that the universe pre-dates* man.
*Edit: I meant it to say that the universe does come before man, trying to exclude the notion that it was created. We can't know that either. All we know is that we come into existence in a place that was all set and ready. And that by the time we leave it will still be runing like it does. You can only live in the world you know, the world you can sense and understand, and we are limited by it. From the sensed universe we can barly get our minds to proyect to the greater Universe. How can we asume we know all about it? It would be hubris to do so.
The claim that there is no shadow of a doubt about the existence of a god, is one of those acts.*
Men did not create the relationships of the things in the universe. Men created words to describe those relationships, but even without those words and the theories linked to them, the universe would still function.
Again I agree the universe predates man. But what we construct is not the universe in intself, but a perception of it, and the knowlodge about it. I don't denie the independence of objects from the subject. I denie that we can truly know their essence, we can aproach it, but we can't posses the essense.
All right, an example, very over simplified:
Take a 6 sided dice. Now try to see every side of the dice at the same time. Can't? No surprise there. At most you can see 3 sides. Do the other sides of the dice disapear when you don't see them? well no, of course not. Are this 3 sides you see the entire dice? no, of course not.
Let's say that the dice is "the essense", of whatever, and you see a limited amount of aspects of it (3 sides). Even if you turn the dice to see the other 3 sides you loose the sight on the previous 3. You would have to be able to see the dice beyond its form, and matter to KNOW all 6 sides at the same time.
It is likewise the same with God, however defined; the divine exists independent of our understanding of it.
But we can't know it
Relativism falls apart because it fails to account for the things not created, nor controlled, by men.
In a sense it does.
If I said the sun is yellow, and you said it was green, it would still have the essence of a specific color regardless of which word we attached to it. It would still be the color we accept as "yellow" even if you called yellow green.
Lets say You call it "yellow", and i call it "amarillo", both words mean the same, but have different fonetic tones, and different gramatic caracteristics, but they both address the same concept. Wich one is more right? wich one speaks Truth about the essense of the color?
or are they both just plain constructed truths.....
in a way the true essense of the color would not even be the representation of the wavelenght of the light that causes the perception of yellow. But the wavelenght itself.
Can you see the wavelenght as the light aproaches your eyes?
Yellow is only yellow because your eye can see it yellow.
So if God has a particular nature, then He has that nature regardless of how we describe it. And like any science, theology comes down to how we observe those things particular to God.
If it really is a hard science then it will provide proof for god. One that can be falseable, that is not absolute, and that sustain itself with evidence.
As a subjective science it can only stay in the face of concepts. It can only remain philosophy.
We can call good evil and evil good, but the nature of a thing, as we already know, is not dependent upon the words used to describe it.
A man is arrested for the brutal murder of another one, he beats him senseles and fills him with docens of bullets.
Acording to a strict moral code this man is evil and must answer for his sins.
The next day you find out that the dead man had killed the arrested man's daughter. Evidence appears that the last words of the dead man were "Kill me, please. I am a monster"
Wich one is evil? or are they both just humans?
A less morbous example:
A man loves a woman.
A man loves a man.
wich one is good? or are they both just humans?
Both men in the first example should pay for what they did, they both broke the boundries of morality to a greater or lesser degree, but to judge the entire person over one word is dumb. Must be judged by their actions.
Both men in the second example are in love. What else is important in that case?
Morality is also constructed. But even as a construction it must be followed, for the good of society.
However it is of no good if morality harms people who don't deserve it. It must not be cast in stone, if it harms people that have done nothing wrong.
.........
There is only one Catholic Church.
don't fool around, you know what I wanted to say.
