Where did you get these definitionsÃ‚Â andÃ‚Â how have you overlooked the component of time?Ã‚Â There is a third position at least. For example in 1965 the cell phone was non falsifiable but inÃ‚Â it 2011 is. All I have to do is show you one cell phone.Ã‚Â The point is because of the component of time what was not true in the past may be true in the present but may not be true in the future. Therefore, subjective and objective truth fall prey to the time component. They like most things are Ã¢â‚¬Å“trueÃ¢â‚¬ÂÃ‚Â based upon other conditionsÃ¢â‚¬â€faith among them. There isÃ‚Â what we call creativity.Ã‚Â Creativity by definition is to bring something into existence that did not exist before.Ã‚Â You do believe in creativity? I mean it is generally accepted that Edison created the first practical electrical light bulb as Alexander Bell the phone?
Where did you get the idea that objective truth must be fixed? Objective truth is simply a claim that accurately reflects the universe's current state of affairs. To use your cell phone example, in 1965 if someone said Ã¢â‚¬Å“cell phones don't exist on this planetÃ¢â‚¬Å“ that claim would be an objective truth. Does that mean that that will always be the case? No, it doesn't. The moment cell phones are invented it is no longer objectively true that they don't exist. If I make the claim today that cell phones exist, that is an objective truth and faith is not needed to substantiate that claim because I own a cell phone.
As for subjective truth, it is true in a similar fashion. For example, if I say Ã¢â‚¬Å“pizza is my favorite food,Ã¢â‚¬Å“ that claim is subjectively true. Does that mean the claim itself is true for everyone? No, it doesn't. Does that mean it will always be true for me? No, it doesn't. But at the time I make the claim it accurately reflects my personal preference and thus is a true statement. No faith needed.
What you have done here is to describe the essence of God without a personality. Since you did have a beginning to assume all entities had a beginning would be infinite regression which seems illogical as it would be infinite and thus qualify as a characteristic of a God being. Most accept a first cause although create whatever you choose. The idea isÃ‚Â that something always had to exist.
Your right, the idea is that something has always existed and I say that thing is reality. Reality does not have a personality, but it contains all personalities. The qualities which you characterize as god qualities are applicable to reality. Reality is omnipresent because it is everywhere in existence. Reality is omnipotent because it has the capacity to realize all possible states of being with no restrictions. Reality is omniscient because it contains all information, knowledge, and wisdom.
As far as causes and beginnings are concerned, those concepts are applicable to events within the universe but do not necessarily apply to the universe as a whole. Linear causality is a rule that exist within the system of the universe. The larger system in which the universe exists does not have to abide by the same rules; the concepts of causes and beginnings may or may not hold meaning in the larger system. To assume that they do is to deny the fact that one is ignorant to the mechanics of the larger system in which our limited understanding of reality is not sufficient enough to fathom something that is beyond our understanding, which is confined to the knowledge we acquire from within the smaller system. In other words, the universe is a sub-set of a larger super-set, and the super-set cannot be understood from the perspective of the sub-set because there is no way to explain something in which we have absolutely no way of objectively understanding how it exists. So to say the universe had a beginning and thus necessitates a first cause may make sense from a perspective within the universe, however it does not mean that that is the case from a perspective outside the universe within the larger system. We don't know if the universe had a beginning or not, all we know is that from the perspective of a being within the universe, it appears that it does.
Oh come on give up the point!Ã‚Â Assume is faith by another name. Are you saying you believe in the metaphysical?
Well therein lies the problem, Mike. If you want to claim that the words 'assume' and 'faith' are synonymous, you are free to do so. However, I do not agree and I am pretty sure no English thesaurus will either. If you can find one I would love to see it. And yes, I assume that the metaphysical exists based on deductive reasoning.
I observe that my mother no longer exists. Or as when your car gets stolen it no longer exists where you want it to and you observe and say, "It's gone!" You know observing that kind of non existence! I believe all things are possible though not always probable. Remember DawkinsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ Ã¢â‚¬Å“ Climbing mount improbable?Ã¢â‚¬ÂÃ‚Â Did I assume wrongly thatÃ‚Â you believe in evolution?
To say Ã¢â‚¬Å“I observe my mother's non-existenceÃ¢â‚¬Â is not the same as saying Ã¢â‚¬Å“I don't observe my mother existing.Ã¢â‚¬Â The first claim is impossible wheres the latter is not. If you can't tell the distinction between the two, then I don't know what else to tell you. And no, you did not assume wrong, I agree with evolution.