2nd greatest question

Originally posted by @josephw
Is there no explanation because subjective experience isn't testable?

Does that mean subjective experience doesn't exist?

What does it mean that there's no scientific explanation for subjective experience?

Yes; no; science has limits.

Originally posted by @apathist
That's the first greatest question! Or, why is there anything. Because if there weren't, we wouldn't know about it.

Not an argument or answer.

Originally posted by @fmf
Your assertion about your supposed creator, and the supposed authority attendant thereto, is "merely an opinion" too.

No it's not.

The truth bears witness of itself independent of opinions, and it's not an opinion that the universe bears witness of a creator regardless of anyone's opinion whether that's true or not.

Just look out there. There's too much order in it. Order denotes design.

Energy plus information. Not random chance.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Please explain why my assertion that the universe is eternal is an opinion and your assertion that God is eternal is not?

First tell me how you know the universe is eternal. I mean, that seems a new twist on evolutionary thought. I thought the idea was that all the energy in the universe was compacted in one location and BANG a universe came into existence.

Now it appears you want me to believe the universe has always existed.

Reason and logic. God is eternal, otherwise He's not God.

Originally posted by @apathist
Or, why is there anything. Because if there weren't, we wouldn't know about it.

That just makes no sense.

Since there is "anything", then we do know about it? But we don't though, so we ask why or how anyway?

What a line of befuddling irrationality. The results of the absence of truth.

Originally posted by @josephw
The truth bears witness of itself independent of opinions, and it's not an opinion that the universe bears witness of a creator regardless of anyone's opinion whether that's true or not.

It is merely your personal opinion that "the universe bears witness of a creator" ~ although you are perfectly entitled to hold it. Ghost of a Duke's take on it is an opinion too. And so is mine.

Originally posted by @josephw
First tell me how you know the universe is eternal. I mean, that seems a new twist on evolutionary thought. I thought the idea was that all the energy in the universe was compacted in one location and BANG a universe came into existence.

Now it appears you want me to believe the universe has always existed.

Reason and logic. God is eternal, otherwise He's not God.

What does 'evolutionary thought' have to do with it?

An eternal universe is not just a concept I came up with on my own, and it's one I find far more credible than your magical God figure. Time is just a human construct, due to our finite existence.

Reason and logic. The universe is eternal, otherwise it's not the universe.

Originally posted by @fmf
It is merely your personal opinion that "the universe bears witness of a creator" ~ although you are perfectly entitled to hold it. Ghost of a Duke's take on it is an opinion too. And so is mine.

It is not my opinion that the universe bears witness of a creator. It is an observable fact. Yours is an opinion that the universe does not bear witness of a creator as evidenced by the fact that by your own admission you don't know the truth about the origin of the universe.

The existence of the universe and life on earth is as a result of matter and information, information from an intelligent being. It's irrational to think otherwise.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
What does 'evolutionary thought' have to do with it?

An eternal universe is not just a concept I came up with on my own, and it's one I find far more credible than your magical God figure. Time is just a human construct, due to our finite existence.

Reason and logic. The universe is eternal, otherwise it's not the universe.

"An eternal universe is not just a concept I came up with on my own,.."

Since you deny the existence of God the idea that the universe is eternal is your own whether you thought of it yourself or borrowed the idea from someone else. It's a human construct, which renders it a mere opinion or belief based on the finite knowledge of man.

"...and it's one I find far more credible than your magical God figure."

Taking lessons from FMF? A "God figure" doesn't exist. It's just another grammatical mis-construct designed to cloud the issue. An eternal, omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent God either exist or He doesn't. There is no "God figure".

"Time is just a human construct, due to our finite existence."

You can believe that if you want to, but God created space, matter and time. You can disbelieve that if you want to, but as long as your mind is confined to the finite you'll never really know. You deny the existence of a creator, but only due to the fact that by your own admission it is merely the opinion of a finite mind confined to the limits of human imagination.

"Reason and logic. The universe is eternal, otherwise it's not the universe."

Where's the logic in that? Opinion does not Truth make. You already said it was your opinion, and it is not rational to base belief on opinion.

Originally posted by @josephw
[b]"An eternal universe is not just a concept I came up with on my own,.."

Since you deny the existence of God the idea that the universe is eternal is your own whether you thought of it yourself or borrowed the idea from someone else. It's a human construct, which renders it a mere opinion or belief based on the finite knowledge of man.

"...an ...[text shortened]... th make. You already said it was your opinion, and it is not rational to base belief on opinion.

Where's the logic in that? Opinion does not Truth make. You already said it was your opinion, and it is not rational to base belief on opinion.

Dude, it's your own logic!!! "Reason and logic. The universe is eternal, otherwise it's not the universe," Is no more or less logical or opinion based than "God is eternal, otherwise He's not God."

Originally posted by @apathist
What is the scientific explanation for the existence of subjective experience?

There isn't one!

Does the scientific method establish 'subjective' or 'objective' truth?

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
[b]Where's the logic in that? Opinion does not Truth make. You already said it was your opinion, and it is not rational to base belief on opinion.

Dude, it's your own logic!!! "Reason and logic. The universe is eternal, otherwise it's not the universe," Is no more or less logical or opinion based than "God is eternal, otherwise He's not God."[/b]

The difference, dude, is that your assertion is based on your opinion, and mine is based on the authority of Gods Word.

You needn't tell me again you don't recognize that authority. To your loss.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Not an argument or answer.

I called it the greatest mystery. Connect the dots.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Does the scientific method establish 'subjective' or 'objective' truth?

Science does not create objective knowledge. That's 101, very basic stuff.

Science does not establish truth. It establishes knowledge. (Science is not the only source of knowledge.)

Truth is what knowledge is trying to obtain. Knowledge is asymptotic to truth - at best knowledge gets closer and closer to the truth.