I think Steven’s slowing down.
>How can you speak of “objective” when you are nothing but dust.
All that we know to be true about the universe is that which we’ve theorized, tested, and proved using objectively verified evidence. The cliched example is gravity. I drop a ball. It falls to the ground. But how am I to know that’s not just some odd fluke or miracle of nature? I do it again. And again. And again. Or to make sure I have no bias, I have someone else do it. And again. And again. After collecting a sufficient amount of data, I can conclude that if I am to drop a ball, it will always fall to the ground.
Religion, on the other hand, asks us to believe without proof. But why should we? Many religious assertions conflict with each other which begs a theory and objectively verifiable evidence. You claim Jesus was the son of God. So what? The Jews claim he wasn’t. How am I to know who’s right and who’s wrong? You quote Scripture. So what? So do they. How am I to know whose Scripture is correct?
“Objective” has nothing to do with dust. Please clarify.
>How could you judge God?
I judge the belief in a god for there is no objectively verifiable evidence to support such a belief.