We do not create Reality. It exists. And anything within Reality Exists separate and apart from other things in Reality. We do not create the extent or meaning of an object in Reality - that is already defined and inherent to that object. We can only ascertain or discover 1) that the object exists and 2) what properties it may have available to perception (aided/unaided). There may even be certain objects which are subject to minor manipulation.

I have no paintbrush. I am not creating anything - simply ascertaining that it Exists. But to do that I must first identify in at least some detail what I wish to identify the Existence of. If I am going looking for yellow sphere, I have to know I am looking for a yellow sphere and not a blue cube, a black pyramid, or just taking in the sights generally. I have to know that I am searching for an object 1) in the form of a sphere and of a yellow color, 2) separate and distinct from myself in some general vicinity, and 3) using my eyes as the method of perception.

Now, I can walk you through 1, 2, and 3 with respect the inquiry in question. I can tell you what to look for and how to go about looking, but I respect the rules of the forum, so any further inquiry I will direct to a private conversation.

Your approach, if I understand it correctly, is to let every individual independently seek communication with God and, based on that, I should say, non-tangible communication, let each decide the meaning and extend of God. If that is the case, then your approach is as disconnected from reality as an abstract artist who is happy when his work is interpreted completely different by each viewer. In fact, it doesn't matter if the artwork is hanging right side up or upside down. Going a bit further, I would even call this approach dangerous, since there are no connections to reality, your God may desire human sacrifice, for example. No further justification will be needed, since you are already taking it as an axiom that God has commanded it and it knows better. This, actually, is not a far fetched scenario, as millions of Muslims adhere to that fantasy every day and quite a few Christians have done the same.

An honest observation. Thanks. I'll try to start over.

The question is whether or not God exists. You pointed out that simply asking other people is not valid proof. I agreed and said that the way to resolve the matter was to go to God directly. Ultimately, all cognition and observation are individual.

Your next comments were to question the validity of the individual response. Now please feel free to clarify if that was not your intent, but what I took this to mean that you would not be satisfied with an individual response. My point was that a response at all indicates Existence - the primary question at hand. The content's value as communication was completely dependent on the nature of the relationship between the two parties. Thus evaluation by a third party did not negate the fact that Existence was demonstrated in the mere fact of interaction.

The rest of my comment was to point out that the reason most people fail to find something in any inquiry is because they fail 1) to identify what they are looking for, 2) look in the wrong place, or 3) do not utilize the correct tools. One must spend some time trying to figure out what they are looking for, where to look, and how to look. The inquiry into God is no different.

To be honest with you, I did not follow your logic or reasoning above at all.

Oh, your feelings tell you. My feelings tell me that
I can go home this evening and drink just as much
Coke as I want, regardless of caffeine or my epil-
epsy, and regardless of having enough money to
replace it, and that I will have a job, or all the good things that come from a job, without do-
ing anything to try to get it.--But then, when I
wake up nauseated from a seizure, or without
enough money to get a good supply of food for
the rest of the week, then the feelings might
change.

You look at something; you look at physical evidence; you follow it; and you figure out the ans-
wer. But there is no point in assuming the exist-
ence of something that has no perceptible effects,
or in agreeing to just have faith in it.--And it is
the existence of that claimed thing that requires
proof, not the non-existence of it.

Existence is, correct? One can not put conditions on a conversation by saying that the words that were said justify it as a conversation rather than the fact that there were words from both parties at all. (Unless you got the answer: "Nope, I'm not here." That might be a bit problematic =D) You would not have the same conversation with your spouse that you would have with your child, neither the same with a friend. Conversations are based on relationships - they are not form letters from some bureaucrat's office. ;)

I would also add that in any scientific endeavor, one must put in some time to attempt to quantify, qualify, and otherwise identify what exactly one is attempting to discern the reality of. One does not go looking for the Higgs Boson by sifting through a pile of sand with a child's beach toy. The would-be observer has to outline the attributes and qualities of the intended object/persona of observation. A failure to properly identify these can mean looking for the wrong thing, looking in the wrong place, or looking without the proper tools. All three are key to a valid, scientific inquiry.

I will offer one observation via this (rhetorical) question: what value/benefit does having the answer bring to you? What are you willing to give in exchange?

The Muslim theology is to be feared because it preaches world domination through force. Christian religion, today, preaches if not world domination anymore, certainly regional domination. Today, it does not do so through force, but through brainwashing. Better than force, but something to actively stay away from.

Then how scientific (or realistic) is the answer if each receives (or perceives) a different answer? I am not saying that one must (or may) not believe; only that faith and Objectivism are polar opposites. You (and all) are perfectly welcome to subscribe to one or the other, but mixing the two is illogical to one and offensive to the other.

"And every church or group or community, that is under the influence of a different theology..."

I agree with you that many who form churches do so for the reasons you correctly identify: to create for themselves a notion of God which justifies their lifestyle or as a scapegoat for what they can not explain any other way. There are most certainly churches and religions of all persuasions. So what is one to do? The answer is both deceptively easy and intellectually challenging: one must ask God to answer the question.

The scientific method is to have independent people repeating the experiment and coming up with the same results. Only members of the same church, under the influence of the same theology, experience the same "truth." And every church or group or community, that is under the influence of a different theology, experiences different vision and understanding of God. Thus, the common factor is the theology, not the God itself, except, of course, for the natural human tendency to refer anything and everything that we cannot explain, to God.

"If at any point God, if it exists, chooses to disclose to humans in a more material way..."

And if I have knowledge of such a disclosure? If I personally experienced such? If I know others who also experienced such? What then? The contention is that there is no proof. I simply say that such a claimant hasn't looked in the right place - or has already predetermined not to find what is there.

Yes, the truth can be very uncomfortable. For any more than that, I point you to a private thread.

Actually, Ayn Rand herself mandated atheism and claimed a lack of evidence for God. khalling posted an interview yesterday where Rand outlined that position in such words, citing that she came to that conclusion on her own at age 13.

My experience is different than Rand's. Through my experiences, I know differently. As to the inquiry made, the process involved, or the evidence I have, that is for a private channel. What I will say is that the question must be resolved individually. Beliefs are personal or they are meaningless.

Objectivism, as any philosophy, is a product of the human mind. I am not aware of anyone who would argue otherwise. However, as opposed to some other philosophies, Objectivism is tied to reality by the virtue of accepting only those constructs that can be shown to be real. For example, water is wet; every person in the world will describe water with the same properties. God, on the other hand, will be described by everyone (or every community) differently, because the concept of God is not tied to reality. Socialism and communism are another example of philosophies that are disconnected from reality - the invariable results of these philosophies demonstrate a certain undesirable outcome, yet believers keep claiming that if some unrealistic conditions can be maintained, then nirvana can be attained. Once you start deviating from proven, demonstrated results and fill in the voids with magic, wishful thinking or deities creating the same, you go to a world disconnected from reality and relying purely on faith and hope.

No, not as a real object does. It is notional.

If we need to cover basic physics, it is probably better done in a different venue.

Are you surprised that philosophy is a construct of the human mind?

Seems like you are unintentionally proving yourself wrong. Emotion is a feeling, e.g., a notional construct of our thinking. It is not a real object. Thus, God is a construct of the human thinking, or more precisely, of the human emotion; thus, God is not real; it exists only in our imagination. Likewise, our love for someone is also a construct of our imagination and, thus, cannot be empirically measured.

Actually, your definition of space is incorrect. Space does not exist, as an entity in itself. We know that certain objects exist and that those objects are located certain quantities apart, either in measurements of distance or time. Space is a notional representation of those quantities; it is not a real object.