We tend to consider as real the stuff to which the laws apply. For example, because we have laws for space-time, we feel that space-time is real stuff. Science does not reject subjectivity, but the laws of nature are the laws of the objective world from which somehow emerges subjectivity. In that sense, subjectivity is not real.
In this objective view of the reality, we cannot have a direct access to the laws of nature. We can only have formula and eventually build a technology to use them. However, these formula change when physics progresses. They are getting more and more accurate. The laws that are eternal are not accessible. They are part of the subjective world, a concept.
I believe that the true laws are real stuff. They are about themselves and how they get expressed in the objective world. The unification of these laws is God, eternal, everywhere, omnipotent, just like the laws. Being in the subjective world, we can experience them as God directly in our consciousness.
Is the subjective world the home of God? Is it as real, if not even more real, than the objective world?
That's deep stuff. But it is an opinion. I refuse to believe another human telling me about an all-powerful God, we are all fallible and biased so any explanation is almost guaranteed not to be 100% accurate. Without any basis to determine what parts of the explanations of God are factual, I cannot commit to any belief.
Is the subjective world the home of God? Is it as real, if not even more real, than the objective world?
Well, there is a flaw in your logic: you assume that god exists. This has not been demonstrated, therefore cannot be used in any valid argumentation.
You speak of %26quot;laws%26quot; as being real, tangible things, which is not the case. Physical laws are idealizations of reality -- models that we have invented to fit observations that we make. Physical laws don't %26quot;exist%26quot; -- we made them up to improve and simplify our understanding of the natural world.
The unification of the current physical laws will be an even grander physical law. I fail to see what this has to do with a supernatural being, other than an attempt to wedge pseudoscience into a scientific context. You can call this unified law %26quot;God%26quot; if you would like, but I would rather not confuse science with ancient mythology.
The %26quot;subjective world%26quot; is the home of your consciousness, where you can choose whether or not to believe in any god you want. However, until any sort of god manifests itself in the form of observable phenomena, there's no reason to believe in it.
God is as good as a theory as evolution...if not better.
I agree with you that there is an inherently subjective aspect to reality, one which the scientific method, based on objectivation, cannot access. And as you say, the subjective aspects are at least as real as the objective.
Consciousness, the content of dreams, and simpler but related phenomena such as sense perceptions belong to this subjective aspect, as does our access to God.
Mankind's next (and greatest) intellectual revolution will occur when in some as-of-yet inconceivable way, a consistent synthesis of western science and eastern mysticism will allow us to begin to understand this subjective part of reality.
Note Added: I've read an interesting response to the age-old question %26quot;Why doesn't God just appear to our senses and put an end to all this debate?%26quot;
The response is : God is a subject, not an object and so cannot appear to our senses. Its closer to the truth to say he is our senses.
God does not exist, therefore the Pope is not infallible. Both of these statements are fact.
