Do you believe in God?

[doctorrg]

I agree except for one thing.

Why and how, are you severing belief from the equation?

Would you say that if you put your hand into the fire you believe you'd get burnt? Or would you say you know you'd get burnt? Or is it all the same to you?

 

[Beeblebrox237]

I think you are going to like my answer here fellas.
The post I quoted did contain for the most part spiritual concepts which are not generally comprehendable
to the carnal mind.
That being the case, it would appear incoherent.

So only you can understand your arguments and we're too "carnal" to comprehend. Well, why didn't you say so in the first place? I totally believe you now that you've insulted me and made it even clearer that you have no concept of logic.

Would you know it if you wouldn't be able to perceive? Explain to me how you could have come to that knowledge without perception.

I can perceive indirect evidence as well as direct evidence. How is this relevant to this thread? Evidence varies in quality, some of it conclusive and some not. Nobody has managed to produce conclusive evidence of the existence of god so one might argue that god does not exist based on lack of evidence (perception), a statement I would agree with.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Molecules itself is an entirely human concept. We have no reason to believe Molecules exist in reality itself. Something exists which we have understood to be molecules.

Yes we do. If one person says they see a Sky Fairy we disbelieve them. When we collectively observe something which is observable by the masses then we can know that it exists. You're confusing language with objectivity. We might well call them seagulls, wardrobes or dandelions but, in a common language framework, we can still continue to observe and explain their properties.

That framework which we collectively observe is reality, you can remove the individual from that entirely insofar as a single person's reality has to be replicable and observable to be accepted fact.

I'm just responding. Reality, as we understand it, is our perception. Reality in itself is something we've acknowledged exists, but can't really say anything about. If nobody's arguing that, why do people post quoting what I've said?

That's complete rubbish, it's hard to imagine where you might even get that idea. See above.

Would you know it if you wouldn't be able to perceive? Explain to me how you could have come to that knowledge without perception.

The life that we are also exists in moss, antelopes, platypii and traffic wardens. Their perceptions of reality change according to their evolutionary needs, all to the end of breeding and surviving. We're lucky that we in particular are in human form and have a far greater breadth of communication skills which allow us to discover, measure and discuss the reality around us. We know much more about many aspects of a blind fish's environment than it does. That fish's perception of reality has nothing to do with how reality is.

I'm not saying that perception isn't part of the individual's toolbox, you'd be hard put to find somebody who denied that (drag racing threads excepted). What you're erroneously doing is saying that reality is only what one can perceive which is patent nonsense. The blind fish doesn't know what lies above the ocean. Without tools we can't tell what the blind fish perceives electronically, yet both the sky and EMF are real. We know because we've observed and measured them. If I went blind and deaf tomorrow reality would continue even if it was beyond my immediate perceptive abilities.

 

[doctorrg]

I can perceive indirect evidence as well as direct evidence. How is this relevant to this thread?

There are a lot of arguments that aren't directly related to the thread. I've made one post addressing something that had been said and have since only responded to where people have quoted me. What is wrong with that? It takes at least two, doesn't it?

Evidence varies in quality, some of it conclusive and some not. Nobody has managed to produce conclusive evidence of the existence of god so one might argue that god does not exist based on lack of evidence (perception), a statement I would agree with.

I, for one, don't have a good understanding of what God actually is.

Yes we do. If one person says they see a Sky Fairy we disbelieve them. When we collectively observe something which is observable by the masses then we can know that it exists.

Yes, we can. But still, what we understand to be perceiving is bound by our perception, or is it not?

You're confusing language with objectivity. We might well call them seagulls, wardrobes or dandelions but, in a common language framework, we can still continue to observe and explain their properties.

It's not about naming, it's about how we perceive reality, as human beings.

That framework which we collectively observe is reality, you can remove the individual from that entirely insofar as a single person's reality has to be replicable and observable to be accepted fact.

Reality, yes. Not to be confused with Reality in itself, i.e. reality as it is, outside of our perception. Our entire framework is not reality as it is, it is reality as we perceive and understand it.

That's complete rubbish, it's hard to imagine where you might even get that idea. See above.

Huh? What's complete rubbish? Are you saying reality as we perceive and understand it is reality as it really is? If so, how can you be sure?

The life that we are also exists in moss, antelopes, platypii and traffic wardens. Their perceptions of reality change according to their evolutionary needs, all to the end of breeding and surviving.

Again, I am making a distinction between Reality and Reality in itself. The latter is as it exists outside of our perception. Our reality necessarily is a reality bound by our perception, how could it not be? Reality is what we generally understand as such. You did notice this distinction? It's the more classical distinction of Phenomena and Noumena. Our reality is Phenomena.

We're lucky that we in particular are in human form and have a far greater breadth of communication skills which allow us to discover, measure and discuss the reality around us. We know much more about many aspects of a blind fish's environment than it does. That fish's perception of reality has nothing to do with how reality is.

So the fish's perception of reality has nothing to do with how reality is, but our perception of reality does? Our reality is shaped by how we perceive reality. Reality as it is is something entirely different.

I'm not saying that perception isn't part of the individual's toolbox, you'd be hard put to find somebody who denied that (drag racing threads excepted). What you're erroneously doing is saying that reality is only what one can perceive which is patent nonsense.

That is complete and utter nonsense. Please don't put words into my mouth.

The blind fish doesn't know what lies above the ocean. Without tools we can't tell what the blind fish perceives electronically, yet both the sky and EMF are real. We know because we've observed and measured them. If I went blind and deaf tomorrow reality would continue even if it was beyond my immediate perceptive abilities.

If human civilization would vanish, tell me who this framework of ours still held any meaning to.


I believe I need to better clarify one point in particular:

I've said: "Molecules itself is an entirely human concept. We have no reason to believe Molecules exist in reality itself. Something exists which we have understood to be molecules."

You did read here that I've said something exists, something outside of what we consider the human mind, that we have come to understand as Molecules.

The same cannot be said for Sky Fairies.

Molecules are a part of Reality, Sky Fairies aren't.

Neither are part of reality in itself, as both, Molecules and Sky Fairies are a part of how we, human beings, perceive and understand reality.

 

[TenEightyOne]

What you're erroneously doing is saying that reality is only what one can perceive which is patent nonsense.

That is complete and utter nonsense. Please don't put words into my mouth.

Reality, yes. Not to be confused with Reality in itself, i.e. reality as it is, outside of our perception. Our entire framework is not reality as it is, it is reality as we perceive and understand it.

Hmmm.

If human civilization would vanish, tell me who this framework of ours still held any meaning to.

Nobody. So what? I'm not sure how this is contributing to is there a God, you don't really understand God (as you've said) so perhaps you should concentrate on that point rather than twisting your knickers even further?

 

[doctorrg]

Hmmm.

To clarify, I've never said that reality is only what one can perceive. That's just nonsense. Reality, or what we consider to be our reality, is shaped by our perception. Surely, that's fundamentally different to saying reality is only what one can perceive, no? If you think I've said "reality is only what one can perceive", please point it out to me, as this:

"Reality, yes. Not to be confused with Reality in itself, i.e. reality as it is, outside of our perception. Our entire framework is not reality as it is, it is reality as we perceive and understand it."

Says no such thing.

Nobody. So what?

So does our reality still exist if human civilization vanishes? Do molecules still exist? Or does something exist we understood to be molecules?

I'm not sure how this is contributing to is there a God, you don't really understand God (as you've said) so perhaps you should concentrate on that point rather than twisting your knickers even further?

To quote myself:

There are a lot of arguments that aren't directly related to the thread. I've made one post addressing something that had been said and have since only responded to where people have quoted me. What is wrong with that? It takes at least two, doesn't it?

 

[Beeblebrox237]

There are a lot of arguments that aren't directly related to the thread. I've made one post addressing something that had been said and have since only responded to where people have quoted me. What is wrong with that? It takes at least two, doesn't it?

I dunno, I assumed that if you posted in here your argument would be relevant to the thread topic. Is that so unreasonable?

 

[doctorrg]

I dunno, I assumed that if you posted in here your argument would be relevant to the thread topic. Is that so unreasonable?

I dunno, I didn't expect people to take one of the things I've said out of context and run with it. Is it so unreasonable for me to run along?

 

[Beeblebrox237]

I dunno, I didn't expect people to take one of the things I've said out of context and run with it. Is it so unreasonable for me to run along?

If you say something stupid we're going to point it out. And we're going to want to know how it fits into your argument. Now let's get back on topic or end this pointless discussion.

 

[Denur]

You seem to be admitting I am right and wrong at the same time.

No, I'm saying that you're right about one thing and wrong about another.

 

[doctorrg]

If you say something stupid we're going to point it out. And we're going to want to know how it fits into your argument. Now let's get back on topic or end this pointless discussion.

No, let's get back to what you proclaim is stupid. Obviously, I didn't say anything I consider stupid, so what exactly do you consider stupid and why?

Let me just re-address that very first sentence of mine you've quoted, and decided to post a thermometer in response (naturally, that's not at all stupid, that's umm... so clever).

I've said: "How do we know of these properties?", i.e. the fundamental properties a fire has.

My point being that there is absolutely no way to explain your knowledge of these fundamental properties without involving perception. There just isn't.

Now explain to me again how you find it in you to deem this "stupid"?

 

[JKgo]

 

[Dotini]

View attachment 386755

Due to an extended discussion on the nature of reality and how it is perceived and described, the question on the belief in god has been temporarily thrown into well-justifed confusion. This is a good thing.

Another good thing is this article on religion and modernity in an academic analysis of Game of Thrones.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...eligion-is-dead-just-look-at-game-of-thrones/
"We all live in Westeros now."

What academics loftily call “the secularization thesis” is by now so dead it is almost disrespectful to speak ill of it. Here are its contours: Back in modernity, it was taken for granted that religion would gradually die away, replaced by the logical matters of reason and politics, something we should have managed by now. As we became more enlightened, we’d obviously become less religious, right?

But here we are in the 21st century, and religion shows few signs of slowing. People channeling and claiming the raw power of the gods is barely even surprising anymore. ISIS, for instance, is just our backdrop.

North Americans have an entertaining habit of working out our anxieties about religion on TV. And this season of “Game of Thrones” is as great a catharsis as secularization zealots can hope for.

 

[Imari]

Molecules itself is an entirely human concept. We have no reason to believe Molecules exist in reality itself. Something exists which we have understood to be molecules.

Now you're just talking semantics and dribble.

We have every reason to believe that there are things very like molecules. They're a useful concept that very accurately predicts behaviour of chemical compounds. We can infer their existence from chemical behaviours. We can detect them. We can see them, with specialised equipment. We touch them every single day of our lives.

You need to go back to Plato's Cave, and realise that we don't need to see things directly in order to infer accurate statements about their properties.

I've said: "How do we know of these properties?", i.e. the fundamental properties a fire has.

My point being that there is absolutely no way to explain your knowledge of these fundamental properties without involving perception. There just isn't.

Now explain to me again how you find it in you to deem this "stupid"?

Because it's circular logic. You're saying "but you have to use perception to perceive things". Well, duh.

Unless you're going somewhere with this, then it's a completely pointless statement. At least SCJ went for the whole "everyone has their own universe" subjective thing. You've made this statement, now tell everyone what it means.

Reality, or what we consider to be our reality, is shaped by our perception.

Define "shaped". Does objective reality change based on our perception? Is the wavelength of a beam of light different depending on who looks at it?

I'd like to request that we use sensible terms here: "reality" is objective reality, "perceptual reality" is whatever you perceive objective reality to be. I'm not sure that you're not using the word "reality" to describe both.

 

[huskeR32]

Objective is what we call a reality we have understood to share. This doesn't make it any less subjective, it merely makes it verified. Objective reality isn't really anything but verified subjective reality.

Nonsense. Objectivity is not a degree of subjectivity; it's not a measure of the validity of a subjective idea.

Objectivity and subjectivity are entirely different (and I would argue mutually exclusive) things.

That fire exists is objective. That it produces heat is objective. That it requires oxygen and a fuel source is objective. We can safely say that those are all true, because they're properties of the object, able to be observed and verified by anybody that cares to.

That fire feels "hot" is subjective. We can't unequivocally say that it's true, because it's a property assigned to the fire by the subject (the observer). It's not something that can be verified by another observer (though they may both end up drawing the same subjective conclusion).

--

Has no one told you the production or establishment of objectivity is a refining process from subjectivity, and it is the only process whereby it can be established?
Therefore it is established, and considered objective, by subjective means.
So as said earlier, objectivity is never 100% pure.

More nonsense. I suspect you're trying so hard to label everything as subjective because everything about your god (and all gods) is subjective, and you want to bring all other knowledge down to the same level and muddy the waters up. Stop it.

There are heaps and heaps of objective evidence for things like evolution and the big bang.

There is nothing but subjective evidence for god(s).

If you want to have meaningful discussion, then you need to come to grips with that, and proceed accordingly. Misusing and redefining words doesn't get anything accomplished.

 

[BobK]

Is the wavelength of a beam of light different depending on who looks at it?

Yes, if they're moving at different velocities.

 

[dylansan]

This thread has taken quite a turn.

My two cents:

We percieve a lot of things. We could assume that these things have no relation to each other and that things like logic don't exist, at which point boogie woogie purple cow ukulele marscarpone. We would then have no reason to do anything in particular, because "reasons" for things don't exist. There is no cause and effect. It would be very freeing.

On the other hand, we could notice that some observations seem to be related to each other, like dropping a ball, and the ball falling. We come up with ideas, tools that allow us to make predictions about future observation based on ones we have now. These tools are called 'knowledge', and they're very useful. And importantly it doesn't matter if you think other people share the same existence as you, or if they have the same knowledge, or if they exist at all. But it's useful to consider them as such because it allows you to make predictions about their behavior.

Of course, there's no guarantee the world I live in is logical at all. Of the two options, it could be that it's the former, but just looks like the latter. Luckily, since the former requires no particular action to make the best of it, I can choose to live as if the universe is the latter, logically connected kind, and I get to feel like I know things without precluding the possibility that I don't know anything and that knowledge doesn't exist.

The takeaway from all this is that "objective" is all the stuff that makes predictions you can test, like dropping a ball and seeing if it falls. "subjective" is all the stuff that doesn't make predictions, or makes predictions you can't test, like "volcanic eruptions are caused by angry gods." Some statements, like "the universe began with a big bang" do not inherently contain a testable prediction but allow us to make predictions because the phenomenon described requires other, testable outcomes, like the existence of background radiation, and the discovery that galaxies are moving away from each other.

How many of these things can you test with your own observation? Well, it's unlikely you could even build your way to a pre-quantum, pre-relativaty perspective of physics in an entire lifetime if you relied on only your own observations. But luckily there's another piece of knowledge that helps. The knowledge that scientists are discovering things and that these discoveries are being used to make correct predictions, means it doesn't take a leap of faith to conclude that the knowledge they're revealing is trustworthy. You can, of course test many of their observations first hand. Anyone in a physics field has done this with many interesting experiments already.

That was more than two cents, for sure. I guess I'm more generous than I thought when donating opinions.

 

[doctorrg]

Now you're just talking semantics and dribble.

I don't think so. I believe I'm addressing the fundamental nature of reality, which I believe to be highly relevant in any discussion about God.

We have every reason to believe that there are things very like molecules.

Very like? Do molecules exist outside of what we perceive and understand, or don't they? No doubt, something exists, something we understand as molecules based on how we perceive and understand, but that isn't my issue here.

They're a useful concept that very accurately predicts behaviour of chemical compounds.

Completely agree.

We can infer their existence from chemical behaviours. We can detect them. We can see them, with specialised equipment. We touch them every single day of our lives.

No doubt we perceive them, even if not directly, but does that mean molecules exist outside of what we perceive and understand?

You need to go back to Plato's Cave, and realise that we don't need to see things directly in order to infer accurate statements about their properties.

I think you may be misunderstanding my use of the phrase reality in itself. Don't go back to Plato's Cave, better have a look at Kant instead.

I do not doubt the reality of molecules, I know molecules exist within our reality. But within our reality, not within reality in itself.

Because it's circular logic. You're saying "but you have to use perception to perceive things". Well, duh.

Then why seemingly argue it?

Unless you're going somewhere with this, then it's a completely pointless statement. At least SCJ went for the whole "everyone has their own universe" subjective thing. You've made this statement, now tell everyone what it means.

Huh? In how is what SCJ went with relevant here? And what statement in particular? My first recent input into this thread was me agreeing with the following: "Humans are limited to directly examining only their perception, this much is true."

So? Is this not true? Do we accept it as true? Do molecules exist within reality in itself? Or are molecules merely a part of our reality?

Define "shaped".

Molecules are what they are because we understand reality as we do. Molecules do not have some transcendant existence outside of our reality, outside of reality as we perceive and understand it.

Does objective reality change based on our perception?

If our perceptive apparatus was fundamentally different, then I'd say what we consider to be objective reality would be fundamentally different, yes.

Unless you believe objective reality to refer to something airy fairy transcendant? I don't. "Objective" has only meaning within our reality, i.e. the one we perceive and understand.

Is the wavelength of a beam of light different depending on who looks at it?

You need to ask?

I'd like to request that we use sensible terms here: "reality" is objective reality, "perceptual reality" is whatever you perceive objective reality to be. I'm not sure that you're not using the word "reality" to describe both.

If with "reality" and "objective reality" you are referring to some airy fairy transcendant thing, then I have indeed used a different terminology than you have. To me, objective reality is the part of subjective reality that is verifiable.

But to better explain my use of certain words:

Subjective reality: My own experience. May or may not be verifiable. May or may not be equivalent with objective reality.
Objective reality: The part of my very own reality that is considered to be verifiable. Still, it resides within what we perceive and understand.
Reality: Used synonymously with Objective reality. Refers to reality as we perceive and understand it. Note: It refers to Reality as we perceieve and understand it. It does not refer to our perception, but to reality as it is perceived and understood. But yes, it does refer to something I believe to exist solely within human perception and understanding. Naturally, not an individual's perception, but our framework of understanding the world.
Reality in itself: Some airy fairy notion of something that exists in itself, irrespective of how we perceieve and understand it. We simply need this in order to make any sense of the world.

Does this better explain my use of the words?

Nonsense. Objectivity is not a degree of subjectivity; it's not a measure of the validity of a subjective idea.

Where did I say that?

Objectivity and subjectivity are entirely different (and I would argue mutually exclusive) things.

I simply cannot agree here. Just because something is subjective doesn't mean it's mutually exclusive from being objective.

That fire exists is objective. That it produces heat is objective. That it requires oxygen and a fuel source is objective. We can safely say that those are all true, because they're properties of the object, able to be observed and verified by anybody that cares to.

I'd agree. Yet, that fire exists and is hot I can subjectively confirm. It is a subjective reality to me that fire exists and is hot, a subjective reality that can be verified. As such, it is part of what we consider to be objective reality. It doesn't mean it somehow transcends subjectivity, though. Objective reality is merely the part of my subjective reality that can be verified.

That fire feels "hot" is subjective. We can't unequivocally say that it's true, because it's a property assigned to the fire by the subject (the observer). It's not something that can be verified by another observer (though they may both end up drawing the same subjective conclusion).

That the fire is hot is a part of my subjective reality. It's also a part of what I call objective reality, exactly because it is verifiable.

 

[Imari]

Yes, if they're moving at different velocities.

Burn.

Damn, you got me there. Fair enough, poor example.

 

[BobK]

This whole discussion of perception and reality, objectivity vs subjectivity, is all very interesting and worth further discussion but it's getting pretty far afield from the primary topic of this thread. Would any of the principals involved care to start a separate thread on it?

Actually, I think I general philosophy thread could be useful; I'm rather surprised we don't have one already.

 

[doctorrg]

This whole discussion of perception and reality, objectivity vs subjectivity, is all very interesting and worth further discussion but it's getting pretty far afield from the primary topic of this thread. Would any of the principals involved care to start a separate thread on it?

Actually, I think I general philosophy thread could be useful; I'm rather surprised we don't have one already.

Yeah, fair enough, but at the same time it's fundamentally relevant. But I guess we could argue it elsewhere, make sure we all understand what we mean when we say certain things, and then talk about God. I, for one, can't address God before certain other things have been made clear.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

No. I'm saying that you are incapable of imagining the universe as anything other than what you believe it to be.

As I have explained before, my perspective is not of a imaginary basis, except in what can be considered a gap between the "without" and "within" positions.

If I explain to you how I see the universe, you immediately twist that to incorporate your own beliefs.

Well yes and no depending on interpretation.

You say that, but there's evidence aplenty to the contrary.

Perhaps.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one.

I already gave you one, I think therefore I am.

OK, concerning this, please explain to me how and why, this is not a "belief".

A perception of what?

A perception of cognizant ability or empowerment.
And in fact more than that.

You didn't fill in any blanks. Here, I'll repost the post for you again, because you obviously didn't read it the first time.

I'm not arguing against the proposition of trying to establish reality through objectivity as the best fundamental approach to a factual subjectively minimized representation.

I'm just pointing out the obvious implications of having to do it, via subjective perception.

There is no fundamental rule of reality. Reality is what it is.

Agreed.
"fundamental reality"

Belief, Objective, Subjective, Choice are just words. Words we use to communicate. If we do not attribute the same meaning to these words, communication will fail. Before we can sensibly use these words in communication, we must first agree on what each of these words mean.

What exactly do these words mean to you?

Belief: something believed;
Assent to a proposition or affirmation, or the acceptance of a fact, opinion, or assertion as real or true without immediate personal knowledge.
The feeling of being certain that something exists or is true.
Conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.
Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.

Objective: Being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective ).
Of or relating to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

(In reality however, due to perception being required for the establishment and separation of these defining specifics, it is legitimately questionable that these objective definitions can be satisfied in a pure, and complete way,
even though as has been pointed out the Scientific Method does go to great lenghts in attempting to do so.)

Subjective: Existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought
(opposed to objective ).
Pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual.

(One thing to note here, all perceptions exist in the mind, and can further be claimed to belong to the subject)

Choice: An act or instance of choosing; selection.
The right, power, or opportunity to choose; option.

I thought I would go with definitions here, since I am continually being accused of redefining everything.
However I am confident they will be poked, prodded, and stretched to the limit before we are done.

So only you can understand your arguments and we're too "carnal" to comprehend. Well, why didn't you say so in the first place? I totally believe you now that you've insulted me and made it even clearer that you have no concept of logic.

Sorry about the circumstances.
This maybe the first time I agreed that someone was right and it was taken as an insult.

 

[doctorrg]

Belief: something believed;
Assent to a proposition or affirmation, or the acceptance of a fact, opinion, or assertion as real or true without immediate personal knowledge.
The feeling of being certain that something exists or is true.
Conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.
Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.

Objective: Being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective ).
Of or relating to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

(In reality however, due to perception being required for the establishment and separation of these defining specifics, it is legitimately questionable that these objective definitions can be satisfied in a pure, and complete way,
even though as has been pointed out the Scientific Method does go to great lenghts in attempting to do so.)

Subjective: Existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought
(opposed to objective ).
Pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual.

(One thing to note here, all perceptions exist in the mind, and can further be claimed to belong to the subject)

Choice: An act or instance of choosing; selection.
The right, power, or opportunity to choose; option.

I thought I would go with definitions here, since I am continually being accused of redefining everything.
However I am confident they will be poked, prodded, and stretched to the limit before we are done.

Well, I can't really address this any further without straying too far off topic, so I'm not going to. Maybe in a different thread. The one thing I'd like to say, though, is that common sense definitions aren't necessarily meaningful in what essentially is a philosophical debate. Not that I think it should require pointing out.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Would you say that if you put your hand into the fire you believe you'd get burnt? Or would you say you know you'd get burnt? Or is it all the same to you?

Well let me ask you something.
Is there any logical legitimate way you can say "I know I will get burnt" and then say "But I don't believe I will get burnt?

I, for one, don't have a good understanding of what God actually is.

God is a spirit.

Nonsense. Objectivity is not a degree of subjectivity; it's not a measure of the validity of a subjective idea.

But yet it is still dependant on subjective perspective.

Objectivity and subjectivity are entirely different (and I would argue mutually exclusive) things.

At least concievably they are supposed to be.

That fire exists is objective. That it produces heat is objective. That it requires oxygen and a fuel source is objective. We can safely say that those are all true, because they're properties of the object, able to be observed and verified by anybody that cares to.

I can't argue that isn't the case.

That fire feels "hot" is subjective. We can't unequivocally say that it's true, because it's a property assigned to the fire by the subject (the observer). It's not something that can be verified by another observer (though they may both end up drawing the same subjective conclusion).

Oh I don't know, I would venture you could get a unanimous conclusion on that, which would support objectivity.

More nonsense. I suspect you're trying so hard to label everything as subjective because everything about your god (and all gods) is subjective, and you want to bring all other knowledge down to the same level and muddy the waters up. Stop it.

The waters are already muddied up.
Apparently, you don't realize that.

There are heaps and heaps of objective evidence for things like evolution and the big bang.

If you want to have meaningful discussion, then you need to come to grips with that, and proceed accordingly. Misusing and redefining words doesn't get anything accomplished.

Well if you can tell me, when subjected to Scientific method, how many evolutional species changes were observed, perhaps I can come to grips with the lack of objective evidence on my side.

Well, I can't really address this any further without straying too far off topic, so I'm not going to. Maybe in a different thread. The one thing I'd like to say, though, is that common sense definitions aren't necessarily meaningful in what essentially is a philosophical debate. Not that I think it should require pointing out.

Forgive me, but that begs the question, why did you ask?
It is certainly relevant to the discussion.
As far as common sense definitions, you have to start somewhere.

 

[KSaiyu]

I'll be honest, it's a definite maybe from me.

 

[doctorrg]

Forgive me, but that begs the question, why did you ask?
It is certainly relevant to the discussion.

It's not that I didn't want to know, but apparently it's off topic. I'm just sick of the hypocrisy in here (and I'm not referring to you here), and have simply lost my appetite for debate.

 

[Imari]

Well if you can tell me, when subjected to Scientific method, how many evolutional species changes were observed, perhaps I can come to grips with the lack of objective evidence on my side.

I don't know the exact number, but it's greater than one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

MUCH greater than one if you count all the things that have evolved through selective breeding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution

But there's an entire thread about this. Don't let actual information get in the way of what you want to believe.

 

[Danoff]

Jesus is responsible for the commandments / covenant to the Jews in the OT. Without it, the birth of Jesus wouldn't be possible.

Holy trinity, Jesus is responsible for all of it.

Secondly, God is love, so likewise, if you are love, and if wickedness or evil came to take away your own family, you would do whatever to destroy it before it destroyed your family, right? Simple yes or no.

Turn the other cheek? What would Jesus do?

The bible has never made such claims of an easter bunny. Again, you prove the bible right by mocking. You go boy.

We have very different notions of what the word "prove" means.

 

[GBO Possum]

I found the post you quoted (your own) to be incoherent. The entire thing was, to me, meaningless.

As I have explained before, my perspective is not of a imaginary basis, except in what can be considered a gap between the "without" and "within" positions.

More incoherency?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Don't let actual information get in the way of what you want to believe.

I don't know about belief, but it definitely doesn't get in the way of reality.
BTW I stipulated species changes, not specious changes.

But there's an entire thread about this.

Right you are, so perhaps we should let it go at that.

More incoherency?

What can I say, I must have a knack for it.

**********************************************************************************

@DCP Hey brother, I just want to run a check on something.

Do you find what I am saying to be incoherent?