vaxx:
how will you translate this word of yours ''subjectivity can unearth objective truths'' hopefullanlord

its self explanatory and not in anyway confusing so I'm surprised you interpreted it the way you did

I'll try to explain and break it down as much as I could

before science discovered malaria, was it objectively existing? of course yes but humans had no idea, they just notice themselves falling sick and dying shortly after, they kept sacrificing to gods thinking the sickness is spiritual

Science eventually discovered what it is and much later, made a cure for it

Now, while the humans of those days thought their knowledge that the infection is spiritual is objective in their own "subjective" view, it did not in anyway change/invalidate the fact that its not spiritual

Same way that people then assert the moon created light on its own did not change the objectivity that the moon relies on the sun to reflect (not create) light

in the same vein, a tree that fell in the wilderness has fallen whether an observer is there or not

subjectivity does NOT in anyway affect objectivity one bit


I hope you get my point now

Humanistme:


invalidate and unearth don't mean the same thing na haba!

no two words of grammar are the same, i never said so.....but in this contest ,they mean the same thing....

look at the contest in which he use it''subjectivity can unearth objective truths BUT even when it hasn't it doesn't make the objective truth any less objective''

hopefulLandlord:


its self explanatory and not in anyway confusing so I'm surprised you interpreted it the way you did

I'll try to explain and break it down as much as I could

before science discovered malaria, was it objectively existing? of course yes but humans had no idea, they just notice themselves falling sick and dying shortly after, they kept sacrificing to gods thinking the sickness is spiritual

Science eventually discovered what it is and much later, made a cure for it

Now, while the humans of those days thought their knowledge that the infection is spiritual is objective in their own "subjective" view, it did not in anyway change/invalidate the fact that its not spiritual

Same way that people then assert the moon created light on its own did not change the objectivity that the moon relies on the sun to reflect (not create) light

in the same vein, a tree the fell in the wilderness has fallen whether an observer is there or not

Objectivity does NOT in anyway affect objectivity one bit


I hope you get my point now

subjectivity does not affect objectivity you mean?

butterflyl1on:


Very true.

Let me further buttress your point here. How can anyone CONCOCT a story of a fallen tree if it never even fell?

If there was no observer or hearer of this said tree that fell how did the objective declaration that a tree fell regardless of a viewer or listener begin?

Just like you said, this objective position is self refuting and a baseless logic.

Awesome Sir. The can be no objective declaration about that tree. I humbly make my merger contribution to the fallen tree below;

Unfortunately the Atheists have lost it all again. Better luck next time dudes ! We cannot hold existence and the perception of existence apart from each other, and so we are forced to form the conclusion that the two are not two in reality but an undivided one.

The thing and the sensation of the thing live in fundamental and inseparable union. That is why there is nothing else but awareness.

Atheists, ask yourself whether that statement will explain all your experience and you will find that it will do so quite adequately. Try, on the other hand, to discover whether the theory of the materialists/Atheists will explain your experience of the world, the theory that there is nothing else but independently existent physical things, and you will find that it does not and cannot explain the existence of thoughts and feelings.
For if you believe that you can put something material into a test-tube, you cannot do the same with thought.

I must therefore be emphatically repeat that a perception is not a mere copy of something external. It is primal and not
secondary.

This should not be overlooked, because it is a key to correct understanding of "mental-ism/spiritualism", which is the doctrine that
all things are mental/spiritual things.

You obviously need to do some research on the topic at hand. You might want to read up on it here.

butterflyl1on:

The declaration from vaxx which I expanded on is that objectivity first begins from subjectivity.

Good. You kept track. I am saying the objective stands in its own right and has nothing to do with the eye of the beholder. This is the opposite of what vaxx said, so I imply vaxx's statement is false.

It is a fact that the universe exists. Vaxx's statement would imply the universe does not exist until an observer exists to say it exists. This is clearly not true. The universe existed long before observers understood the earth was not flat and they cannot fall off its edge.

butterflyl1on:

If objectivity cannot exist on its own without a subjective inclusion then objectivity is redundant and a futile logic since its very foundation is clearly subjectivity.

Objective does exist in its own right. And humans can be objective, hence, objectivity. If a tree fell, a tree fell. That is objective. Surely, when the Christian says that their is a God, they are not being subjective, or are they?

By the way, you simply swept all my responses aside because they do not fit in with your subjective view. Can you try to read it objectively and see if it makes any sense? Can you also post your answers to your questions? Would be interesting to see your stance.

Humanistme:

subjectivity does not affect objectivity you mean?

Yes, my mistake, I'll edit

vaxx:
no two words of grammar are the same, i never said so.....but in this contest ,they mean the same thing....

look at the contest in which he use it''subjectivity can unearth objective truths BUT even when it hasn't it doesn't make the objective truth any less objective''

na wa for you. anyway read his reply he has explained what he meant

Humanistme:


subjectivity does not affect objectivity you mean?

thanks for the correction Sir. But his assumptions are wrong. The truth is that nothing can EXIST without us first becoming aware of it first.

hopefulLandlord:


Its funny how this discourse has gone

vaxx first tried hard to avoid the first question by bringing in "Purpose" and when I showed how it does not follow, he answered No! and when I asked the next question he also tried to strawman by changing the question trying to drag the discussion back to the same "purpose" this time using "Essence"

They are trying hard to stick to their position while it erodes underneath them. It would be comical if it weren't frustrating.

hopefulLandlord:


its self explanatory and not in anyway confusing so I'm surprised you interpreted it the way you did

I'll try to explain and break it down as much as I could

before science discovered malaria, was it objectively existing? of course yes but humans had no idea, they just notice themselves falling sick and dying shortly after, they kept sacrificing to gods thinking the sickness is spiritual

Science eventually discovered what it is and much later, made a cure for it

Now, while the humans of those days thought their knowledge that the infection is spiritual is objective in their own "subjective" view, it did not in anyway change/invalidate the fact that its not spiritual

Same way that people then assert the moon created light on its own did not change the objectivity that the moon relies on the sun to reflect (not create) light

in the same vein, a tree the fell in the wilderness has fallen whether an observer is there or not

Objectivity does NOT in anyway affect objectivity one bit


I hope you get my point now

Fixed!! And gotcha!!!

Let me rephrase your statement in a way you would understand based on the numerous atheist arguments you have been making everywhere.

before man existed and began worshipping God and before the universe began, was God objectively existing? of course yes but humans had no idea, they just notice themselves imagining someone bigger and greater than everything and based on this they began sacrificing to gods in their attempt to reach out to them.

Through the Holy Spirit man eventually discovered that God is real and much later, began receiving directions from him.

Now, while the humans of those days thought their knowledge about gods or God is objective in their own "subjective" view, it did not in anyway change/invalidate the fact that he did exist.

Same way that people then assert the moon created light on its own did not change the objectivity that the moon relies on the sun to reflect (not create) light

in the same vein, a tree the fell in the wilderness has fallen whether an observer is there or not

Objectivity does NOT in anyway affect objectivity one bit


I hope you get my point now!

Regarding the part in bold. Who can prove that a tree fell when they were never there? Who can prove how the tree fell and why? Who can prove when?

Subjectively the real truth we have when we NEVER WITNESS an objective occurrence is it's FOOTPRINTS OR ITS AFTERMATH.

you seem to forget that you are referring to an objective occurrence you never witnessed or heard so how then do you know it even happened?

ScienceWatch:
thanks for the correction Sir. But his assumptions are wrong. The truth is that nothing can EXIST without us first becoming aware of it first.

You mean, it exists only because you are aware of it?
You funny, dude. Smh

budaatum:
You mean, it exists only because you are aware of it? You funny, dude. Smh

honestly, I admire your patience

budaatum:
You obviously need to do some research on the topic at hand. You might want to read up on it here.


Good. You kept track. I am saying the objective stands in its own right and has nothing to do with the eye of the beholder. This is the opposite of what vaxx said, so I imply vaxx's statement is false.

It is a fact that the universe exists. Vaxx's statement would imply the universe does not exist until an observer exists to say it exists. This is clearly not true. The universe existed long before observers understood the earth was not flat and they cannot fall off its edge.


Objective does exist in its own right. ANJnd humans can be objective, hence, objectivity. If a tree fell, a tree fell. That is objective. Surely, when the Christian says that their is a God, they are not being subjective, or are they?

By the way, you simply swept all my responses aside because they do not fit in with your subjective view. Can you try to read it objectively and see if it makes any sense? Can you also post your answers to your questions? Would be interesting to see your stance.

Let me let you in on a little secret.

Unknown to you atheists here your arguments are simply VALIDATING theism and the existence of God regardless of our view or input.

I suggest you put your arguments side by side with my observation above

When you guys want so badly to win arguments you NEVER KNOW when you skip over to theistic arguments just to defend your atheistic positions.

Congratulations guys, you just sucker punched yourselves LMAO.

budaatum:

You mean, it exists only because you are aware of it?
You funny, dude. Smh

Does God exist even if you are not aware of his existence?

I expect a straight YES answer based on your above comment and arguments

Humanistme:


na wa for you. anyway read his reply he has explained what he meant

what do you mean by nah wah for you ?

budaatum:

You mean, it exists only because you are aware of it?
You funny, dude. Smh

If you calm down, I will explain seriously. No funny o. Here you will quickly see why Atheists battle to understand the awsome reality of the invisible.

We can see that the notion of a tree existing independently of the mind to which it is present is a pure fiction. The perception of the tree is nothing less than the tree itself.
If any other tree exists separately and materially is utterly beyond our range of possible knowledge and must therefore be ignored if we are to deal with scientifically ascertained facts rather than uncertain assumptions.

The tree is a construct in our own consciousness. Its being is being known. There are not two trees, a material one and a mental copy of it.
There is only one. The image which is immediately before consciousness is the tree itself. It is so vivid, so perfect and so convincingly stamped with the characteristic of objectivity that we do not stop with merely seeing i t : we go on to infer that it is
nothing less than the independent tree itself and refuse to believe otherwise.

The TREE which is known by the our own senses is none other than the perception which is known by the mind/spirit.

hopefulLandlord:


honestly, I admire your patience

Because of his patience and humility he will receive his reward from me now. While you wallow in your pride. He will certainly move on while your look in admiration.

JacksonD7:
Religion As A Pillar Of Society

According to legend, Rome was founded by Romulus. A distant descendant of Aeneas, who sailed the Mediterranean with a tiny band of survivors after the fall of Troy. These survivors settled at Latium, where they established a settlement and intermingled with the Latin population.

After defeating a tyrant King and learning of their royal heritage, Romulus and his twin brother Remus decided to found a city in the land where they were raised. A heated argument broke out between the brother's regarding the naming of the city. After a bloody duel, Romulus triumphed killing his twin brother.

Romulus and his followers worked to organize the government of the newly created city. One of the first things Romulus did was to establish the religious rights of Rome.

Romulus identified a constellation of gods and set a rough spiritual course for his tribe, before advertising Rome as an asylum for all men to start a new life.

Lacking women, that Romans waged war and made deals with their neighbours to acquire wives for themselves, thereby ensuring the survival of Rome.

The creation story of Rome makes it clear that religion and family are two fundamental pillars of society. There is no civilization that has or can exist properly, without these foundational pillars.

Every human being with the ability to think and reason is religious. Any misguided atheistic attempt at destroying religion, is nothing more than an attack on the pillars of civilization.

Wise, rational minds build instead of destroy civilizations. Barbarians on the other hand burnt down Rome.

Thanks once again. Atheists burnt down Rome !

Budaatum and hopefullandlord why did you guys scamper off like little rats when caught in this trap ?

Come back and answer my question o.

hopefulLandlord:


its self explanatory and not in anyway confusing so I'm surprised you interpreted it the way you did

I'll try to explain and break it down as much as I could

before science discovered malaria, was it objectively existing? of course yes but humans had no idea, they just notice themselves falling sick and dying shortly after, they kept sacrificing to gods thinking the sickness is spiritual

Science eventually discovered what it is and much later, made a cure for it

Now, while the humans of those days thought their knowledge that the infection is spiritual is objective in their own "subjective" view, it did not in anyway change/invalidate the fact that its not spiritual

Same way that people then assert the moon created light on its own did not change the objectivity that the moon relies on the sun to reflect (not create) light

in the same vein, a tree that fell in the wilderness has fallen whether an observer is there or not

subjectivity does NOT in anyway affect objectivity one bit


I hope you get my point now

i only interpret it the way you construct your sentences

this is a flaw analogy... why ?objectivity is a general acceptance about a particular phenomenon, so if they are novice of malaria in the olden days , how those it make it objective acceptance.... you can only accept what you know.... the objective evidence in the olden days was that the sickness is spiritual ......that is the popular vote but that does not mean it is true ...

may be i should give you two distinct characteristics of objective and subjective evidence


objective evidence does not vary, subjective evidence vary

objective evidence is base on general held believe why subjective is solely base on individual opinion

whatever the general populace ever agree in the olden days was their objective evidence until subjective evidence came to unearth it as you rightly put it....


What am letting you know is we can never know objectively if we perceive definitions of an object in the same way. We don’t share the same mind. We can only look at things subjectively and make conjectures ... x=y. whatever the two equivalencies are. It’s a subjective agreement between humans that we don’t question, so we say it is objective

let me ask you these question, even with the emergence of science and technology .....Is there anything that we all assume is the same thing? Is there anything that no one has a question about?

vaxx:
this is a flaw analogy... why ?objectivity is a general opinion about a particular phenomenon,

This is where your problem is, this is where you're getting it all wrong

@ BudaAtum

For the sake of simplicity, let us create an objection: "Here am I with direct experience of a fallen tree which lies outside me in space, separate from me, which I can pick up and grasp in my hand, finding it to be solid, weighty and hard. How then can you expect me to believe that it is merely an idea in my mind ?"

To this the reply is that this doctrine spiritual/mentalism must not be misunderstood to mean that it is asserted that the fallen tree is not directly present to our vision. It most obviously is present. Its very immediacy disarms us.

We have got to grasp this scientifically verifiable truth that the perceived fallen tree is not less rounded and weighty and coloured and useful than the supposedly-existent material tree, despite the fact that the former is a mental construct. The mind/spirit is involved in all our experience of the world and we have found that sensation, so far from being a purely passive and receptive process, is creative and even projective.

But we are so impressed by the sensations of solidness which we receive from the things around us, and so deceived by the sensations of distance and position which we receive from their relations to each other and to our eyes, that we habitually underrate the tremendously suggestive and creative force of mind.

We are almost totally ignorant of the proven and provable fact that mental images can assume size, shape, length, height, breadth, solidity, relief, perspective, weight, colour and other qualities that we usually associate with external objects.
They can provide all these sensations with perfect vividness and with all the actuality of ordinary experience. And yet they remain
nothing more than ideas !

Now we know that the fallen tree can only EXIST because we became aware of it. Now for us it is real. That is why God dont exist for the unbeliever even if he is real.

hopefulLandlord:


This is where your problem is, this is where you're getting it all wrong

there is use of internet, how do understand things in one direction... why dont you have an open mind

vaxx:
there is use of internet, how do understand things in one direction... why dont you have an open mind

your definition of objectivity isn't right

butterflyl1on:




Let me let you in on a little secret.

Unknown to you atheists here your arguments are simply VALIDATING theism and the existence of God regardless of our view or input.

I suggest you put your arguments side by side with my observation above

When you guys want so badly to win arguments you NEVER KNOW when you skip over to theistic arguments just to defend your atheistic positions.

Congratulations guys, you just sucker punched yourselves LMAO.

you are a good observer

that is why hopefullanlord disagree when i said general acceptance of a phenomenon is the objective while subjective evidence is solely base on individual acceptance ....

this is what i assume may pop up on his mind, majority of the world believes in GOD ... that make it an objective evidence....

for him to reject this acceptance, he will have to treat objective evidence as fact which is clearly wrong

butterflyl1on:




Let me let you in on a little secret.

Unknown to you atheists here your arguments are simply VALIDATING theism and the existence of God regardless of our view or input.

Oh listen to yourself.

If you cared to notice, I said so myself, but you managed to disregard the argument involved and posited the counter to it which in effect makes your god a figment of your imagination! Or do you think the about three times I've said so on this thread is in error?

Stick with the discussion. Do not let your religious subjectivity stop you from seeing the objective truth!

hopefulLandlord:


your definition of objectivity isn't right

i get your stand....you are treating objective evidence as fact which is wrong

@BudaAtum

When you say to Vaxx, "You obviously need to do some research on the topic at hand. You might want to read up on it here.
Good. You kept track.
I am saying the objective stands in its own right and has nothing to do with the eye of the beholder. This is the opposite of what vaxx said, so I imply vaxx's statement is false," you can make the needed correction later Sir.

If we consider that the mental experiences are the visible things that we take to be outside us, in this case the fallen tree. The thing itself is admittedly existent, but the character of the thing is what we have now found out and we have found it to be quite other than it is commonly thought to be.

BudaAtum, if you declare as in the bolded Red, that there are two separate facts, the fact of perception/subjectivity and the fact of an objective external material object, you have made a false analysis of sensation. The oneness of both idea and object is a discovery to which the subtle thinking of world religions and the sharp observations of good scientists inescapably lead us.

But this understanding emerges only after the hardest and most rigorous reflection, if one refuse to accept the anceint spiritual doctrines
Once this point is grasped, then one may say to himself: " I am aware of my awareness of this fallen tree," and he will then perceive that he cannot strip the second awareness from the tree in itself; they constitute an indivisible entity. Those who want to divide the facts, the tree known, into a perception of it on one hand, and its material objective substantiate on the other, who make perception a mental act and materialialty a non-mental thing, who challenges mind against matter, fall into a grievous fallacy. This is the downfall of Atheism.

What we can only know about the fallen tree is an idea, what we perceive is not a discovery but a mental construction. Those who deny this put themselves in the predicament of explaining away the inexplicable.

budaatum:

Oh listen to yourself.

If you cared to notice, I said so myself, but you managed to disregard the argument involved and posited the counter to it which in effect makes your god a figment of your imagination! Or do you think the about three times I've said so on this thread is in error?

Stick with the discussion. Do not let your religious subjectivity stop you from seeing the objective truth!

how do you verify the objective truth?

ScienceWatch:
@BudaAtum

When you say to Vaxx, "You obviously need to do some research on the topic at hand. You might want to read up on it here.
Good. You kept track.
I am saying the objective stands in its own right and has nothing to do with the eye of the beholder. This is the opposite of what vaxx said, so I imply vaxx's statement is false," you can make the needed correction later Sir.

If we consider that the mental experiences are the visible things that we take to be outside us, in this case the fallen tree. The thing itself is admittedly existent, but the character of the thing is what we have now found out and we have found it to be quite other than it is commonly thought to be.

BudaAtum, if you declare as in the bolded Red, that there are two separate facts, the fact of perception/subjectivity and the fact of an objective external material object, you have made a false analysis of sensation. The oneness of both idea and object is a discovery to which the subtle thinking of world religions and the sharp observations of good scientists inescapably lead us.

But this understanding emerges only after the hardest and most rigorous reflection, if one refuse to accept the anceint spiritual doctrines
Once this point is grasped, then one may say to himself: " I am aware of my awareness of this fallen tree," and he will then perceive that he cannot strip the second awareness from the tree in itself; they constitute an indivisible entity. Those who want to divide the facts, the tree known, into a perception of it on one hand, and its material objective substantiate on the other, who make perception a mental act and materialialty a non-mental thing, who challenges mind against matter, fall into a grievous fallacy. This is the downfall of Atheism.

What we can only know about the fallen tree is an idea, what we perceive is not a discovery but a mental construction. Those who deny this put themselves in the predicament of explaining away the inexplicable.

i salute your interpretation

butterflyl1on:


Does God exist even if you are not aware of his existence?

I expect a straight YES answer based on your above comment and arguments

No. Gods do not exist. They are subjective creations that do not exist objectively.

And no, you do not get to limit me between your boundaries, especially ones you have failed to comprehend. As I mentioned, because some people call one a pig feed fraud does not make it objectively so!

vaxx:
you are a good observer

that is why hopefullanlord disagree when i said general acceptance of a phenomenon is the objective while subjective evidence is solely base on individual acceptance ....

this is what i assume may pop up on his mind, majority of the world believes in GOD ... that make it an objective evidence....

for him to reject this acceptance, he will have to treat objective evidence as fact which is clearly wrong

You got it spot on. They never knew when they drifted to theism and supporting it with their comments. All this desperation display just to win arguments using anything, even those things which stand against their atheism is pathetic to say the least.