You know God exists. Now thats either true or its not. Your opinion matters.

A prophecy: at this point the empiricist commandeering of the word objective to mean "having the potential to be empirically demonstrated even if it couldn't be, through circumstance, at the time of it's occurrence".

Or some such

robindch wrote: »

Unfortunately, that would require the holder of the subjective view to assert or to make some implicit acknowledgement of their subjectivity and could be forced to abandon it, should it be found to fail the objectivity test.

You mean its subjective only if the holder affirms the view stems from feelings/emotion?. Or failing that, the view fails the objectivity test (whatever that is).

What is the objectivity test?

It's like looking down the two ends of the same empty toilet-roll - from one end, one sees far away (or one could, if it's directed in the right direction), but through the other end, one can only see what's near (assuming one keeps the roll steady and just moves around to see the view through the other end). In this context, near and far would be subjective adjuncts for the concepts of subjectivity and objectivity, though even this lacks somewhat of the finality in the area of objectivity at least.

No idea what that means I'm afraid. I was interested in whether an experience (such as stubbing ones toe without witness) was an objective experience or a subjective one (where subjective = feelings and emotions or smacl's belief and opinion. Such that I need to say next time "Ouch! I believe I've stubbed my toe ... better check the cctv to see whether it caught the event on tape so that I objectively stubbed my toe"

robindch wrote: »

It's the means by which distinguish between subjectivity and objectivity - as a subject, we are inherently subjective, but should that limit our ability to determine whether we are being truly objective?

But we - as fallible beings composed of atoms - are also objects within the physical world, so that suggest that objectivity is possible, at least in principle. And what about the overlap between the two? Can it be the case that one can be subjective while being objective? Or the opposite - can one fail to be subjective while also failing to be objective? This suggest a continuum from complete subjectivity at one end through objective subjectivity, then subjective objectivity and finally coming to complete objectivity.

The truth seems to lie somewhere upon that spectrum, with the position objectively differing for each of us.

Okay. 4 people have a subjective take on a car crash they witness. Or 12 angry men.

But what of their witnessing the fact of a car crash? Did a car crash happen objectively ? And if viewing something alone, such as the million and one things we view alone each day. Did they happen objectively? Say my stubbing my toe.

Smacl seems to have bailed in amswering. Mark still appears to be confusing how his being faced with the assertion a toe was stubbed is not the same as a person faced with stubbing their toe (calling their experience subjective for them because it can't be evidenced to him)

What do you say about your stubbing your toe alone. An objective experience?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I say "Read an intro to philosophy book".

I say answer.

But it appears an answer is loosening the reins on the kind of subjective which is consistently applied to my positon on here

We have seen an expansion from "subjective" (stemming from feelings, emotions, beliefs.. the fuzzier stuff) to "subjective" (the only one present).

It is not clear what the view is regarding this latter subjective (only one present for an event which happens, say stubbing one's toe). Mark appears to think it the former subjective: one believes they stubbed their toe. Or feels they stubbed their toe.

Smacl went silent on the matter of his admiring a womans figure. I'm not sure whether he knows he admired or whether he agrees with Mark, he only believes he admired her figure and that being a belief, he may not have admired her figure at all.

What do you think?

robindch wrote: »

It's partially objective and partially subjective - existing on that spectrum I mentioned above. The physicality of the experience - object impacts object - leading to the objective portion of the event, and the feelings generated creating the subjective portion, at least within the mind of the walker anyway.

It was that objective element I was interested in. One will go 'feck, that hurt, hope its not broken'. The other will call an ambulance. Subjective responses. Both have had an objective experience however: toe met rock and toe was broken.


For physicality of experience I assume you mean objective reality (my toe) encountering objective reality (a raised patio slab)

What I have encountered on here regarding the physicality of experience in relation to God (I, part of objective reality, meets him, part of the objective reality) is the claim that the encounter necessarily lies on the subjective side.

Necessarily is the bit I have a problem with. That is an unsupported step.

To keep things simple, it seems easier to consider the simple case of a human walker and an inanimate rock where there's a single locus of subjectivity, divided over two objects. The case of two people bumping into each other would create two subjective experiences, this complicating the gedankenexperiment.

Depending on the speed of the relative impact and the size, density and hardness of the rock, one would enjoy different subjective experiences extending from objectively subject (were the rock small) and subjectively objective (were the rock large). Seems reasons to assume that were the impact unnoticeable, then the impact would be entirely objective, and were it to lead to the death of the subject or the destruction of the rock (the object), then it would be entirely subjective.

Again you've lost me. Sure, the subjective (defined as emotional, feeling based) would vary depending on size, speed, hardness. But so long as impact detected and shy of the person dying unaware of the impact, the person has had an objective impact.

Mark Hamill wrote:

So I don't have to worship god or do anything to be saved. Therefore god saves people 100% arbitrarily.

Another picture on salvation being of God and you having to do nothing to be saved vs. damnation all of you, a refusal to be brought to belief. Which results in your damnation.

Quint (God) shooting yellow barrels (truth/evidence) into the shark (you).

Quint's aim is to exhaust the will of the shark and bring it to the surface (belief). The shark's will is naturally bent to staying below the surface. To avoid being brought to the surface.

If the sharks will does nothing, the barrels will bring it to the surface.

If the sharks will insists, and despite the pain that must be borne, it can stay submerged. An exercise of will keeps him submerged.

Do nothing and be saved.
Do something and be lost.


The analogy is limited of course. There is nothing about the barrels or surfacing which is attractive to the shark. His nature is as a cat catching mice. No option but to.


The truth is a different matter. The truth is beautiful and the lie is ugly. Although the truth hurts (for who enjoys their ugliness exposed) the person who doesn't suppress the truth is, in effect, acknowledging its beauty. Even of that means pain or difficulty or imconvenience or loss of status.

Truth is an attribute, a characteristic, the essence of God. Since that is what he is about, then insofar as you acknowledge truths supreme value in your life, you are acknowleging, by extension, his supremacy in your life. Whenever you tell or live the truth, as opposed to the lie, you acknowledge your love of God (or if that too difficult to swallow, your love of what he stands for.

We all live the truth and live the lie. We love both. That is the set up of this stage called life. An exposure to both options. And ability to taste both.

The question being asked though, is which will you plump for? That we are attracted to the truth isn't enough. Truth is attractive and so we get no credit for our being attracted. No more than iron filings get credit for being attracted to a magnet.

But if we resist being drawn by truths attractiveness. If we prefer our wills bent, the lie. Well that, being of us, being of our effort, receives due payment. For it is right and good that work and effort is paid for.

The wages of sin is death.

smacl wrote: »

Well pardon me for not amswering

You seem to have difficulty distinguishing an event, e.g. a car crash, and the perception of that event by one or more witnesses. The event is objective. Perception and assertions relating to that event are subjective. As these assertions become supported by additional independent observations and evidence they become proportionally less subjective.

I understand the subjective part " the red car broke the lights" when it didn't

I'm looking at the bit "there was a car crash" . The objective bit. Let's assume an event where nobody else was there.

Such as you admiring a figure and no one noticed you admiring a figure

Context is also important. I see a woman walking down the street, I have no reason to doubt what I have seen as it is a daily occurrence. I stub my toe, curse floridly and limp along, I know what has happened as it is again a common occurrence. I am visited by an omnipotent being who claims to be my lord and master, I question what I have seen. I check the tequila bottle to make sure I haven't inadvertently swallowed the worm. I look for other indicators that I might be unusually stressed, anxious or otherwise delirious. My belief is that something somewhere has snapped and as a result I have become delusional.

We have established that a person has objective experiences sans having to prove it before before deeming it to self as objective.

Now the evaluation stage. The person assesses in light if all available information, including the information supplied by the experience. They decide, in the round, what they consider the case to be. It doesn't matter how fantastical things might appear to someone without access to the same information. That' a matter of scale. Which can be dealt by scale of evidence. If the evidence stitches together such as to accommodate the scale then so be it.

When you have an explantion which posits the condition of mankind, which fits far better than the alternatives then you run with it. Going where the evidence points. This most especially when the evidence of own life (to which we are especially privy) matches the explanation to a T.

What can you do when you have a theory which best fits your observations? But run with it.

Chatting to a friend who's an addiction counselor a while back, he mentioned a number of his clients have demons. His take on it was that these are very real demons, but still entirely subjective and a part of his client's mind. I'd place your god very much in the same category.

No great surprise there. Given the evidence at your disposal. But we aren't talking about how you ought to respond. We are talking about how I ought to respond

And then talking about a leap you make in supposing me deluded. When you more correctly should take an agnostic view.



You too are privy to own life. This needn't produce belief that you are at end of self now, since that conclusion occurs at the end of the process. That doesn't mean you can't take note of self. How promotion of self in subtle and not so subtle ways takes place. How you find there are damaging things you do that you know you shouldn't do but can't seem to help doing. They can be noted. And can be explained away as sourced in other things (such as addictive personality).

No matter. For the process will roll along whatever you do, assessing and evaluating you. It will use your attempts to evade against your self directed way. It will attempt to corner you. To hang you by your own petard ..as it were. To your ultimate benefit of course



For anyone interested in a biblical description of a man arriving at end of self then Romans 7 nails it, terminating with the conclusion at vs. 24.

The passages reference to law can be taken by an unbeliever to mean 'law written on your heart and in your conscience'. There is no need, at this point, to acknowledge this law inside as stemming from God. For there is no need to acknowledge where the law inside comes from in order to find yourself subject to it. Being subject to this law does the necessary work, not your being aware of its source.

If you also happen to acknowledge that this inner law is good (it telling you to be compassionate, kind, etc.) then you are, unbeknownst to yourself, also acknowledging that it is holy (or wholesome).

Recognising yourself as subject to the law. Recognising the law as holy. Recognising the difficulty you have following the law, indeed, finding that no matter how hard you struggle, something within prevents you following it. Law, holy, sin. All whilst an unbeliever in any of these things!

As I was saying: communication between God and man is ongoing, despite man's unbelief. Man subject to a process -whether he likes it or not.


Few people, if given the opportunity to wave a magic wand, would wave to be rid of the law within. We know that although this law cramps our style and that we duck, dodge and transgress it, without it we would go over the side of a cliff and becomes utterly perverted.

The passage can be stripped of any reference to God. It can be read by a confirmed, God-antagonistic athiest even, given all are privy to the workings within themselves.

-


This man is being nailed by wholesome law and what it demands of him. Better said, he is being nailed by his responses to that demand. He recognises that he is in the grip of something he cannot control (there is no need for a person on the way to end of self to know what the correct label for the thing that controls him is: sin). He is recognising that he has a serious dilemma and that self-directed self cannot escape that dilemma. He needs help. He needs a ... er ... crutch.

He has hit belief A. And having met the criterion for salvation and being saved, he can immediately utter his now-knowledge of what lay beneath resolution to his problem

"Thanks be to God, through Jesus Christ."

smacl wrote: »

Why on earth should I take an agnostic view? Someone asserts something incredulous and implores that I share their fantastical beliefs

I don't implore anything. I state my position (in an environment where folk state theirs) and see folk saying its a delusion.

I don't mind that they don't believe it. I don't expect them to believe it. Far from it. I expect them to object with everything they have.

What I am highlighting is the jump to "delusion". That's a particular objection (where successful objections reinforce the position the person making them occupies. The better an objection is sustained to an attacking view, the more their own position is defended). It has been the case that "lack of evidencing" has been taken to support the charge of delusion. We have been seeing that lack of evidencing says nothing at all about the objectivity of the experience. It turns out we can know things, despite being unable to evidence them to anyone else. Lack of evidencing has zero impact on the possible objectivity of my position. The charge of delusion cannot be supported in this way since it makes an unsustainable assumption regarding the objectivity of my position.


The next problem is scale. Fantastical scale. You ought to appreciate that scale on one side can be overcome by a corresponding increase in evidence to support the case on the other. Sure, it's my assessment that the evidence for the case matches the scale of the proposition. But that's the same balance to be struck when it comes to assessing anything we know from personal, unevidence-able experience. From God down to admiring a woman's figure. If you can know the one, based on self-assessment of the evidence, then you can know the other.

Flight might appear to have immense scale to those without the tools or technology to make flying machines. That scale is a relative trifle to others, who have the necessary tools. Whether the latter can show a flying machine to the former isn't relevant. What's relevant is their being able to make flying machines and they know it.

Scale isn't an issue in itself. Yet the charge of "delusion" has relied on it.


Not being able to evidence to others and scale. The grounds for the charge of "delusion" turn out to stand on sand. What grounds are left for making the charge of delusion. If not these?

smacl wrote: »

You perhaps need take more cognizance of the fact you're posting in an atheist forum so. In this forum the self evident truth, as you call it, is that people don't believe gods exist. They are typically of the opinion that gods are a human invention and only exist in the imagination of the religious. Insisting that anyone here should treat the existence of gods as credible is not a reasonable starting point for a discussion.

I understand the means by which credibility is held to be established on this forum. Silence on a matter doesn't assign a matter any credibility since silence is, well, silence.

In seeking to silence a particular objection I am not adding to credibility. I am doing some damage to incredibility however.

The matter to hand is silencing the delusion charge. The charge of delusion is a positive statement. And positive statements (as you will know) require foundations upon which to make them.

As per my initial response to your opening post, I'm of the opinion you've started this discussion in the wrong forum. If you don't want your beliefs labelled as nonsense

Nonsense is a positive statement too. It is not silence. It too requires foundations. It doesn't matter what forum I am in, the rules are the same. Make a positive statement, then foundations for that positive statement.

perhaps post in the Christianity forum. If you want a broad spectrum of mixed beliefs, maybe after hours. Of course you're welcome to post as you wish in this forum, but not on the basis that your god exists outside of your own personally held subjective belief.

I take it you are stating your own personal experiences (such as admiring a womans figure yesterday) are all subjective beliefs? Where subjective beliefs are defined as perhaps not having happened at all.

He who lives by subjective beliefs dies by same.

I am quite happy on this forum, given the silencing of a positive statement (delusion, nonsense) is the aim. I also have been taking the opportunity to lay out a theology which seeks to sidestep some of the more common objections atheists have - such as having to worship at the feet of God. The aim isn't, of course, to prove this is the way it is. But given atheist objections are raised to other theologies they don't believe in, they might as well see how their objections fair to this theology they don't believe in. Call it a thought experiment

And who knows. Perhaps someone will be able to see a hint of Romans 7 man at work in themselves. Or the exercise of selfs as laying at the root of the worlds problems. Call it "evangelism through the back door whilst I'm at it".