What does 'objective' actually mean?

[anonymous person]

yes I suppose that this form of 'objective understanding' is the attempt of limited, fallible, and subjective beings trying to learn what is already true and real via their own powers and abilities... science itself being limited to certain spheres which directly concern it.

so this subjective-objectivity is not the same thing as 'objective reality as it is' but it is the same thing (in the sense of correct knowledge of reality) as much as the subjective being is truly in accord with reality.

of course the religious often claim that there is an 'absolute reality' which the objective reality is an expression of and which it points to since it is part of it.

This isn't as complicated as you make it.

To say that the earth existed before you were born, that it was full of people, places and things long before any of us in this forum were born, is to say that it exists objectively. The world is not some mental projection we create. It is alive, it is concrete, it exists now, and would exist if we all became extinct in a catastrophic natural disaster. All human beings ceasing to be does not cause the earth to cease to be.

So the proposition: "the earth exists" is a proposition that is objectively true. It is true regardless of what you think or any other human being thinks about the matter.

Likewise, when someone like myself says: "God exists" or " homosexuality is a sin" or "watching porn is wrong", we are intending for the hearer to understand that these propositions are objectively true. They would be true even if everyone in the world thought God did not exist, that homosexuality was awesome, and that porn was good.

People like myself are NOT intending that we be understood as communicating some personal preference or taste or opinion when we say such things.

We are not talking about the taste of spaghetti or our opinion of a piece by Bach.

Is there anything about what I said that you don't understand?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This isn't as complicated as you make it.

To say that the earth existed before you were born, that it was full of people, places and things long before any of us in this forum were born, is to say that it exists objectively. The world is not some mental projection we create. It is alive, it is concrete, it exists now, and would exist if we all became extinct in a catastrophic natural disaster. All human beings ceasing to be does not cause the earth to cease to be.

So the proposition: "the earth exists" is a proposition that is objectively true. It is true regardless of what you think or any other human being thinks about the matter.

Likewise, when someone like myself says: "God exists" or " homosexuality is a sin" or "watching porn is wrong", we are intending for the hearer to understand that these propositions are objectively true. They would be true even if everyone in the world thought God did not exist, that homosexuality was awesome, and that porn was good.

People like myself are NOT intending that we be understood as communicating some personal preference or taste or opinion when we say such things.

We are not talking about the taste of spaghetti or our opinion of a piece by Bach.

The trouble is that people "like yourself" haven't established that such propositions are true.

Is there anything about what I said that you don't understand?

Why you keep returning after your meltdowns?

 

[quatona]

To say that the earth existed before you were born, that it was full of people, places and things long before any of us in this forum were born, is to say that it exists objectively. The world is not some mental projection we create. It is alive, it is concrete, it exists now, and would exist if we all became extinct in a catastrophic natural disaster. All human beings ceasing to be does not cause the earth to cease to be.

So the proposition: "the earth exists" is a proposition that is objectively true. It is true regardless of what you think or any other human being thinks about the matter.

How is it estabilished that the earth exists concretely, objectively?

 

[Noxot]

Is there anything about what I said that you don't understand?

what about the Spirit?

John 3:5-8 (YLT)
Jesus answered, `Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born of water, and the Spirit, he is not able to enter into the reign of God; that which hath been born of the flesh is flesh, and that which hath been born of the Spirit is spirit. `Thou mayest not wonder that I said to thee, It behoveth you to be born from above; the Spirit where he willeth doth blow, and his voice thou dost hear, but thou hast not known whence he cometh, and whither he goeth; thus is every one who hath been born of the Spirit.'

how can you know God unless you are born from above? so why do so many humans think they understand what he says in the bible and in other parts of reality? only like can know like. we all know as near as we are to God. but God is infinite and that means that our souls have a mode of infinite too since it can forever be filled and overflow with God.

people see God as a kind of earthly king because of the history of their own religious development, which is something they get from both the collective and individuality. that is not final reality. the soul goes through infinite stages because to God it ascends forever due to theosis. the entire process of reality is the absolute reality of the Trinity. the Trinity is the workings/moving of the primordial reality who is always resting. it is all things which have an eternal nature. goodness, beauty, love, wisdom, truth, freedom, personality... those are chief things of reality and without them reality falls apart into lesser forms of being that God still nonetheless works with all according to their ability and he moves them all in a profound ordering like a tiny empty room in an infinite mansion filled with infinite rooms. so he puts things where they will best ascend up, though they can always fall down but then he just rearranges reality as easy as the ocean provides a fish a direction to swim.

so God is forever preventing souls from falling apart and one of the things that stabilizes souls is this objective reality we exist in and that only occurs if we ourselves have fallen asleep to our deeper and free nature of spirit. but this reality we exist in as creatures is also helping to develop the soul in a unique way since Gods glory is infinite.

and so religion and life is only as good as much as one participates in the Divine. existing alongside other beings in various conditions is the thing which causes suffering (when they are in crude conditions). but the higher is supposed to support the lower, not be dragged down by the lower. hell is to be conquered with heaven. and that is part of the game we play in this world.

what some are calling "objective" I would just call "ability to reason" and it certainly has its limits. science is philosophically based in certain methods and thinking patterns. it is a fun game to play. the sense of wonder is a nice and good thing. atheist don't believe that God exist and so they depend on the angels that are set over them, just like we all have such. because reality has many more layers than we could talk about. but object reality is right in front of our face and our limited subjective perceptions can get caught up in almost anything it wants to be caught up in. certainly we are all creatures and this is always compelling us with its own nature. but that is just part of our being. everything has some kind of meaning because of where it comes out of and where it returns to. for the higher parts to surmount and completely control the lower, now that is a game that heaven likes. but there are many they play in this world and that is why it is a mystery. we made ourselves very lost by falling to sleep.

 

[anonymous person]

The trouble is that people "like yourself" haven't established that such propositions are true.

Troublesome to who? You?

Troublesome to whom? Me?

I am not troubled in the least by the fact that you claim such propositions have not been shown to be objectively true.

Are you troubled?

 

[anonymous person]

what about the Spirit?

John 3:5-8 (YLT)
Jesus answered, `Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born of water, and the Spirit, he is not able to enter into the reign of God; that which hath been born of the flesh is flesh, and that which hath been born of the Spirit is spirit. `Thou mayest not wonder that I said to thee, It behoveth you to be born from above; the Spirit where he willeth doth blow, and his voice thou dost hear, but thou hast not known whence he cometh, and whither he goeth; thus is every one who hath been born of the Spirit.'

how can you know God unless you are born from above? so why do so many humans think they understand what he says in the bible and in other parts of reality? only like can know like. we all know as near as we are to God. but God is infinite and that means that our souls have a mode of infinite too since it can forever be filled and overflow with God.

people see God as a kind of earthly king because of the history of their own religious development, which is something they get from both the collective and individuality. that is not final reality. the soul goes through infinite stages because to God it ascends forever due to theosis. the entire process of reality is the absolute reality of the Trinity. the Trinity is the workings/moving of the primordial reality who is always resting. it is all things which have an eternal nature. goodness, beauty, love, wisdom, truth, freedom, personality... those are chief things of reality and without them reality falls apart into lesser forms of being that God still nonetheless works with all according to their ability and he moves them all in a profound ordering like a tiny empty room in an infinite mansion filled with infinite rooms. so he puts things where they will best ascend up, though they can always fall down but then he just rearranges reality as easy as the ocean provides a fish a direction to swim.

so God is forever preventing souls from falling apart and one of the things that stabilizes souls is this objective reality we exist in and that only occurs if we ourselves have fallen asleep to our deeper and free nature of spirit. but this reality we exist in as creatures is also helping to develop the soul in a unique way since Gods glory is infinite.

and so religion and life is only as good as much as one participates in the Divine. existing alongside other beings in various conditions is the thing which causes suffering (when they are in crude conditions). but the higher is supposed to support the lower, not be dragged down by the lower. hell is to be conquered with heaven. and that is part of the game we play in this world.

what some are calling "objective" I would just call "ability to reason" and it certainly has its limits. science is philosophically based in certain methods and thinking patterns. it is a fun game to play. the sense of wonder is a nice and good thing. atheist don't believe that God exist and so they depend on the angels that are set over them, just like we all have such. because reality has many more layers than we could talk about. but object reality is right in front of our face and our limited subjective perceptions can get caught up in almost anything it wants to be caught up in. certainly we are all creatures and this is always compelling us with its own nature. but that is just part of our being. everything has some kind of meaning because of where it comes out of and where it returns to. for the higher parts to surmount and completely control the lower, now that is a game that heaven likes. but there are many they play in this world and that is why it is a mystery. we made ourselves very lost by falling to sleep.

I would agree with much of what you say. I would say God is, and always has been. Anything outside of Him owes it's existence to Him. I would say He sustains and upholds all by His power might and wisdom and loves perfectly.

I would also say that we all have a part in His plan for humanity, for we are that which constitutes humanity, for we are humans.

The crux of the issue which Arch hit on was the showing or demonstrating that all of this is true. Now one who holds to what I have said need no demonstration, for they already hold to it, but the one who does not.

The bible gives us reasons as to why humans reject God and righteousness. It all boils down to the unrighteousness of such men. Their sinfulness. The noetic effects of sin etc.

Arch for example does not believe that engaging in homosexuality acts is wrong or that porn is wrong or that God exists. The bible says that Arch will have been given sufficient evidence that such acts are wrong and that God does exist so that he will be without excuse before God.

In light of this, he either has yet to be given this knowledge, or he has and has rejected it. Either way, he will be held accountable for all he thinks says and does, just as we all will.

This is the crux of the matter.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Troublesome to who? You?

Troublesome to whom? Me?

I am not troubled in the least by the fact that you claim such propositions have not been shown to be objectively true.

Are you troubled?

Perplexed mostly. But then again, I'm the kind of person who's eager to show good evidence for things I claim to be true.

 

[anonymous person]

Perplexed mostly. But then again, I'm the kind of person who's eager to show good evidence for things I claim to be true.

Really?

Strange coming from someone who has presented nothing at all, not even one shred of evidence for their claim that Jesus has not risen from the dead.

 

[bhsmte]

Ah, proving a negative and shifting the burden of proof.

You know desperation has set in when this happens.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Really?

Strange coming from someone who has presented nothing at all, not even one shred of evidence for their claim that Jesus has not risen from the dead.

Either provide evidence that I've made that claim or retract.

I don't think you want to be dishonest, do you?

 

[anonymous person]

Either provide evidence that I've made that claim or retract.

I don't think you want to be dishonest, do you?

You're an atheist right?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

You're an atheist right?

If you're implying that being an atheist means that I'd necessarily say that your Jesus didn't rise from the dead, well, that would be a non sequitur, now wouldn't it.

You don't want to commit logical fallacies, do you?

So, post where I've claimed that or retract.

 

[anonymous person]

Ah, proving a negative and shifting the burden of proof.

You know desperation has set in when this happens.

And I know when someone is simply parroting something someone else has said.

I am referring to the whole "you can't prove a negative quip".

You spouted that nonsense as if you thought it would give me pause. It has to be sure, but only when it came to giving me pause to thinking you actually had something substantial to say.

 

[anonymous person]

If you're implying that being an atheist means that I'd necessarily say that your Jesus didn't rise from the dead, well, that would be a non sequitur, now wouldn't it.

You don't want to commit logical fallacies, do you?

So, post where I've claimed that or retract.

I didn't say being an atheist necessarily means you would say Jesus didn't rise from the dead. So if anyone needs to retract anything it is you lol.

You either claim He did or did not. There is no middle ground on which to stand, no fence on which to ride.

I would love to see this evidence you are so very eager to present that He did not, but I don't expect you will present it because you don't have any. Not one shred. So don't worry, I won't hold my breath.

And please don't confess ignorance regarding the whole matter. Confessing ignorance is not fitting for one who wants to be seen as being so very knowledgeable on such topics as are the subject of the immediate discussion.

It would be best for you to just remain silent on the matter if you can't shoulder the burden of proof.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I didn't say being an atheist necessarily means you would say Jesus didn't rise from the dead. So if anyone needs to retract anything it is you lol.

You specifically said (bolding mine)

"Strange coming from someone who has presented nothing at all, not even one shred of evidence for their claim that Jesus has not risen from the dead."

So you are indicating that I claim that your Jesus didn't rise from the dead.

So either show where I have or retract. Although I'm beginning to think you're unable to be honest enough to do so.

You either claim He did or did not. There is no middle ground on which to stand, no fence on which to ride.

Obvious false dichotomy. I can say "I don't know" as a third option, similar to all claims.

That's two fallacies in two posts.

I would love to see this evidence you are so very eager to present that He did not, but I don't expect you will present it because you don't have any. Not one shred. So don't worry, I won't hold my breath.

And please don't confess ignorance regarding the whole matter. Confessing ignorance is not fitting for one who wants to be seen as being so very knowledgeable on such topics as are the subject of the immediate discussion.

It would be best for you to just remain silent on the matter if you can't shoulder the burden of proof.

A. I never said I had evidence Jesus didn't rise from the dead, because unlike what you're dishonestly claiming, I don make that claim.

B. I'm not falling for your goading about my ignorance on the subject. There's nothing wrong with saying "I don't know" if you don't have evidence of something. It's usually the Christians who jump to believing something without good evidence.

C. The burden of proof is on the positive claimant, which I am not.

It's as if after all this time you still don't understand Philosophy at all...

 

[anonymous person]

You specifically said (bolding mine)

"Strange coming from someone who has presented nothing at all, not even one shred of evidence for their claim that Jesus has not risen from the dead."

So you are indicating that I claim that your Jesus didn't rise from the dead.

So either show where I have or retract. Although I'm beginning to think you're unable to be honest enough to do so.



Obvious false dichotomy. I can say "I don't know" as a third option, similar to all claims.

That's two fallacies in two posts.



A. I never said I had evidence Jesus didn't rise from the dead, because unlike what you're dishonestly claiming, I don make that claim.

B. I'm not falling for your goading about my ignorance on the subject. There's nothing wrong with saying "I don't know" if you don't have evidence of something. It's usually the Christians who jump to believing something without good evidence.

C. The burden of proof is on the positive claimant, which I am not.

It's as if after all this time you still don't understand Philosophy at all...

For someone who does not know whether or not Jesus rose from the dead, you sure seem confident that Christians are wrong for claiming He did.

This is what every atheist that I have ever talked to ends up doing. They start out strong with their appeals to knowledge, reason, science etc, but when pressed, for all their learning and knowledge, at the end of the day, they are ignorant and want their ignorance to be seen as something noteworthy and noble...honorable even.

If you're so ignorant about all this, if you find nothing at all wrong with pretending until pressed, why are you not reluctant to claim I and others who hold the views we do are so very wrong?

And just so you're not confused, I have never said you have claimed on this forum that Jesus never rose from the dead. One need not type out their views explicitly on a forum for me to know where they stand.

 

[Noxot]

we are all ignorant about some things and sometimes it is better to be ignorant rather than to pretend that you are not. each soul is a mystery to me but discursive reality is not final reality.

 

[bhsmte]

we are all ignorant about some things and sometimes it is better to be ignorant rather than to pretend that you are not. each soul is a mystery to me but discursive reality is not final reality.

Yep.

Some folks just can't admit they "don't know" and they just make stuff up, that is comforting.

 

[Noxot]

I could probably belittle and criticize anyone no matter what they say or do. I could come up with all kinds of ways to condemn myself or an atheist or whoever else. in the end it is people who decide the criteria for what is true because we can't get away from our freedom because it is impossible. atheist decide to give authority to some things that seem good to them and christians do the same thing. there are so many different things pushing and pulling us to be what we are, I think it's fantastic.

this freedom is an amazing thing. it feels like my pure essence and I dress myself up in all kinds of things. but most of all I found another freedom and it seems like the only proper thing to unite myself to. I feel more of myself the more I realize this third freedom. it's like all of reality is wrapped up and finished and yet like i'm forever developing. though i can not see this freedom in all things, I know it is there at the core which is why all things are overcome the more you enter into this heaven. if I had only this freedom, if it completely swallowed me up, then I don't think I could even exist in this reality anymore because it is weird having a body that I must tend to and it is weird existing with others who do not experience what i do. and yet still I find myself completely human, flaws and all. but when i remember this, when i'm allowed to feel this myself I know it is good that my body be fully absorbed into what i am. but the body itself is concerned about existing in this reality as a creature, it seems to not have enough hope and strength to exist as i want it to in this world, because I want it to no longer be bothered by the world. he should know what he has should render him to be completely carefree and loving. but he does not always feel me and so he suffers and that is my will so that he can be perfect even as a creature without the compulsions of love. who else but those who love me would want to sacrifice what they are in hell and join it to what has always been? I can't really speak for others. I could only speak for myself.

I don't struggle with knowing if God is real or not because I already exist in heaven. this entire reality is just a playground and an intense place to express love and to get lost. each soul is truly unique, they seem to me to have much more dignity than they give themselves credit. the more I seek God the more I find how senseless everything but God and what he loves is. I have not taken the same path as anyone else but what i experience at times feels much greater than any kind of objective reality could ever be. but outside of myself it looks like whatever people think it looks like.

and i think it's funny if I look bad. the only real thing that bothers me is when i'm going through evils inside of myself or giving evils to others. no one quite loves thunder like I do. no one can appreciate nature in the same way that i can. no one can love others in the manner that i love others. everyone is themselves and that is a huge blessing.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Troublesome to who? You?

Troublesome to whom? Me?

I am not troubled in the least by the fact that you claim such propositions have not been shown to be objectively true.

Are you troubled?

Am I troubled by your inept apologetics? No.