eclipse Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 7 hours ago, JJ48 said: I agree that Man's purpose is to glorify and have a relationship with God, but I have to disagree strongly with the idea that it's subjective. Yes, everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but that doesn't mean that all beliefs are correct or that there is no objective purpose. Simply because some refuse to acknowledge God's intended purpose doesn't make it any less true, any more than someone earnestly believing that 2+2=5 makes math subjective. This doesn't make any sense, if the reader doesn't believe in God, and I'd rather not have another "prove God exists objectively" thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJ48 Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 6 minutes ago, eclipse said: This doesn't make any sense, if the reader doesn't believe in God, and I'd rather not have another "prove God exists objectively" thread. It only doesn't make sense if a person's disbelief in God is correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Just now, JJ48 said: It only doesn't make sense if a person's disbelief in God is correct. Except there's no objective way to prove that a belief in God is correct. That's why I think it's subjective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SullyMcGully Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 7 hours ago, JJ48 said: I agree that Man's purpose is to glorify and have a relationship with God, but I have to disagree strongly with the idea that it's subjective. Yes, everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but that doesn't mean that all beliefs are correct or that there is no objective purpose. Simply because some refuse to acknowledge God's intended purpose doesn't make it any less true, any more than someone earnestly believing that 2+2=5 makes math subjective. When I used the word "subjective", I did not mean that humans can decide what is and is not true about the universe. I meant that each human decides what they believe is true about the universe, and no one else can (or should) force them to believe differently. I am a Christian because that is the logical conclusion I came to. If someone else arrives at a different logical conclusion, I don't have a problem with that. I still believe that I am right, and by extension, that they are wrong, but that doesn't mean I can't treat them with respect. I'm wrong about a lot of things that other people are right about, but I still have friends. So while I believe with all my heart in a God that cares about me, I still understand and respect others who may have decided otherwise. I'm sorry if this seems a little confrontational. I'm just clarifying my opinion, and it is not my intent to argue with anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJ48 Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 40 minutes ago, eclipse said: Except there's no objective way to prove that a belief in God is correct. That's why I think it's subjective. If I'm understanding you correctly, we'll have to agree to disagree. Whether or not something can be proven (or disproven) objectively does not change whether the thing itself is objective. Either God exists or He doesn't, and His existence or nonexistence is true for all, regardless of belief one way or the other. Similarly, either we have the purpose I claimed or we don't. If I'm right, then everyone has that purpose, even if some reject it or don't acknowledge it. If I'm wrong, then that's not our purpose, no matter how strongly I may believe it to be. @SullyMcGully Thank you for clarifying; I did misunderstand what you meant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 1 hour ago, JJ48 said: If I'm understanding you correctly, we'll have to agree to disagree. Whether or not something can be proven (or disproven) objectively does not change whether the thing itself is objective. Either God exists or He doesn't, and His existence or nonexistence is true for all, regardless of belief one way or the other. Similarly, either we have the purpose I claimed or we don't. If I'm right, then everyone has that purpose, even if some reject it or don't acknowledge it. If I'm wrong, then that's not our purpose, no matter how strongly I may believe it to be. Let's go back to what I originally responded to: 9 hours ago, JJ48 said: I agree that Man's purpose is to glorify and have a relationship with God, but I have to disagree strongly with the idea that it's subjective. Yes, everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but that doesn't mean that all beliefs are correct or that there is no objective purpose. Simply because some refuse to acknowledge God's intended purpose doesn't make it any less true, any more than someone earnestly believing that 2+2=5 makes math subjective. See that bolded line? That's what I have a problem with. You're assuming a truth, and in a way that is not going to convince the agnostic/atheist side of SF that what you're saying is true. If you believe that God is the way, the truth, and the light, then run with it. But to claim it's THE objective truth will result in a mess I'd rather not clean up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJ48 Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 14 minutes ago, eclipse said: Let's go back to what I originally responded to: See that bolded line? That's what I have a problem with. You're assuming a truth, and in a way that is not going to convince the agnostic/atheist side of SF that what you're saying is true. If you believe that God is the way, the truth, and the light, then run with it. But to claim it's THE objective truth will result in a mess I'd rather not clean up. With all due respect, I think you're being a little unfair. If you re-read the first page of responses, a good number of posters simply assert what they believe to be true without going into a formal defense of their entire worldview (something you say you don't want this thread to turn into, and which would probably be considered off-topic anyway). Why is my post being singled out here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baldrick Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 (edited) The statement eclipse bolded could be taken as claiming your belief is right and everyone who doesn't believe it is wrong. As for your claim that belief doesn't affect the reality of things, how do you know that? It's possible that you get the afterlife you believe in. Some souls go to Heaven/Hell, some souls get reincarnated, some souls get annihilated, etc. etc. That's just one example. There is an infinite amount of possibilities, most of which nobody has ever or even could ever conceive of. It's a little arrogant to say one of the explanations for existence humanity has come up with must be the correct one. Edited March 11, 2017 by Baldrick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJ48 Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 8 minutes ago, Baldrick said: The statement eclipse bolded could be taken as claiming your belief is right and everyone who doesn't believe it is wrong. Exactly. How is that any different from someone saying, "There is no purpose" (meaning anyone who believes there is purpose is wrong)? Or from you saying, essentially, "Truth is subjective," implying that my belief in objective truth is wrong? Is it ok to imply it just as long as you don't actually state it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baldrick Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 3 minutes ago, JJ48 said: Exactly. How is that any different from someone saying, "There is no purpose" (meaning anyone who believes there is purpose is wrong)? Or from you saying, essentially, "Truth is subjective," implying that my belief in objective truth is wrong? Is it ok to imply it just as long as you don't actually state it? Most of the replies in the thread carry the implication that Sully stated about being subjective. They're not saying different beliefs are wrong, just that they're not what they believe. What I am saying is your beliefs are not objective. If they were, you'd able to prove it, or prove my counter-theory wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJ48 Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 2 minutes ago, Baldrick said: Most of the replies in the thread carry the implication that Sully stated about being subjective. They're not saying different beliefs are wrong, just that they're not what they believe. What I am saying is your beliefs are not objective. If they were, you'd able to prove it, or prove my counter-theory wrong. But that's not what "objective" means... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 3 minutes ago, JJ48 said: But that's not what "objective" means... "Objective" means "based on facts". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJ48 Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 1 minute ago, eclipse said: "Objective" means "based on facts". "Objective", contrasted with "subjective", means "being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject" (Dictionary.com), though even your definition just begs the definition of what do you mean by "facts"? The first dictionary definition I found was "something that actually exists; reality; truth" (Dictionary.com), which still says nothing of provability. As enjoyable as this talk is, however, I fear we are only getting further and further from the topic at hand, unless Mankind's purpose is to discuss the definitions of words. I propose we take the conversation elsewhere if we wish to continue it, or let it drop if we don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanarkin Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, JJ48 said: "Objective", contrasted with "subjective", means "being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject" (Dictionary.com), though even your definition just begs the definition of what do you mean by "facts"? The first dictionary definition I found was "something that actually exists; reality; truth" (Dictionary.com), which still says nothing of provability. You should be able to show that something real exists, unless you want to go down the route of Decartes or something similar. For example, i can prove to you that I exist, or that my desk does, by showing you pictures or physically presenting myself before you. I however cannot show that unicorns or lepracauns or gods exist. Belief in their existence is subjective as you cannot actually show any sort of proof of their existence. You can only actually rely on faith that your assumption is true. To your comment as to why your post was singled out, most people claim in this thread that the answer is subjective. You literally claimed that the statement 'god exists' is in the same level of standard as '2+2=4'. And that is just not true. At least there is logic behind the mathematical statement. There is hardly anything supporting god. Merely holding an assumption as true, doesn't mean it is true. Why did i bother to respond? It is late where i am and i am tired, your posts have lingered on my mind for far too long, and the distinction between what is objective and subjective is relevant to this topic. Edited March 11, 2017 by SlayerX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Glacies Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 6 hours ago, SlayerX said: You should be able to show that something real exists, unless you want to go down the route of Decartes or something similar. For example, i can prove to you that I exist, or that my desk does, by showing you pictures or physically presenting myself before you. I however cannot show that unicorns or lepracauns or gods exist. Belief in their existence is subjective as you cannot actually show any sort of proof of their existence. You can only actually rely on faith that your assumption is true. To your comment as to why your post was singled out, most people claim in this thread that the answer is subjective. You literally claimed that the statement 'god exists' is in the same level of standard as '2+2=4'. And that is just not true. At least there is logic behind the mathematical statement. There is hardly anything supporting god. Merely holding an assumption as true, doesn't mean it is true. Why did i bother to respond? It is late where i am and i am tired, your posts have lingered on my mind for far too long, and the distinction between what is objective and subjective is relevant to this topic. It's a fun (er, serious) little meta paradox. My belief in God (and I assume JJ48 and others) is objective. However, our objective reasoning is subjective to others. To put it simply, my belief of God's existence is based in facts. However, many others do not agree that these are reasonable facts, and thus see my mindset as false or simply one of many. This is perfectly reasonable; why should one from another religion or philosophy not be offended when a Christian says their religion is the only true purpose? This goes for other mentalities as well. If someone believes Mankind has no reason, then their belief is objective and based in facts- to themselves. In JJ48's original comment, he was simply disagreeing with SullyMcGully's post. Sully's statement signified that all religions and philosophies are equal. JJ48 was stating that even if everyone believed something different, this does not make them all right. I could present a plethora of evidence that God exist, but I feel that it would breach too far off topic. If my or JJ48's post is breaching the rules, then I can apologize on my behalf. But it must be noted that as a Christian, most believe that our purpose as a species is to glorify our God. And many do this by talking about and spreading word of Him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanarkin Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Rex Glacies said: It's a fun (er, serious) little meta paradox. My belief in God (and I assume JJ48 and others) is objective. However, our objective reasoning is subjective to others. To put it simply, my belief of God's existence is based in facts. However, many others do not agree that these are reasonable facts, and thus see my mindset as false or simply one of many. This is perfectly reasonable; why should one from another religion or philosophy not be offended when a Christian says their religion is the only true purpose? This goes for other mentalities as well. If someone believes Mankind has no reason, then their belief is objective and based in facts- to themselves. http://www.indiana.edu/~p1013447/dictionary/subjobj.htm Facts are the same for all people. the fact that an apple falls is the same to me as it is to you. It is not a meta paradox or what have you. Your belief in god is based on a certain interpretation of facts, real facts mind you [1]. But its the fact that you can interpret them a certain way that makes your belief subjective. For example, you might interpret the fact that life exists as proof of god, but someone else might just think it is purely random happenstance or due to some other totally different god, among many other interpretations. Math statements like '2+2 = 4' aren't subjective because no matter how you look at it, 2 objects plus 2 objects makes 4 objects. There is no other way to look at it. Any fact, however, that you can present for god, requires a specific interpretation of the facts, that is based on more than just pure rationality. It requires emotion and faith, which are not objective. These facts can be described and explained through other methods of interpretation and you cannot tell which is more correct than the other. That is why, your plethora of evidence for god's existence is not actually evidence for god's existence. Otherwise we'd all be part of whatever religion you are part of. [1] This is assuming your facts are actual facts, like life exists, apples falls, and the universe exists. An example of not a fact would be something like, 'god wrote the bible through the hand of it's authors'. Edited March 11, 2017 by SlayerX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FionordeQuester Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 (edited) 19 hours ago, Baldrick said: Most of the replies in the thread carry the implication that Sully stated about being subjective. They're not saying different beliefs are wrong, just that they're not what they believe. And yet, not all of them do. For example... Quote QUOTE BY SOUL (don't know how to quote things from previous pages ever since the system changed): Yeah, that's the thing. There's no objective answer to it. You're looking for an answer that has no answer. Only humans asks themselves this, and this is where we can learn from animals. Humans are so caught up into being given "reason", as well as an Almighty Objective answer to re-assure them. So the question remains, why was JJ48 singled out while Soul wasn't? Edited March 11, 2017 by FionordeQuester Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanarkin Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 Soul himself states that there is no objective answer. It is the second sentence of that quote. Although his last sentence seems to imply something about the quality of the answer 'god gives us purpose' the statement is subjective. Soul isn't claiming that it is any better or worse than any other answer. Soul also isn't claiming he is right, which is entirely different from what JJ posted. JJ actually claims to be right when he says On 10/03/2017 at 11:35 AM, JJ48 said: Yes, everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but that doesn't mean that all beliefs are correct or that there is no objective purpose. Simply because some refuse to acknowledge God's intended purpose doesn't make it any less true Right there, he treats his belief as the only correct one, and anyone who disagrees is refusing to acknowledge it as if it was painfully and obviously true that it is correct. I haven't read every response to this topic, specially not the very big ones, but from what i gather most short responses acknowledge or leave room for the subjective quality of the answer. JJ doesn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJ48 Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 52 minutes ago, SlayerX said: Soul himself states that there is no objective answer. It is the second sentence of that quote. Although his last sentence seems to imply something about the quality of the answer 'god gives us purpose' the statement is subjective. Soul isn't claiming that it is any better or worse than any other answer. Soul also isn't claiming he is right, which is entirely different from what JJ posted. JJ actually claims to be right when he says Right there, he treats his belief as the only correct one, and anyone who disagrees is refusing to acknowledge it as if it was painfully and obviously true that it is correct. I haven't read every response to this topic, specially not the very big ones, but from what i gather most short responses acknowledge or leave room for the subjective quality of the answer. JJ doesn't. Could someone please cite a source for this whole "must be empirically provable" definition of "objective"? I cited sources for the definitions I was using, and yet continually people seem to be claiming that I'm using the word incorrectly, without any evidence. People just repeatedly state that the answer is subjective (without proof, I might add), yet don't really seem to grasp what "subjective" and "objective" even mean! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanarkin Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, JJ48 said: Could someone please cite a source for this whole "must be empirically provable" definition of "objective"? I cited sources for the definitions I was using, and yet continually people seem to be claiming that I'm using the word incorrectly, without any evidence. People just repeatedly state that the answer is subjective (without proof, I might add), yet don't really seem to grasp what "subjective" and "objective" even mean! Why is the Indiana University link not valid? I previously had 3 other links, but they were random websites from a quick google search for the distinction... here is the indiana link again http://www.indiana.edu/~p1013447/dictionary/subjobj.htm . I figured this would be the most credible one. Here is the definitions they give Quote Objective refers to objects and events in the world that anyone can, in principle, observe. Subjective refers to feelings and experiences that depend on the individual's own particular viewpoint and traits. Here is one from https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-objective-and-subjective Quote An objective perspective is one that is not influenced by emotions, opinions, or personal feelings - it is a perspective based in fact, in things quantifiable and measurable. A subjective perspective is one open to greater interpretation based on personal feeling, emotion, aesthetics, etc. Another from http://www.diffen.com/difference/Objective_vs_Subjective Quote Subjective information or writing is based on personal opinions, interpretations, points of view, emotions and judgment. It is often considered ill-suited for scenarios like news reporting or decision making in business or politics. Objective information or analysis is fact-based, measurable and observable. 20 hours ago, JJ48 said: "Objective", contrasted with "subjective", means "being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject" (Dictionary.com) That definition is a bit vague and I am not entirely sure what it is really getting at. But to me it seems to indicate, when it says 'belonging to the object of thought', that it belongs to the particular thing in question outside of whatever you think or feel of it. This would require empirical or observational evidence to talk about. You also failed to mention the other definitions, in particular 5 (which relates to opions) and 8. Quote adjective 4. being the object or goal of one's efforts or actions. 5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice;based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion. 6. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather thanwith thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book. 7. being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object ofthought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective ). 8. of or relating to something that can be known, or to something that isan object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought oran observer as part of reality. 9. Grammar. pertaining to the use of a form as the object of a transitive verb orof a preposition. (in English and some other languages) noting the objective case. similar to such a case in meaning. (in case grammar) pertaining to the semantic role of a noun phrasethat denotes something undergoing a change of state or bearing aneutral relation to the verb, as the rock in The rock moved or inThe child threw the rock. 10. being part of or pertaining to an object to be drawn: an objective plane. The 5th and 8th description of objective here require empirical evidence. I would wager 7 does too. Here is the definition for subjective (dictionary.com): Quote adjective 1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than tothe object of thought (opposed to objective ). 2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation. 3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions,etc.; unduly egocentric. 4. Philosophy. relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known inthe mind as distinct from a thing in itself. 5. relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind asdistinguished from general or universal experience. 6. pertaining to the subject or substance in which attributes inhere;essential. 7. Grammar. pertaining to or constituting the subject of a sentence. (in English and certain other languages) noting a case specializedfor that use, as He in He hit the ball. similar to such a case in meaning. Compare nominative. 1 is as unclear as 7 in the other definition. It is also important to see that most people in this thread are using definition number 4 of subjective and number 5 of objective. It is also important to note that both 4 from subjective and 5 from objective are opposed to each other. Edited March 12, 2017 by SlayerX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJ48 Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 8 minutes ago, SlayerX said: That definition is a bit vague and I am not entirely sure what it is really getting at. But to me it seems to indicate, when it says 'belonging to the object of thought', that it belongs to the particular thing in question outside of whatever you think or feel of it. This would require empirical or observational evidence to talk about. You also failed to mention the other definitions, in particular 5 (which relates to opions) and 8. The 5th and 8th description of objective here require empirical evidence. 6 does too, because its things that exist outside the mind (therefore everyone should be able to observe them) and i would wager 7 does too. ...and here's where you are mistaken. 5 and 8 do not require empirical evidence, they merely require that the the object be based on facts; that is, describes reality. Facts, too, do not require empirical evidence; merely that what is being stated be an accurate description of reality. Perhaps we need a different approach, because I think we're still conflating facts and proofs to some degree. So, let's start over. Would you agree with the following two statements? 1. If God exists, then those who say He does not exist are wrong. 2. If God does not exist, then those who say He exists are wrong. Put differently, would you agree that what an individual may feel, think, or believe has no bearing on God's existence or non-existence? If you would not agree with the statements, then we are talking at cross-purposes and wasting each others' time. If you would agree with the statements, however, then it stands to reason that either the statement "God exists" describes reality or else the statement "God does not exist" describes reality. Therefore, it is either a fact that God exists, or else it is a fact that God does not exist. Note that we are not yet concerned with which possibility is fact; merely that one of them is an accurate description of reality and the other is not. These statements, then, are objective, as they are statements which are true or false independent of the speaker. We may argue that they are objectively true or objectively false, but they are not subjective (though arguments for them and based on them may be). Similar reasoning holds for the statements "all Mankind has the purpose of glorifying and fellowshipping with God" and "not all Mankind has the purpose of glorifying and fellowshipping with God". Each statement is either universally true or universally false, regardless of what individuals believe. We may argue, if we wish, as to whether the statement is true or false, but that is a completely separate discussion from whether the statement is objective or subjective. As for your sources (sorry for missing the Indiana University link the first time), Diffen is open to editing similar to Wikipedia, Quora is just users answering each-others' questions, and even the Indiana University link looks more like a teacher writing a summary for his/her class to use rather than a technical definition. This doesn't automatically invalidate the answers (and indeed, the answers are all pretty good apart from adding the requirement of "measurable", which is nowhere in the actual definition), but it does recommend caution when using these sources. Why should we accept these definitions as more authoritative than an official dictionary? (Dictionary.com is primarily sourced by Random House Unabridged Dictionary.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanarkin Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 (edited) 26 minutes ago, JJ48 said: ...and here's where you are mistaken. 5 and 8 do not require empirical evidence, they merely require that the the object be based on facts; that is, describes reality. Facts, too, do not require empirical evidence; merely that what is being stated be an accurate description of reality. Tell me, how are we to find what is reality without empirical observations between person to person? Other than what we both agree we experience (i.e we can both measure a string, the frequency of light, the distance between towns and reach the same conclusion [with some uncertainty]) you are going to have a hard time explaining how you can reach the same conclusions about something with pure thought and conjecture, or something you can't empirically observe. That is why people have different opinions about beauty, colors, religion, etc. 26 minutes ago, JJ48 said: Perhaps we need a different approach, because I think we're still conflating facts and proofs to some degree. So, let's start over. Would you agree with the following two statements? 1. If God exists, then those who say He does not exist are wrong. 2. If God does not exist, then those who say He exists are wrong. Put differently, would you agree that what an individual may feel, think, or believe has no bearing on God's existence or non-existence? I would agree. 26 minutes ago, JJ48 said: If you would agree with the statements, however, then it stands to reason that either the statement "God exists" describes reality or else the statement "God does not exist" describes reality. Therefore, it is either a fact that God exists, or else it is a fact that God does not exist. Note that we are not yet concerned with which possibility is fact; merely that one of them is an accurate description of reality and the other is not. These statements, then, are objective, as they are statements which are true or false independent of the speaker. We may argue that they are objectively true or objectively false, but they are not subjective (though arguments for them and based on them may be). The subjectivity comes in determining which statement is true. While i would agree that one out of the two statements are true, we cannot reach a conclusion on which one is correct on reality alone. There is nothing in this world that everyone can experience the same way that can determine the validity of one statement over the other (otherwise we would agree). As a result your assertion (or belief) of one statement as true is subjective because your choice to believe it does not depend on fact. It is the same with believing any one statement about purpose, they are subjective, because you cannot back them up with facts that can be observed by everyone in the real world. 26 minutes ago, JJ48 said: As for your sources (sorry for missing the Indiana University link the first time), Diffen is open to editing similar to Wikipedia, Quora is just users answering each-others' questions, and even the Indiana University link looks more like a teacher writing a summary for his/her class to use rather than a technical definition. This doesn't automatically invalidate the answers (and indeed, the answers are all pretty good apart from adding the requirement of "measurable", which is nowhere in the actual definition), but it does recommend caution when using these sources. Why should we accept these definitions as more authoritative than an official dictionary? (Dictionary.com is primarily sourced by Random House Unabridged Dictionary.) I agree, still the Indiana and the other sources do agree in their definitions of the words with one of the definitions found in the dictionary.com. They are also useful because they are closer to how the use of the words are being used in this thread. I never said we shouldn't accept dictionary.com, i said you failed to mention the other definitions (one of which Eclipse uses). Edited March 12, 2017 by SlayerX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 6 hours ago, JJ48 said: As for your sources (sorry for missing the Indiana University link the first time), Diffen is open to editing similar to Wikipedia, Quora is just users answering each-others' questions, and even the Indiana University link looks more like a teacher writing a summary for his/her class to use rather than a technical definition. This doesn't automatically invalidate the answers (and indeed, the answers are all pretty good apart from adding the requirement of "measurable", which is nowhere in the actual definition), but it does recommend caution when using these sources. Why should we accept these definitions as more authoritative than an official dictionary? (Dictionary.com is primarily sourced by Random House Unabridged Dictionary.) If you have to go as low as discrediting the sources, while completely ignoring the fact that I quoted part of dictionary.com's definition of "objective" (definition 5, to be exact), it's bad. If your logic hinges on how a single word is interpreted, then that logic is shaky, in my books. Your argument should be able to stand on its own merit - in this case, the question of God's existence is left to faith, which is most definitely NOT objective. The meaning of the word "objective" shouldn't even be a part of this. And lastly, if you believe that following God is mankind's purpose, then remember what Jesus told his followers - and do that, instead of arguing semantics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rukina Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 At least one purpose is to care for and sustain life on our planet which was made by the Creator of the universe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJ48 Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 2 hours ago, eclipse said: If you have to go as low as discrediting the sources, ... How is pointing out that some sources may be unreliable "low"? Not to mention, this was hardly the main thrust of my argument. 2 hours ago, eclipse said: ...while completely ignoring the fact that I quoted part of dictionary.com's definition of "objective" (definition 5, to be exact), it's bad. I did not ignore it; in fact, I pointed out that definition 5 still fit with how I was using the word! 2 hours ago, eclipse said: If your logic hinges on how a single word is interpreted, then that logic is shaky, in my books. Your argument should be able to stand on its own merit - in this case, the question of God's existence is left to faith, which is most definitely NOT objective. The meaning of the word "objective" shouldn't even be a part of this. Except that this entire argument has been about whether or not a claim is objective, so knowing the proper definitions really is quite important. Also, please re-read my post above. It may not be the most eloquent argument, but it made the case that God's existence or non-existence is not dependent on faith. One may have subjective reasons for believing or disbelieving God's existence, but the fact of God's existence or non-existence is objective. 2 hours ago, eclipse said: And lastly, if you believe that following God is mankind's purpose, then remember what Jesus told his followers - and do that, instead of arguing semantics. I'm not entirely sure where you're going with this. If you're saying that my attitude isn't very Christ-like, then I'm sorry and I'll try to work on that. I tend to be rather passionate about logic and reason, but I'm certainly not intending to attack or belittle anyone personally, and I apologize if it's come across that way. If that's not what you meant, then could you please explain it a bit more? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.