I feel that it's worth pointing out that the definition of "information" is 1. Knowledge or facts learned, especially about a certain subject or event. Since nothing claimed about "god" can be shown to be factual it's safe to say that there is NO information - whatsoever - available about "god". There's only uninformed speculation that has varying degrees of "respectability", and that "respectability" is more a result of its age than anything else.
It means they are credulous about the evidence for God. You can love a concept that isn't real, which is what I believe theists are doing. They fall in love (for some reason) with a character. Their desire for it to be real clouds their judgement.
What evidence are you talking about? What is the evidence for your belief with regards your evaluation? jan.
Well, yes, but there is information of the "it is claimed that..." - which is factual in as much as it is claimed that... etc. That was what I would refer to, in the context of my discussion with Jan, as information about God. But I don't dispute what you say in the context you have given. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I don't know what evidence leads you to belief, if any. But all the evidence I've heard cited by theists is invalid.
Does one eliminate it subjectively or objectively? Do you think there is a possibility that this subjective analysis is not true? If it is true, then is it possible that other subjective analysis could also be true? If it is true, and subjective, aren't you wrong, as you only accept objective knowledge as truth, and give no serious credence to the subjective? Why ridicule the person? Not that I accept that atheist don't try to ridicule the information. The position we hold is more illuminating during the course of a discussion, than trying explain it. I will continue to view you as you come across to me, and cross check it with the position you claim to hold. If we simply believed others appraisal of themselves, we would not know who we are communicating with. They either exist or they don't. If they exist it means they are somehow objective. If they don't exist, then we are deluded. You can't have it both ways. Consciousness, from your perspective, is also a subjective reality, but here you using it the term as though it is objective. Almost as though what its objective reality is. Which is still subjective. That we can all agree that wool is soft is evidence of the fact that wool is soft. You cannot separate the subjective from the objective. Wool is there, but it means nothing without an idea of what it is. You also don't know, that other people don't know. Yet you indirectly assert that you do. What does that question mean? To anyone who knowingly loves, or is loved, the object of their love exists. So experienced people will talk about love in an objective way, and everyone who has that experience will know what they are talking about. People without that experience will not know what they're talking about, and will be in a position to claim they are talking nonsense. They may even write papers on how love is an delusion, but it will only have value to those, who themselves are either devoid or ignorant of what love is. Birds of feather mi old fruit! Accepting their claim means you have a better comprehension of it. If you simply deny everything they are saying, even though you have no real experiential knowledge of what they say. Chances are you're ignorant. The ancient Greeks were very knowledgeable. They learnt a lot from the ancient Egyptians, who in turn learned a lot from the Babylonians, and Sumerians, and so on. I think maybe the Greeks got a little above themselves, and they were definitely too horny. The same way implements came about to wipe ones bottom after a pooh. Or to find something to keep you warm. I'd hardly describe them as inventions. It's not really a case of anyone saying anything. The question remains... how did he know there were other planets, without have the capability, like a modern telescope to see them? I don't. My point is, they don't know, yet they assert. It is the same or similar method one would use to comprehend the objectivity of love. If they can'tcomprehend what love is, they're not likely to comprehend what God is. What they can comprehend of love, is very similar to what they will comprehend of God. Which scripture is it that reasons? As far as I know, they tell you what's what. If we don't agree with it. Too bad. Or good. Depends how you look at it. No it doesn't work both ways. There IS information about God. The only information about NO God, is what you make up. We have no need to erect barriers. You do. jan.
The way you prove God, is to use the same inference method that science is uses for dark matter and dark energy. Dark matter and dark energy have never been seen on lab to prove they are real and not imaginary. In spite of no lab proof, dark matter and dark energy is inferred by affects that appear to exist outside standard science. If this is considered valid science inference, then God also can't be proven in the lab. However, for many it has been inferred from affects. For example, nobody knows how the universe came into existence. From this affect many infer God. How about affects referred to as miracles, which defy the known laws and odds in science. This is a valid approach of proof, since science allows this. I assume there is not a dual standard to hide religion in science; faith based inference.
Classic God of the gaps argument. Whatever we are ignorant of, that must be God. There is at least evidence of the effect of some mass that can't otherwise be detected. We call it dark matter as a placeholder until we can detect something directly. Also, we already know basically what matter is. God, however, is a complex of many concepts, and it's not logical to infer its existence based on the existence of things generally.
No it isn't. We can see an effect that could only be caused by mass, we know mass exists. The universe itself isn't evidence for anything specific about it's cause. There is no evidence for a God.
As objectively as possible. It is subjective. It is what it is - based on perspective. If it was not something based on perspective then it would be objective. At that point it is a matter of guessing a coin-toss. Things might be correct, they might be wrong, but without knowing one accepts a default position - and the one I find rational is to not assume existence of something until necessary. They shouldn't, and atheists don't. Some people who happen to be atheists do. Some people who happen to be theists do. That doesn't address you discussing with me as though I am your stereotypical atheist (by which I mean someone who believes God does not exist). I am not asking you to believe my appraisal of myself, but at least address what I write and not what you think I am due to your stereotyping. Deluded? No. Belief in that which can not be proven is not delusion, as I see it, as delusion is holding a position when there is proof to the contrary. How am I using it as though it is objective? Wool is only soft to those who can experience what "soft" is. "Soft" is a quality of the substance that only has meaning to people with consciousness. Yet it is that state that is the objective state - the simple molecules in a certain arrangement - the reality of what wool is that is irrespective of who or what might observe it. Any quality that is dependent upon the perspective of that observation is subjective. And this is only with regard things that are subjective views of objective reality. There are things that are solely subjective, that have no external objective existence. Love is one such thing. I've yet to come across someone who does know. Plenty of people have claimed to know, but they can provide nothing to support that. I know only as far as I can know. Let me put it another way: is God other than just a man-made concept? Shared subjectivity is not the same as being objective. Exactly - love is subjective. Noone is denying that. Love has no external existence in and of itself. So when the question is "Is love other than a subjective feeling/emotion?" you can confidently say "No". Not necessarily. Accepting on trust requires no comprehension. Many people have passed exams by merely regurgitating and not comprehending, because they accepted what the teacher told them. I happily admit I am ignorant. That is what "I do not know" means. But I at least know that I do not know and do not seek to merely satisfy my ego with another answer. So why do you place scriptures from antiquity on a pedestal, as containing knowledge out of reach of mankind at the time? Then I suggest you revisit your idea of what an invention is. You don't need a telescope to map out the transit of Venus, or Mars, or Jupiter in the night's sky. Just nights under a clear sky. And a keen observer would note how they move differently across our skies compared to the constellations. I can not answer exactly how people knew, or when they knew, but I don't discount the possibility that they did know and that the information was simply lost to the majority of people. If you can prove otherwise, of course? The same can be said of theist and atheists alike. I thought that by posting some definitions of what objective and subjective meant it would be patently obvious that love is purely subjective? Otherwise, if I take what you have written as if you do understand, then with your comment you are confirming that searching for God is searching for the impossible - for that which does not exist. As there is no objectivity of love. That it is a wholly subjective experience? Is this what God is, then? An emotion? It is the reasons for accepting the scripture as true that seems to be circular. So you believe. For if God does not exist, then what is that information about? For me to accept that it truly is information about God I would first need to actually believe that God exists, which requires me to believe that it is information about God... Spot the circular reasoning yet? There is no information about "NO God". There is merely information about nature, none of which seems to require God as an explanation, unless it seems (to me at least) one wants to satisfy one's ego when they reach a point of "I don't know" and come up with a suitably satisfying answer.
So when you think you're being objective, is that subjective or objective? If it's objective, then please show evidence of what it is to actually think objectively without being subjective? Thus far all your evaluations and analysis, as all been based on subjective knowledge, and reasoning. No different to mine. Is what you say true, or not. It's a simple question. So you don't know if what you're saying is true or false? Well does God exist, as you read this, or not? To say you don't know, does not hold God in some kind of suspended animation. It means He doesn't actually exist, but you don't know if He exists. So accept your intellectual position as agnostic atheist, but God either exists or not, and you live your life according to whichever view you hold. People experience love, meaning it is real, meaning it exists within reality. It must be objective on some level. Perhaps science hasn't gotten to the stage where it can observe what it actually is. Eh? You do not know that Love has no existence in and of itself. Neither can you say with any certainty that love is nothing more than a feeling. This is purely an opinion you have arrived at. Because they ACCEPTED the authority/credentials/personality/etc... of the teacher. Once you accept what you are being told, it is easy or easier to comprehend. Once you comprehend what your perceive, then you have a better vantage point, than the person who does not accept what is being said, without first comprehending what is being said. Are you admitting that you are ignorant of knowledge of God, because you deny the information? Everything you mentioned thus far is subjective, and you claim that subjective knowledge isn't real knowledge. So what are you doing if not satisfying your ego, spouting a load of stuff as if it true, but not really knowing whether or not what you say has any merit of truth in it? I place them on a pedastal, because I believe they explain a lot things that are important for people who are interested in spiritual matters. But they are unique. I guess you'd have to develop your comprehension of them to get a hint of where I'm coming from. I'm not bothered about proof. If they knew, then they knew. It's just remarkable that people get that kind of information without the aid of modern science and technology. Well, some of us find it remarkable. Why is it obvious? Is love real? Does love exist? Yes? Then it is objective in some form or other. Otherwise, you are telling me love doesn't exist outside of the word itself. God is what you want Him/It to be. And write now, you are arguing God into non existence. The barriers are closing in. Like I said for some God exists, for other God does not exist. You need me to say that you have to believe in God, in order to believe in God (or some crap like that). There is nothing circular, or confusing about my reasoning, you have to say that to justify your own position. Are you seriously telling me there is no information about God? The information does not say anything about God not existing. Why should I assume that God doesn't exist? What would be the point of accessing this information on the assumption that God doesn't exist? How can you actually believe in God, if you don't know who are what God is, or supposed to be? Do you actually believe in anything? Do you know what believing in something actually is, and means? How do you know it doesn't require God as an explanation? Do you know everything there is to know about everything? jan.
No, it can't be measured. Only certain physical manifestations of what is termed "love" can be. Love itself is wholly subjective. It differs from person to person. And outside of someone capable of experiencing love it has no existence. This is the very definition of subjective.
Agree. There is a whole realm of human experience for which science does not provide very helpful tools for description or understanding. If that were not so, nobody would study the Humanities. The realm of religion is part of the Humanities, not science, because the job of religion is to help people make sense of and deal with human experience, not to provide explanations of the physical world.
It is objective when the answer does not change from one perspective to another. Some is objectively true, others merely subjective, and yet more is mere opinion with no claim to truth. Objectively exist? I do not know. You have strange thinking. I simply do not know if God exists or not. The same way I don't know what my predecessors from 1,000 years ago looked like with any accuracy. The same way I do not know an infinite number of objective facts. I simply do not know. Agreed that this does not hold God in any kind of suspended animation, but God either exists or he doesn't irrespective of my personal views on the matter, irrespective of the fact that I do not know. Why do you struggle with people that claim not to know? Why do you insist on forcing a position upon them that they just don't hold? Remove things capable of experiencing love and you there is no love. This is a text-book example of something that is thus wholly subjective. Again, do you fully grasp what it means for existence to be subjective or objective? No, I'm fairly certain that it is subjective. As said, remove anything capable of experiencing it and love disappears. This is what happens with things that are wholly subjective: remove the subject, remove that thing. It can certainly manifest itself through hormonal changes, psychology, chemicals etc but this does not make it objective. As said, they passed the exam, they didn't necessarily comprehend what they were saying. It is actually easier to get people to learn to comprehend for themselves. This is what critical thinking is all about. If God exists objectively then it is knowledge of God. If God does not exist objectively then it is knowledge of the concept of God. I am not denying the information, only what it is with regard to, as I do not know whether God exists objectively or not. I have said no such thing. Subjective knowledge is knowledge, but it is limited to the subject. If you look at a picture and say that it is beautiful then this is subjective knowledge: it relates to you. It is not objective as it does not relate to those things that can not experience the emotion, either at all or merely when looking at that picture. The objective truth would be along the lines of "you find that picture beautiful" and you might even need to qualify it with a certain time and place, lest your opinion changes. What are any of us doing. At least I am capable of admitting my ignorance. Hence my agnosticism. Homer's Illiad is unique. JK Rowling's Harry Potter books are unique. But I'm glad you admitted that it is a matter of belief. Indeed it is remarkable. But that does not equate to being divinely inspired. Love does not exist outside of the subjective experience. Remove things capable of experiencing it and it does not exist. All that you are left with is chemicals. The chemicals are patently not "love". Or maybe you disagree with that? If so, bottle the chemicals and inject them into a brick. If there brick experiences love then you may be onto something. So subjective. Right now I am arguing from the toward "I don't know". So subjective. Then pease come up with an argument to support the objective existence of God that does not work the other way, that does not rely on the a priori assumption that God objectively exists? I don't say that to justify my own position, but to highlight why yours, as you relay it, is unacceptable to me. Answered above. So you admit making the a priori assumption? I am aware of what God is claimed to be. I am starting with the fundamental, though: "original cause". If I can't come round to believing in the existence or non-existence of that, why move on to something else? I try not to believe in anything without experience of that thing upon which to base the assessment of future performance. I don't know. Hence I am agnostic. It would be nice to think that I do, but no, I know very little, as do we all.
