@philokalia saidYou seem. Be saying that “objective knowledge” is not “worth having”.
The only objective knowledge is publicly verifiable and mundane.
Most things worth knowing are abstract.
Most things worth having are abstract.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
@FMF
The biblical definition of faith is that it is the substantiating of reality not seen yet hoped for.
In the Bible faith precludes that there is reality out there which faith substantiates.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
"Now faith is the substantiation of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (Heb. 11:1)
Faith is not presumption. And throughout the Bible we see the difference and tension between faith and presumption.
Genuine faith indicates that the object of the faith is real. We touch it through trust in the trustworthy God. We have faith in the FAITHFUL God.
If God is not faithful all man's "faith" means nothing. If God is not faithful any of man's exercise of faith will not bring about anything real.
@sonship saidI don't see anything wrong with this as long as you realize others have different faiths and beliefs and that, with supernatural stuff like this, everyone is treating their certainty as evidence of objectivity, when such 'wordplay' is unnecessary for the holding or propagation of whatever the faith is.
Genuine faith indicates that the object of the faith is real.
@sonship saidYou may be absolutely convinced that both of these statements are "objective" but all they are are personal opinions based on speculation about supernatural things that are immune to the kind of scrutiny that objective ideas and facts can weather.
If God is not faithful all man's "faith" means nothing. If God is not faithful any of man's exercise of faith will not bring about anything real.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
@FMF
Do you think anything could be very subjectively personal and very objectively universal also?
It seems logical to me that God would be at both very personal and very ultimately universally objective too.
To make a dichotomy that the very personal to someone cannot be universal would be a mistake, I think.
Likewise for the universal to be impossible to be very personal, also would be a false dichotomy.
I find it logical that ultimate truth would be both intimately personal and all-inclusively universal.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
You may be absolutely convinced that both of these statements are "objective" but all they are are personal opinions based on speculation about supernatural things that are immune to the kind of scrutiny that objective ideas and facts can weather.
Would the universe creating itself be considered by you supernatural?
I mean how could it exist to create itself if it did not exist?
Do you also consider that the result of evolution as some consider it is not miraculous ?
I mean a goalless, purposeless process arriving at the biosphere as we see it.
Now before you come up with "But you don't understand evolution," I concede. Not to the degree that it is used to explain all of life around us and human beings.
Correct. I don't understand it to that degree - a replacement for intelligent planning. That degree of evolution theory is a supernatural miracle that some are asking me to believe - a secular religion of sorts.
@sonship saidWe can speculate about the origin of the universe as much as we want. It is not going to generate objectivity, no matter how certain you come about the results of your speculation and your subscription to the theories of others. It's a subjective realm.
Would the universe creating itself be considered by you supernatural?
@sonship saidI think it is amazing and spectacular and mystifying and for it to be perceived as evidence of a creator being is perfectly understandable, in my personal subjective opinion, of course.
Do you also consider that the result of evolution as some consider it is not miraculous ?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
We can speculate about the origin of the universe as much as we want.
Of course we can speculate all we want. The important thing is where is the speculation more likely.
Tell me about a universe that wasn't yet created itself. It was not but was in order to make it be.
Of course we can speculate all we want. Is what I outline above logically valid?
It is not going to generate objectivity, no matter how certain you come about the results of your speculation and your subscription to the theories of others. It's a subjective realm.
And that is proposed by you as an objective truth. Haven't you generated objectivity by suggesting the validity of your opinion is the right one to have?