30 Sep 19
@fmf saidAnd opinions which state that there is definitively no God are also not objective, neither are opinions which advocate acting as if either possibility is potential.
Regardless of "whatever we find out to be true later", any personal opinions you express about supernatural things now are not objective.
For when there is no known truth value, the value is null, and even mimicking the concept that it is null in the sense that there is no valid conclusion is wrong, because an answer does exist. It is merely unknown.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
30 Sep 19
@fmf saidThis is not an analogy. I’m simply asking you:
I believe that all you and I are able to do when we are takling about supernatural things is to share our non-objective personal opinions. Any analogy about a judge and evidence in "a court of law" aimed at characterizing speculation about divine beings as "objective" is a dud.
Do you believe it’s impossible for a judge to be objective in a court of law when presented with evidence? Yes or No?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Well, as neither of us know whether or not he rose from the dead, all we have are our personal opinions about it.
So then if this is absolutely true, what you have just written, then you admit that truth is absolute?
Am I right ?
If this is absolutely true not just your opinion that -
" Well, as neither of us know whether or not he rose from the dead, all we have are our personal opinions about it.
Then you agree that truth is absolute. Right? No? Not yet ??
" Well, as neither of us know whether or not he rose from the dead, all we have are our personal opinions about it. "
Well, is that still RELATIVELY true, kind of, a matter of opinion, maybe true, maybe not ?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
30 Sep 19
1 edit
So you concede that you don't know whether "Jesus rose from the dead" is a fact or not?
Do you, then, concede that it may well not be a fact?
Oh, right up front I would say " I have faith."
Right up front I would say " I trust the Good News ".
Could it be true that Jesus is not the risen Son of God?
Logically, it could be not true. I have to work much harder to have "faith" in that then in believing the New Testament and what knowing the Holy Spirit has done in my life.
Paul said " IF Christ be not raised ..."
So I guess I too could say "If [logically possible] Christ is not what the New Testament teaches, is not raised, is not Lord ..."
I can afford to say that.
Can a person have faith in that which is truly true?
Or does the presence of "faith" automatically mean that the object of the faith is not really absolute truth ?
30 Sep 19
@dj2becker saidThis does not work as an analogy for speculating about the "evidence" of supernatural causality and "divine will".
Do you believe it’s impossible for a judge to be objective in a court of law when presented with evidence? Yes or No?
If you literally want to discuss courts of law, judges and evidence, i suggest you start a thread on the Debates Forum and see who wants to discuss it with you.
30 Sep 19
@philokalia saidExactly.
And opinions which state that there is definitively no God are also not objective, neither are opinions which advocate acting as if either possibility is potential.
30 Sep 19
@sonship saidStop using this silly gimmick. My opinions and beliefs on these matters are subjective just like yours. I am not the one who is declaring my beliefs with regard to supernatural things to be "absolutely true". Enough with the gimmicky wordplay. Read the thread.
So then if this is absolutely true, what you have just written, then you admit that truth is absolute?
Am I right ?
30 Sep 19
@sonship saidPeople can have faith in, or subscribe to, whatever faith or religion they want. Very, very, very strong certainty about one's faith does not generate objectivity. It's all in the realm of subjectivity.
Can a person have faith in that which is truly true?
Or does the presence of "faith" automatically mean that the object of the faith is not really absolute truth ?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
30 Sep 19
The bible's definition of "faith" is particular. It says that faith is the substantiating of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
That is a rather specialized definition of faith which you probably could not find in any dictionary.
Now there is plenty of something else in the Bible done by people which I would call presumption. Many times men PRESUMED something about God, It didn't count as faith.
Ie. The children of Israel refused to believe the positive report about the good land brought back by Joshua and Caleb. For their unbelief and their believing the negative report brought back by the ten other spies, God disciplined them. They would not immediately be able to go up into the promised land.
The people rebelled and PRESUMED to go up. They were sorely trounced by the Canaanites as Ai. They THOUGHT that God would be with them. They exercised presumption. It was not faith.
Many instances of presumption verses faith are in the stories of the Bible.
30 Sep 19
@philokalia saidAs long as the truth of the matter - i.e. an answer that does exist - is unknown and unprovable, all we can do is speculate about it; and that is why it is a matter of subjectivity and not objectivity.
For when there is no known truth value, the value is null, and even mimicking the concept that it is null in the sense that there is no valid conclusion is wrong, because an answer does exist. It is merely unknown.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
30 Sep 19
3 edits
People can have faith in, or subscribe to, whatever faith or religion they want. Very, very, very strong certainty about one's faith does not generate objectivity. It's all in the realm of subjectivity.
Would you say that "Very, very, very strong certainty" of necessity, every time, always without fail, HAS to be evidence of untrue subjectivity not absolute truth?
Can a human being be "Very, very, very strongly certain" about something that is really absolutely true ?
Is that possible ?
30 Sep 19
@sonship saidYou seem to be addressing me as if I am saying ~ or as if I have EVER even once stated, in twelve years of engaging you ~ that the stuff you believe in cannot be true. Read what I post, sonship. Read the thread.
@FMF
People can have faith in, or subscribe to, whatever faith or religion they want. Very, very, very strong certainty about one's faith does not generate objectivity. It's all in the realm of subjectivity.
Would you say that "very, very, very strong certainty" of necessity, every time, always without fail, HAS to be evidence of untrue subjectivity not ...[text shortened]... y, very strongly certain"[/i] about something that is really absolutely true ?
Is that possible ?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
30 Sep 19
@fmf saidIt’s quite obvious why you won’t answer the question so your dodge is just as good as an answer for me, thanks.
This does not work as an analogy for speculating about the "evidence" of supernatural causality and "divine will".
If you literally want to discuss courts of law, judges and evidence, i suggest you start a thread on the Debates Forum and see who wants to discuss it with you.
30 Sep 19
@dj2becker saidTake it the Debates Forum. Courts of law and judges obviously don't preside over people claiming they have "evidence" of unknowable, unprovable supernatural phenomena and beings and, just like the rest of us, couldn't and wouldn't be able to reach "objective" judgements about such a fundamentally subjective matter. I know why you are trying to use it as an analogy, but it's a dud.
It’s quite obvious why you won’t answer the question so your dodge is just as good as an answer for me, thanks.