Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

- God -

Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2011 3:04:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
My thoughts are this....

God is objective, but can only be experienced subjectively.

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2011 3:10:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The difference between actuality and reality.

I can go with that.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2011 3:14:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/18/2011 3:12:29 PM, Contradiction wrote:
Are you saying that we can only know God subjectively?

We can pretty much only know everything subjectively.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2011 3:25:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/18/2011 3:04:30 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
My thoughts are this....

God is objective, but can only be experienced subjectively.

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.


No.

God would first have to exist to be objective. Second, our knowledge of God, if he existed; would also be objective.

I don't like to use the term "subjective" merely to describe the viewpoints of people. That implies that people can't know objective facts. I take "subjective" to refer to personal opinion and taste, things that aren't capable of being objective.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2011 3:33:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/18/2011 3:25:55 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/18/2011 3:04:30 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
My thoughts are this....

God is objective, but can only be experienced subjectively.

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.


No.


God would first have to exist to be objective. Second, our knowledge of God, if he existed; would also be objective.

I don't like to use the term "subjective" merely to describe the viewpoints of people. That implies that people can't know objective facts. I take "subjective" to refer to personal opinion and taste, things that aren't capable of being objective.

Well that's a subjective opinion on the term "subjective".
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2011 3:46:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If God does exist, then his existence is objective.

Certainly certain proofs of God's existence, like ones that appeal to logic (Descartes ontological proof) could be considered objective knowledge of an objective being.
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2011 4:17:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/18/2011 3:04:30 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
My thoughts are this....

God is objective, but can only be experienced subjectively.

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.


if god can only be experienced subjectively then how do we know he isn't subjective?
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2011 4:22:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
God = actuality

Actuality clearly exists.

It only gets fuzzy when you add personification, claim to speak in the name of God, etc.

We can only perceive God through a subjective lens. Even when doing experiments that are intended to be objective, our inability to account for all variables prevents us from having total objectivity.

God exists. Most people just have a very shallow understanding of what God is.

Atheists believe in God, they just don't believe in the false conception of God that is perpetuated by religionists who do not understand the concept.

To outright deny the God concept is understandable, but it is more useful from a communication standpoint to make sense of it.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2011 4:53:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/18/2011 4:17:39 PM, rogue wrote:
At 5/18/2011 3:04:30 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
My thoughts are this....

God is objective, but can only be experienced subjectively.

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.


if god can only be experienced subjectively then how do we know he isn't subjective?

Yes, that is a very good question. And my answer is this...

Anything that is objective can only be experienced subjectively. Existence can only be experienced through awareness. Awareness can only be experienced through consciousness thought and reality. All conscious thought and reality is experienced through subjective material.

You see, this let me go deeper into my perspective...

Since all experiences can only be be experienced though a conscious existence and conscious existence can only function through subjective thought... This makes each of our own personal realities subjective to any other personal personal realities that have been in contact with it, and vice-versa. This means that our entire reality consists of subjective material. Some of that subjective material is true and objective no matter if any conscious existence believes in it or not, while some of that material is purely subjective and exists only in the conscious realities of those that believe it to be so.

In this way, objective material can only be experienced subjectively, through faith or belief. You may believe something to be objective in your reality, but that is all it can be. A belief.

What is true is true, but what is true is truly different for each of us.

Actuality = Personal Reality
Personal Reality = Actuality

For it can be experienced in no other way.
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2011 4:55:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/18/2011 4:53:40 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 5/18/2011 4:17:39 PM, rogue wrote:
At 5/18/2011 3:04:30 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
My thoughts are this....

God is objective, but can only be experienced subjectively.

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.


if god can only be experienced subjectively then how do we know he isn't subjective?

Yes, that is a very good question. And my answer is this...

Anything that is objective can only be experienced subjectively. Existence can only be experienced through awareness. Awareness can only be experienced through consciousness thought and reality. All conscious thought and reality is experienced through subjective material.

You see, this let me go deeper into my perspective...

Since all experiences can only be be experienced though a conscious existence and conscious existence can only function through subjective thought... This makes each of our own personal realities subjective to any other personal personal realities that have been in contact with it, and vice-versa. This means that our entire reality consists of subjective material. Some of that subjective material is true and objective no matter if any conscious existence believes in it or not, while some of that material is purely subjective and exists only in the conscious realities of those that believe it to be so.

In this way, objective material can only be experienced subjectively, through faith or belief. You may believe something to be objective in your reality, but that is all it can be. A belief.

What is true is true, but what is true is truly different for each of us.

Actuality = Personal Reality
Personal Reality = Actuality

For it can be experienced in no other way.

I agree with you for most of it. But I think that if we all are only experiencing things subjectively, how do we know that there are any objective facts?
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2011 4:57:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
A quote that I like...

"The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist."

- Erwin Schrodinger -
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2011 5:32:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/18/2011 4:53:40 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
Actuality = Personal Reality
Personal Reality = Actuality

For it can be experienced in no other way.

Actuality is how things actually are.

Reality is how things appear to be to us, with or without sensory augmentation.

Reality is a good indicator of actuality, but our very limited perception and inability to account for all variables keeps it from being the same, even in the most objective observation.

You might be able to get a close approximation of actuality from observation of reality, though you are still looking at the skin over the orange.

To say that actuality = Personal reality(which is redundant) is very New Agey, fundamentally egotistical, and patently false to anyone who has a basic understanding of the limitations of our own epistemology. This belief definitely needs to be put under more scrutiny.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2011 5:34:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/18/2011 4:55:09 PM, rogue wrote:
At 5/18/2011 4:53:40 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 5/18/2011 4:17:39 PM, rogue wrote:
At 5/18/2011 3:04:30 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
My thoughts are this....

God is objective, but can only be experienced subjectively.

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.


if god can only be experienced subjectively then how do we know he isn't subjective?

Yes, that is a very good question. And my answer is this...

Anything that is objective can only be experienced subjectively. Existence can only be experienced through awareness. Awareness can only be experienced through consciousness thought and reality. All conscious thought and reality is experienced through subjective material.

You see, this let me go deeper into my perspective...

Since all experiences can only be be experienced though a conscious existence and conscious existence can only function through subjective thought... This makes each of our own personal realities subjective to any other personal personal realities that have been in contact with it, and vice-versa. This means that our entire reality consists of subjective material. Some of that subjective material is true and objective no matter if any conscious existence believes in it or not, while some of that material is purely subjective and exists only in the conscious realities of those that believe it to be so.

In this way, objective material can only be experienced subjectively, through faith or belief. You may believe something to be objective in your reality, but that is all it can be. A belief.

What is true is true, but what is true is truly different for each of us.

Actuality = Personal Reality
Personal Reality = Actuality

For it can be experienced in no other way.

I agree with you for most of it. But I think that if we all are only experiencing things subjectively, how do we know that there are any objective facts?

You can only truly know what you believe to be true. This can be through whatever evidence you experience to form that belief or through no evidence and the you believe through pure faith itself. But it is important to remember when forming a belief through evidence... That all evidence is subjective and in the end you will still be forming your belief on faith.

It's like when you jump in the air and you believe that you will land on the ground.

Just as you may jump off of a cliff and believe that you will go to a special place when you hit the ground.

The important lesson to realize is that everything you "know"... You believe the information to be true. Since you believe the information to be true... it is true.... In your personal reality at least.

Actual truth = personal truth

This is because actual truth can only be experienced through personal truth.

Personal truth = personal belief

This is because all information forming a personal truth is only true if the conscious existence believes the information to be true.

In this way, subjective and objective truth exist like the yin and the yang.

They exist as one.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2011 6:53:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Actual truth = personal truth

This is because actual truth can only be experienced through personal truth.

Some of your earlier points reminded me of Hume, and that's fine because I like Hume. This claim is much more radical, and seems to be a denial of objective reality. The fact is, objective facts that are true independent of what you experience do exist, among those are mathematical and logical truths. Whatever your personal truth may be on 7+3, it must be measured against reality.

Your claim that you can only know what you believe to be true seems to be a definitional truth from a conscious standpoint (not getting into that Freudian stuff). If I deny that, does my personal truth really align with actual truth?
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2011 7:32:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/18/2011 6:53:02 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Actual truth = personal truth

This is because actual truth can only be experienced through personal truth.

Some of your earlier points reminded me of Hume, and that's fine because I like Hume. This claim is much more radical, and seems to be a denial of objective reality. The fact is, objective facts that are true independent of what you experience do exist, among those are mathematical and logical truths. Whatever your personal truth may be on 7+3, it must be measured against reality.

Your claim that you can only know what you believe to be true seems to be a definitional truth from a conscious standpoint (not getting into that Freudian stuff). If I deny that, does my personal truth really align with actual truth?

Well, you can deny or believe what you want as your personal truth. Some of your personal truth may indeed align with actual truth (mathematical and logical truth), but it can still only be perceived or experienced subjectively.

Let me ask you this...

2+3=5 Correct?

Now if I ask you this way 2 what + 3 what = 5 what ?

2 apples + 3 apples = 5 apples?

What defines 1 apple? An apple with no little chunks missing? An apple of a certain weight? An apple is not really "one" if you consider that it is made up of a multitude of particles. If you cut it in half you would say 2 parts... Correct? But what if I fashioned those two parts into "whole", but smaller apples?

This is where mathematics breaks down. Mathematics is used to logically measure certain variables and the definitions of those specific variables are subjective.

You might feel that your definition for 1 apple is accurate and so you base your personal truth off of that definition. But that definition is subjective and I may not feel the information is accurate.

Definitions are subjective.

Let me explain further.

If you took three 2 oz apples and three 1 oz apples and added them you would say that you had 5 apples... correct?

But if you truly added them together...say in a blender. You could say that you have five 1 oz apples (5 apples) or that you have one 5 oz apple (1 apple).

In this way, 2 small apples+3 small apples = 1 big apple or 2+3 = 1 ....not 5.

It's all a matter of perspective and personal truth.

Subjective and Objective truth exist as one.
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2011 7:48:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Mathematical Correction. I totally screwed up my math and the point I was trying to make. I am truly sorry for the confusion and I will fix this here. What I meant is this...

Let me explain further.

If you took three 2 oz apples and three 1 oz apples and added them you would say that you had 5 apples... correct?

But if you truly added them together...say in a blender. You could say that you have 9 1 oz apples (9 apples) or that you have one 9 oz apple (1 apple).

In this way, 2 small apples+3 small apples = 1 nine oz apple(2+3=1) or...

Five 1.8 oz apples (2+3=5) or...

Nine 1 oz apples (2+3=9) etc. etc.

It's all a matter of perspective and personal truth.

Subjective and Objective truth exist as one.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2011 8:00:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/18/2011 7:48:44 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
Mathematical Correction. I totally screwed up my math and the point I was trying to make. I am truly sorry for the confusion and I will fix this here. What I meant is this...


Let me explain further.

If you took three 2 oz apples and three 1 oz apples and added them you would say that you had 5 apples... correct?

But if you truly added them together...say in a blender. You could say that you have 9 1 oz apples (9 apples) or that you have one 9 oz apple (1 apple).

In this way, 2 small apples+3 small apples = 1 nine oz apple(2+3=1) or...

Five 1.8 oz apples (2+3=5) or...

Nine 1 oz apples (2+3=9) etc. etc.

It's all a matter of perspective and personal truth.

Subjective and Objective truth exist as one.

No, no, there's a conservation of material. What you have is this:

(3x2) * (3x1) = 9

This does not mean that 3+2=9. You're mixing up the number of apples with the ounces. In the material of of the 2 oz apples there are 2 1 oz apples, so you can say there are 9 oz or the materials of 9 1 oz apples. In reality you could not conclude the number of apples from a 9 oz mix because apples come in different sizes.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2011 8:08:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/18/2011 8:01:05 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I meant + instead of *.

All you've done is make the 2 oz apples into 1 oz apples...you'll have to do better than that to disprove a mathematical truth. You can't have it both ways, it's either the 2 oz apples are their own thing so 2+3=5 or convert the 3 2 oz apples into 6 1 oz apples so it's 6+3=9.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2011 8:14:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/18/2011 7:48:44 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
Mathematical Correction. I totally screwed up my math and the point I was trying to make. I am truly sorry for the confusion and I will fix this here. What I meant is this...


Let me explain further.

If you took three 2 oz apples and three 1 oz apples and added them you would say that you had 5 apples... correct?

But if you truly added them together...say in a blender. You could say that you have 9 1 oz apples (9 apples) or that you have one 9 oz apple (1 apple).

In this way, 2 small apples+3 small apples = 1 nine oz apple(2+3=1) or...

Five 1.8 oz apples (2+3=5) or...

Nine 1 oz apples (2+3=9) etc. etc.

It's all a matter of perspective and personal truth.

Subjective and Objective truth exist as one.

If subjective and objective truth are one, then why ever change your mind? Personally I see this as an excuse to become intellectually lazy and convince yourself that you are right no matter what.
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2011 9:13:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm not disproving a mathematical truth. I'm showing that applied mathematics require definitions of variables and that those definitions are subjective.

I don't need to convert anything in any certain way. That specific conversion is what your subjective reality demands. 2+3 is a conversion in itself. It's defining what the actual variables are when you apply this conversion that is important.

2what + 3 what = 5 what

The "what" is the defined variable. The "what" is subjective. Since the variables of the conversion are subjective, so is the answer. This means that the conversion itself is also subjective.

Let me ask you something...

The color blue is blue in actuality right? Is that an objective truth? To whose reality do you apply the definition of what is blue? Can you objectively define color?

Can you objectively define logic? For logical "thought" can not exist without illogical "thought", or it would just be "thought"..without the defined category.

Can you objectively say that 2+3 will always equal 5? Or must you define the variables (the "what") first in order for it to become truth in actuality? If you must define the variables first, then they would be defined subjectively.

So in this way, 2+3 does objectively equal 5, but it also subjectively equals 5.

This depends on perception, perspective, or "personal truth".

A whole number is never really just a whole number in actuality...

A whole number is both a whole number in definition and multiple numbers in definition when you break it down in truth.

Objective truth and subjective truth are one.

Subjective truth becomes objective truth when it's existence is created. When that subjective variable was created it became something that exists and the existence of that subjective variable then becomes objective. Whether or not the subjective/objective variable is logically understood...now that's a different story. But subjective truth and objective truth exist together. They are one.

In essence, this is the "Yin Yang Philosophy". One cannot exist without the other.

Separate, but the same. One, but many.

Objective, but subjective. Subjective, but objective.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2011 10:02:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/18/2011 9:13:37 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
I'm not disproving a mathematical truth. I'm showing that applied mathematics require definitions of variables and that those definitions are subjective.

I don't need to convert anything in any certain way. That specific conversion is what your subjective reality demands. 2+3 is a conversion in itself. It's defining what the actual variables are when you apply this conversion that is important.

2what + 3 what = 5 what

The "what" is the defined variable. The "what" is subjective. Since the variables of the conversion are subjective, so is the answer. This means that the conversion itself is also subjective.

Let me ask you something...

The color blue is blue in actuality right? Is that an objective truth? To whose reality do you apply the definition of what is blue? Can you objectively define color?

Can you objectively define logic? For logical "thought" can not exist without illogical "thought", or it would just be "thought"..without the defined category.

Can you objectively say that 2+3 will always equal 5? Or must you define the variables (the "what") first in order for it to become truth in actuality? If you must define the variables first, then they would be defined subjectively.

So in this way, 2+3 does objectively equal 5, but it also subjectively equals 5.

This depends on perception, perspective, or "personal truth".

A whole number is never really just a whole number in actuality...

A whole number is both a whole number in definition and multiple numbers in definition when you break it down in truth.

Objective truth and subjective truth are one.

Subjective truth becomes objective truth when it's existence is created. When that subjective variable was created it became something that exists and the existence of that subjective variable then becomes objective. Whether or not the subjective/objective variable is logically understood...now that's a different story. But subjective truth and objective truth exist together. They are one.

In essence, this is the "Yin Yang Philosophy". One cannot exist without the other.

Separate, but the same. One, but many.

Objective, but subjective. Subjective, but objective.

Actual truth = personal truth

This is because actual truth can only be experienced through personal truth.

We're going to ditch the concept of assigning variables to numbers because the mathematical truth can be demonstrated without using variables, and instead theoretically. There is really no need to introduce variables. There's no reason why 2+3=5 can't stand alone, without variables.

Blue being blue would be a definitional truth. It's less clear than the mathematical truths, so I would like to stick to those. I do not see color as being an objective truth.

Logic is simply correct reasoning and drawing valid inferences. Even if there were no humans logical truths would still apply.

I want to clear something up, objective truth is generally considered mind independent while subjectivity is mind dependent. Speaking logically, something cannot be both. Are you saying that everything is mind dependent?

If I haven't already mentioned, your view leads to absurd conclusions like 2+2=pizza, as once it has been accepted as a subjective truth, it is all of a sudden objective as well. This would seem to be extremely illogical, but since I can't really appeal to logic with you, that's not saying much. I feel like I can't argue any more with you because if logic and mathematical truths are not accepted forms of argument then I'm pretty lost. I have experience in philosophy, not psychology.
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2011 10:31:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
You completely misunderstand me. I am using both law of logic and law of mathematics. Your frustration towards me is understood, because my frustration with you is similar in nature.

Let's go with what you stated...

2+3=5 does it? How would you apply this?

2 what + 3 what = 5 what

This is what is really important. 2 camels + 3 horses = 5 dogs?

2+3=5 wouldn't be true in that statement now would it...

Defining the variables of mathematics makes all the difference in actuality and those definitions are subjective.

2 units + 3 units = 5 units? What is your definition of the unit?

The definition of the unit is subjective.

This is both logical and mathematical.

objective truth = subjective truth and subjective truth = objective truth

Can you prove this theory wrong? I would like to hear how it is...

I only search for knowledge and wisdom. I try to keep an open mind on my journey.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2011 10:46:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/18/2011 10:31:35 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
You completely misunderstand me. I am using both law of logic and law of mathematics. Your frustration towards me is understood, because my frustration with you is similar in nature.

Let's go with what you stated...

2+3=5 does it? How would you apply this?

2 what + 3 what = 5 what

This is what is really important. 2 camels + 3 horses = 5 dogs?

2+3=5 wouldn't be true in that statement now would it...

Defining the variables of mathematics makes all the difference in actuality and those definitions are subjective.

2 units + 3 units = 5 units? What is your definition of the unit?

The definition of the unit is subjective.

This is both logical and mathematical.

objective truth = subjective truth and subjective truth = objective truth

Can you prove this theory wrong? I would like to hear how it is...

I only search for knowledge and wisdom. I try to keep an open mind on my journey.

2+3=5 can stand alone. I think I get what you're saying now, but I disagree. Even in dreams mathematical truths still apply, just keep the terms constant. 1 perceived/imagined book + 1 perceived/imaged book = 2 perceived/imagined books. It makes no difference whether the books are even there.

By the way, I'm not mad or frustrated at you in any way. It is a bit late, and it wouldn't be the first time I misunderstood something. Just keeping it friendly.
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2011 2:21:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/18/2011 11:02:52 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Or are you questioning our philosophical justification for defining terms?

I'm stating that the justification for defining terms is subjective.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2011 3:04:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/19/2011 2:21:53 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 5/18/2011 11:02:52 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Or are you questioning our philosophical justification for defining terms?

I'm stating that the justification for defining terms is subjective.

I have already stated that you can have an idea of numbers independently of variables. You're argument with mathematics concerned itself with variables, but you never addressed this point.

Anyway, I'm back to square one. You've said you have logic and math on your side, but why should this even be meaningful if this is all completely subjective? It really seems like it would purely be a matter of holding an attitude. I have already stated that logically speaking, something cannot be objective and subjective. The inability to define these as separate concepts have really muddled the debate.
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2011 3:24:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
They are different, but the same. They are 2, but one.

It's like light and darkness. Big and small. Front and back. Up and down. Male and female. Objective and Subjective.

They are one in the same because they cannot exist without one another.

Does this help you understand?