251 replies to this topic

[fullywired]

Mr Walker, on 23 February 2013 - 12:57 AM, said:

This is irrelevant to my knowing god exists and having concrete evidences of his existence . No one has to have other people know something, for it to be true.

Also irrelevant, but in contrast to your pov., I am "surrounded" by people who know god in the same way as i doand have had similar exerinces with god angels etc. Its like football If ou are intersted in football  yopu talk about it spend time with like minded followers and you you associate with others of the same nature.

Also, of course many people "shout" about their experiences with god. Many write books about such encounters, while others give personal witness and testimony to them. But you don't live in the environment where you would be aware of that.
In my life  many of those I associate with have a similar relationship to a real and physical god as I do. So, for me, I do not feel freakish or unusual. For me, for a person  to be "god blind" is unnatural and unusual.

But in the wider world, what you say is true Comparatively few people are fortunate enough to encounter things like the cosmic consciousness or physical manifestations of god or of angels. I walk away from conversations about football and the people who are holding them, so i know very few football fans, but i stop and listen to people with paranormal experiences and strike up conversations and relationships with them, and so I know many of them.

I didn't ask you what you know ,I asked you to provide the concrete and verifiable, demonstrable evidence that you claim to have
but you keep filling your posts with irrelevant chat .What don't you understand about that request?

fullywired

[Mr Walker]

fullywired, on 23 February 2013 - 05:21 PM, said:

I didn't ask you what you know ,I asked you to provide the concrete and verifiable, demonstrable evidence that you claim to have
but you keep filling your posts with irrelevant chat .What don't you understand about that request?

fullywired

It is not I who does not understand. I have already explained all this, including my objective verifiable evidences for gods reality. The misunderstanding is in your percetion that ANY personal proofs for anything are transferrable to a third party at some remove.

All anyone has to do is know something for themselves. I am sure you do not rely on scientific verification in a laboratory, and peer review, to know what is  real and what is not. (Although you would use elements of scientific thought and method to establish this for yourself) Your MIND is evolved to do this, and does it well. IT uses objective evidences and logic to establish what can be, and is, known.

This debate was never about what I can prove to you, but how i establish verifiable reality for myself.

If my methodologies as described, do not convince you that I am quite capable of determining independent reality from delusion, hallucination or subjective determination, then how can you ever do this for yourself?

If you don't believe I can do this, how can you do so? Ie If you can simply know what is real  and what is not, from the evidences of an experience, then  why should I not be able to do so, using precisely the same evidences and methodologies?

[hyperactive]

To give the non-answer, meaning is something we create so that we may frame and categorize our existence.

Why do we need meaning in anything? Is it not enough to simply let things be as they are? This works in a 'zen' state, much like the idea of be the change you want to bring to the world. It all sounds good, and it is good, on a certain scale. On a bigger scale, however, creating meaning allows us to set goals, to learn, to plan, to predict. All things that, to use an overused statement, can be used to our benefit or to our detriment.

In my own life I have found I do not need to create a meaning to life's events. I remember that the the vast majority of actions in the universe will happen no matter what my desire is, and accept them for what they are. Nothing more, nothing less. Words are easy though. As the saying goes, things are easy when the going is good. It is when we face a challenge to our thoughts, or our very lives, that we then see if our worldviews really can hold water. For me, the most recent challenge to my view on all of this was the stillbirth of my daughter. Facing death at this level is was a good challenge to how I viewed life and death, and their meanings. I came away from that with a further respect for the fragility of life, but not with any desire to read any deep meaning into it at all. As has been said many times, we live, we die, that is it.

[fullywired]

Mr Walker, on 24 February 2013 - 01:52 AM, said:

.
.

This debate was never about what I can prove to you, .

.

This is where you are wrong ,I asked for the evidence you had and you didn't provide it and you still haven't

   fullywired

Edited by fullywired, 24 February 2013 - 11:40 AM.

[Mr Walker]

fullywired, on 24 February 2013 - 11:39 AM, said:

This is where you are wrong ,I asked for the evidence you had and you didn't provide it and you still haven't

   fullywired

Go back to our original conversation and my own claim. "I have personal objective evidences for the existence of god and angels"  which is how i know they exist. THEN you asked me for those personal objective evidences, and I went into detail as to what they were.

I also have exactly the same personal objective evidences for the existence of my wife and my dog, which is how i know they exist.

Proving the existence of  any of these entities to you and  demonstrating those personal objective evidences to you, is a completely different kettle of fish and  another issue entirely. I never said I could prove anything to you, but i can prove things to myself.

I have tried to explain this to you a number of times but you aren't listening. For example, I asked what objective proofs you use to establish the reality of something in your life. Not how you could prove such things to me. You can't prove anything to me that you know to be true, if i chose not to believe and trust you or your proofs.

[Paranoid Android]

Mr Walker, on 27 February 2013 - 11:52 AM, said:

Go back to our original conversation and my own claim. "I have personal objective evidences for the existence of god and angels"  which is how i know they exist. THEN you asked me for those personal objective evidences, and I went into detail as to what they were.

I also have exactly the same personal objective evidences for the existence of my wife and my dog, which is how i know they exist.

Proving the existence of  any of these entities to you and  demonstrating those personal objective evidences to you, is a completely different kettle of fish and  another issue entirely. I never said I could prove anything to you, but i can prove things to myself.

I have tried to explain this to you a number of times but you aren't listening. For example, I asked what objective proofs you use to establish the reality of something in your life. Not how you could prove such things to me. You can't prove anything to me that you know to be true, if i chose not to believe and trust you or your proofs.

Objective evidence is that which can be verified by a third party.  A personal anecdote of an event or events in ones life may very well be true accounts, but they are not "objective evidence". I think you're misusing the phrase "objective evidence".  You may have personal evidence, you may even be right, but what you do not have is objective evidence.  If someone else saw what happened to you in your life, then they can corroborate your story, but it is still not objective.  When people examine physical data that everyone has access to, this IS objective evidence.  Everyone can access it, and everyone can analyse it.  They may even arrive at contradictory conclusions of what that objective evidence means.  Anecdotes and descriptions of events or people are not objectively verifiable unless everyone has access to it.

I see what you are trying to say, you don't have a "belief" in God, to you God is as real as your wife and your dog, you've experienced God and therefore God exists.  But that is not objective evidence.  It is personal evidence.  In the context of your comment, the words "Personal objective" evidence are incompatible terms. As I said, I understand what you are trying to say, but it is by no means objective - Objective evidence by its very definition is something that other people can examine and verify.  A personal experience, no matter how true, is not objectively verifiable.

[Frank Merton]

Paranoid Android, on 27 February 2013 - 12:18 PM, said:

Anecdotes and descriptions of events or people are not objectively verifiable unless everyone has access to it.

A personal experience, no matter how true, is not objectively verifiable.

There is another problem outside the inability to objectively verify personal testimony.  This is that fact that we fool ourselves, and the more we want something to be so, the greater the chance that this is what we have done.

[fullywired]

Mr Walker, on 27 February 2013 - 11:52 AM, said:

Go back to our original conversation and my own claim. "I have personal objective evidences for the existence of god and angels"  which is how i know they exist. THEN you asked me for those personal objective evidences, and I went into detail as to what they were.

I also have exactly the same personal objective evidences for the existence of my wife and my dog, which is how i know they exist.

Proving the existence of  any of these entities to you and  demonstrating those personal objective evidences to you, is a completely different kettle of fish and  another issue entirely. I never said I could prove anything to you, but i can prove things to myself.

I have tried to explain this to you a number of times but you aren't listening. For example, I asked what objective proofs you use to establish the reality of something in your life. Not how you could prove such things to me. You can't prove anything to me that you know to be true, if i chose not to believe and trust you or your proofs.

No you didn't ,all you did was tell me your personal subjective thoughts on the matter and tried to pass them off as objective..I didn't want to use the hackneyed phrases ,like "burden of proof falls on the claimant" and "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence".but all you do is tell me what you believe. I am not questioning your beliefs ,just asking for evidence you said you had ,but it appears that it is you who won't listen

    fullywired

.

[Mr Walker]

Paranoid Android, on 27 February 2013 - 12:18 PM, said:

Objective evidence is that which can be verified by a third party.  A personal anecdote of an event or events in ones life may very well be true accounts, but they are not "objective evidence". I think you're misusing the phrase "objective evidence".  You may have personal evidence, you may even be right, but what you do not have is objective evidence.  If someone else saw what happened to you in your life, then they can corroborate your story, but it is still not objective.  When people examine physical data that everyone has access to, this IS objective evidence.  Everyone can access it, and everyone can analyse it.  They may even arrive at contradictory conclusions of what that objective evidence means.  Anecdotes and descriptions of events or people are not objectively verifiable unless everyone has access to it.

I see what you are trying to say, you don't have a "belief" in God, to you God is as real as your wife and your dog, you've experienced God and therefore God exists.  But that is not objective evidence.  It is personal evidence.  In the context of your comment, the words "Personal objective" evidence are incompatible terms. As I said, I understand what you are trying to say, but it is by no means objective - Objective evidence by its very definition is something that other people can examine and verify.  A personal experience, no matter how true, is not objectively verifiable.

This is incorrect. An objective evidence is one which can be judged objectively.  No third part is required, otherwise a person living alone could NEVER know what was real and what was not and even a person living with others could never act without verification from others that their environment was real.

An individual can using observation and logic make an objective assessment of evidences. For example sight, touch, sound solididity, interaction with environment, are all examples of objective evidences. Ie thet yrelate to an object or entity.  So, if i am alone and find i cannot walk through a wall that is OBJECTIVE physical evidence of the walls existence. If i could/should walk through it then the wall lacks objective evidence for its existence.

Certain metaphysicians and philosophers and even some quantum scientists argue that NOTHING has objective existence and everything only has subjective existence but this would also negate your own definition of objective existence and evidence.


You are talking about the transferrability of evidences, which is NOT required to establish their objective existence. Such transference occurs later, and separately.

To verify to a scientific community the proof of a theory etc. a scientist must be able to demonstrate objective repeatable proofs under certain conditions, but this is not required for either a scientist, or an individual, to KNOW that something is true. Eg the first human to strike flint to make fire KNEW it happened, but to convince others he would have to repeat the experiment in front of them. None the less if he lived alone he could use his knowledge to make fire for himself whenever he wanted to. He had objective proofs of his ability to do so, and used them to determine his behaviours.

I have the same personal objective evidences for god and angels, as i do for my wife and dog, and that the cave man had that flint could make fire.  My original statement was that i had PERSONAL objective evidences  Fully wired seems t think tha tobjective evidences cannot/do not exist without third party verification tha tis untrue.
I dispute from both basic definition and my own education  and understanding that objective evidence requires any third party verification for an individual to be able to recognise it and know it. In english science and philosophy I was taught the difference between objective and subjective. Subjectivity is how we inrterpret physicala evidences from the pov of ourselves (the subject) The existence of physical objects is established by objective evidences relating to the object. The word objective comes from the evidence of an objects existence.

And of course where i claim objective evidences I DO have corroboration from either other witnesses OR physical evidences or both A voice in my head is subjective Alight or person seen by others is objective. A person I can see but walk through, has only  subjective existence, a person I can see and not walk through  has objective existence.

How then does one reconcile a being seen and commented on by a dozen individuals who carries and leaves a solid permanent object, but who then proceeds out onto a fifth floor isolated balcony and disappears? No one else has to believe this "story"  but the internal evidences of the event are quite objective to those who were there. Only the way in which the disappearance occured is open to subjective interpretation  but as no body was found five floors below, and the man was wearing a neat suit with no room for abseiling or base jumping equipment, the options are limited. The objective evidence is tha the disappeared off this balvcony The subjective question is how did he do so?

Edited by Mr Walker, 28 February 2013 - 12:15 AM.

[fullywired]

Mr Walker, on 27 February 2013 - 11:59 PM, said:

This is incorrect. An objective evidence is one which can be judged objectively. No third part is required, otherwise a person living alone could NEVER know what was real and what was not and even a person living with others could never act without verification from others that their environment was real. An individual can using observation and logic make an objective assessment of evidences. For example sight, touch, sound solididity, interaction with environment, are all examples of objective evidences. Ie thet yrelate to an object or entity. So, if i am alone and find i cannot walk through a wall that is OBJECTIVE physical evidence of the walls existence. If i could/should walk through it then the wall lacks objective evidence for its existence. Certain metaphysicians and philosophers and even some quantum scientists argue that NOTHING has objective existence and everything only has subjective existence but this would also negate your own definition of objective existence and evidence. You are talking about the transferrability of evidences, which is NOT required to establish their objective existence. Such transference occurs later, and separately. To verify to a scientific community the proof of a theory etc. a scientist must be able to demonstrate objective repeatable proofs under certain conditions, but this is not required for either a scientist, or an individual, to KNOW that something is true. Eg the first human to strike flint to make fire KNEW it happened, but to convince others he would have to repeat the experiment in front of them. None the less if he lived alone he could use his knowledge to make fire for himself whenever he wanted to. He had objective proofs of his ability to do so, and used them to determine his behaviours. I have the same personal objective evidences for god and angels, as i do for my wife and dog, and that the cave man had that flint could make fire. My original statement was that i had PERSONAL objective evidences Fully wired seems t think tha tobjective evidences cannot/do not exist without third party verification tha tis untrue. I dispute from both basic definition and my own education and understanding that objective evidence requires any third party verification for an individual to be able to recognise it and know it. In english science and philosophy I was taught the difference between objective and subjective. Subjectivity is how we inrterpret physicala evidences from the pov of ourselves (the subject) The existence of physical objects is established by objective evidences relating to the object. The word objective comes from the evidence of an objects existence. And of course where i claim objective evidences I DO have corroboration from either other witnesses OR physical evidences or both A voice in my head is subjective Alight or person seen by others is objective. A person I can see but walk through, has only subjective existence, a person I can see and not walk through has objective existence. How then does one reconcile a being seen and commented on by a dozen individuals who carries and leaves a solid permanent object, but who then proceeds out onto a fifth floor isolated balcony and disappears? No one else has to believe this "story" but the internal evidences of the event are quite objective to those who were there. Only the way in which the disappearance occured is open to subjective interpretation but as no body was found five floors below, and the man was wearing a neat suit with no room for abseiling or base jumping equipment, the options are limited. The objective evidence is tha the disappeared off this balvcony The subjective question is how did he do so?

You seem to be in a majority of one

fullywired

"‘There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know’."

‘Works of Thomas Chalkley

Edited by fullywired, 28 February 2013 - 02:25 PM.

[Sherapy]

hyperactive, on 24 February 2013 - 03:44 AM, said:

To give the non-answer, meaning is something we create so that we may frame and categorize our existence.

Why do we need meaning in anything? Is it not enough to simply let things be as they are? This works in a 'zen' state, much like the idea of be the change you want to bring to the world. It all sounds good, and it is good, on a certain scale. On a bigger scale, however, creating meaning allows us to set goals, to learn, to plan, to predict. All things that, to use an overused statement, can be used to our benefit or to our detriment.

In my own life I have found I do not need to create a meaning to life's events. I remember that the the vast majority of actions in the universe will happen no matter what my desire is, and accept them for what they are. Nothing more, nothing less. Words are easy though. As the saying goes, things are easy when the going is good. It is when we face a challenge to our thoughts, or our very lives, that we then see if our worldviews really can hold water. For me, the most recent challenge to my view on all of this was the stillbirth of my daughter. Facing death at this level is was a good challenge to how I viewed life and death, and their meanings. I came away from that with a further respect for the fragility of life, but not with any desire to read any deep meaning into it at all. As has been said many times, we live, we die, that is it.

Kevin, my heart goes out to you and your partner.

[third_eye]

to quote Jonathan Lockwood Huie

"Time, like life itself, has no inherent meaning. We give our own meaning to time as to life."

if > We are the evidence of god then Is god the evidence of us ?

[Mr Walker]

fullywired, on 28 February 2013 - 02:11 PM, said:

You seem to be in a majority of one

fullywired

"‘There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know’."

‘Works of Thomas Chalkley

It only needs one to be correct. Just look up a few dictionary definitions on the meaning of objective and subjective.

[fullywired]

Mr Walker, on 01 March 2013 - 10:40 AM, said:

It only needs one to be correct. Just look up a few dictionary definitions on the meaning of objective and subjective.

I repeat the excerpt from previous posts or have you chosen to ignore what you don't like


.
Easy Ways to Remember Objective and Subjective
Objective : sounds like the word object. You should be objective whenever you are discussing an object, something concrete that you can hold or touch. The facts that make up your objective statement should also be concrete, solid objects.
Subjective : is just the opposite. You can’t point to subjective subjects. They are all in your head and your past experiences. Subjective opinions are ephemeral and subject to any number of factors that can range from facts to emotions.

Examples of Objective and Subjective
Objective : scientific facts are objective as are mathematical proofs; essentially anything that can be backed up with solid data.
Subjective : opinions, interpretations, and any type of marketing presentation are all subjective.
Summary:
1.Objective and subjective statements are used by speakers to get their points across.
2.Objective statements are facts that can be verified by third parties while subjective statements may or may not be entirely true as they are colored by the opinions of the speaker.
3.Objective statements are most commonly found in the hard sciences, whereas subjective statements are generally used to describe the arts.

    fullywired

[Mr Walker]

fullywired, on 01 March 2013 - 11:53 AM, said:

I repeat the excerpt from previous posts or have you chosen to ignore what you don't like


.
Easy Ways to Remember Objective and Subjective
Objective : sounds like the word object. You should be objective whenever you are discussing an object, something concrete that you can hold or touch. The facts that make up your objective statement should also be concrete, solid objects.
Subjective : is just the opposite. You can’t point to subjective subjects. They are all in your head and your past experiences. Subjective opinions are ephemeral and subject to any number of factors that can range from facts to emotions.

Examples of Objective and Subjective
Objective : scientific facts are objective as are mathematical proofs; essentially anything that can be backed up with solid data.
Subjective : opinions, interpretations, and any type of marketing presentation are all subjective.
Summary:
1.Objective and subjective statements are used by speakers to get their points across.
2.Objective statements are facts that can be verified by third parties while subjective statements may or may not be entirely true as they are colored by the opinions of the speaker.
3.Objective statements are most commonly found in the hard sciences, whereas subjective statements are generally used to describe the arts.

fullywired

This is spot on, especially the bolded bit. That is how I know god and angels have a concrete, objective, independent existence. They are concrete, and can be touched and yes, even held. (Like my wife and my dog)  They DO NOT exist in my head, but in the solid real and objective world. I could point to them and you would see them. You would hear them speak, when they spoke to me, and if you bumped into them you would feel them.
You  appeared to be thinking that i was talking about some sort of imaginary beings, like fairies.

I am pleased we have been able to resolve this disagreement on common and rational grounds.

Edited by Mr Walker, 02 March 2013 - 10:22 AM.