251 replies to this topic

[fullywired]

.)
.sorry  mistake

Edited by fullywired, 02 March 2013 - 11:40 AM.

[fullywired]

Mr Walker, on 02 March 2013 - 10:17 AM, said:

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.

Now you have resolved the problem there should be no reason why you can't post the concrete ,verifiable ,demonstrable evidence that you claim to have.
and please no walls and dogs or wives Objective : scientific facts are objective as are mathematical proofs; essentially anything that can be backed up with solid data.
i am rather surprised that you don't believe in fairies,I thought you would be a dead cert for having them at the bottom of your garden

  fullywired

[Mr Walker]

fullywired, on 02 March 2013 - 11:39 AM, said:

Now you have resolved the problem there should be no reason why you can't post the concrete ,verifiable ,demonstrable evidence that you claim to have.
and please no walls and dogs or wives Objective : scientific facts are objective as are mathematical proofs; essentially anything that can be backed up with solid data.
i am rather surprised that you don't believe in fairies,I thought you would be a dead cert for having them at the bottom of your garden

  fullywired

We are going around in circles. You are again asking for transferrable proofs on which you would decide their veracity. Suppose i showed you a picture of an angel.How would YOU know what it was? Suppose i showed you a picture of a woman. How would you know it was my wife? And to go a step further in logic, if you had never met a woman, how would you know it was a woman?

This is not about your belief or disbelief, but about how I decide what is rea,l One cannot transfer touch, sound, or image unless it is recorded.
Whether images sounds etc of god or angels are recordable I do not know. I don't own a mobile phone, and I havent used a camera, outside of work, for 10 years.

I can only assume that what I, and other independent witnesses, can touch, see, and hear, could be recorded. But all that DATA is available to me and to others. Whether it can be transferred to you or not is irrelevant to MY knowledge. The rest depends on your own knoledge  /experience, and belief/ disbelief. I have no interest in changing your belief, only in demonstrating how I know anything is real and physical, ie via the available data that I have.That data proves to me that angels  and god are quite capable of manifesting as independent, physical, and sapient self- willed entities, as well as in other forms. Ps i dont believe in angels or god or fairies.. I never have. But i have met god and angels which disallows both belief and disbelief in them.

I havent met a fairy, so I suspend both belief and disbelief. I am not saying they do not exist, just that I haven't met one yet, and thus cannot say.

Edited by Mr Walker, 02 March 2013 - 10:45 PM.

[fullywired]

Mr Walker, on 02 March 2013 - 10:41 PM, said:

We are going around in circles. You are again asking for transferrable proofs on which you would decide their veracity. Suppose i showed you a picture of an angel.How would YOU know what it was? Suppose i showed you a picture of a woman. How would you know it was my wife? And to go a step further in logic, if you had never met a woman, how would you know it was a woman?

This is not about your belief or disbelief, but about how I decide what is rea,l One cannot transfer touch, sound, or image unless it is recorded.
Whether images sounds etc of god or angels are recordable I do not know. I don't own a mobile phone, and I havent used a camera, outside of work, for 10 years.

I can only assume that what I, and other independent witnesses, can touch, see, and hear, could be recorded. But all that DATA is available to me and to others. Whether it can be transferred to you or not is irrelevant to MY knowledge. The rest depends on your own knoledge  /experience, and belief/ disbelief. I have no interest in changing your belief, only in demonstrating how I know anything is real and physical, ie via the available data that I have.That data proves to me that angels  and god are quite capable of manifesting as independent, physical, and sapient self- willed entities, as well as in other forms. Ps i dont believe in angels or god or fairies.. I never have. But i have met god and angels which disallows both belief and disbelief in them.

I havent met a fairy, so I suspend both belief and disbelief. I am not saying they do not exist, just that I haven't met one yet, and thus cannot say.

If that's the case ,your evidence is subjective not objective,.   .quote        I have no interest in changing your belief, only in demonstrating how I know anything is real .That is the whole point you can't demonstrate it, your back to telling me what you believe.I have not mentioned my beliefs or lack of them .all I ask is you show us the evidence you claim to have but it's like extracting teeth with you, Your reluctance to impart it suggests you don't have any

fullywired

[IamsSon]

fullywired, on 02 March 2013 - 11:51 PM, said:

If that's the case ,your evidence is subjective not objective,.   .quote I have no interest in changing your belief, only in demonstrating how I know anything is real .That is the whole point you can't demonstrate it, your back to telling me what you believe.I have not mentioned my beliefs or lack of them .all I ask is you show us the evidence you claim to have but it's like extracting teeth with you, Your reluctance to impart it suggests you don't have any

fullywired

The issue here is that you, and PA, are taking the naturalist definition of objective and presuming it is the only correct definition despite the fact that the dictionary does not agree with you.  Transference to you or access by you is not part of the definition of objective.

Edited by IamsSon, 03 March 2013 - 03:23 PM.

[third_eye]

singularity is a rarity in a subjectively restricted objective dependent reality

[fullywired]

IamsSon, on 03 March 2013 - 03:22 PM, said:

The issue here is that you, and PA, are taking the naturalist definition of objective and presuming it is the only correct definition despite the fact that the dictionary does not agree with you.  Transference to you or access by you is not part of the definition of objective.

I  have made it quite plain that I am after concrete verifiable ,demonstrable evidence ,you know that and mr walker knows that, If you are telling me he can't do that ,all that he needs to do, is to  say so .Or if he can produce the evidence, then do so.   What's the problem? I am not entering a discussion on semantics

fullywired

[Mr Walker]

fullywired, on 02 March 2013 - 11:51 PM, said:

If that's the case ,your evidence is subjective not objective,.   .quote I have no interest in changing your belief, only in demonstrating how I know anything is real .That is the whole point you can't demonstrate it, your back to telling me what you believe.I have not mentioned my beliefs or lack of them .all I ask is you show us the evidence you claim to have but it's like extracting teeth with you, Your reluctance to impart it suggests you don't have any

fullywired

Rather, your inability to comrehend what I am treying to explain to you reflects your lack of personal experience with such things.

You just do not /can not accept that an angel or a manifestation of god can have the same material properties as  other things like a dog or a woman or a man probably because of your belief that they onlty exist as constucts of human imagination.

Now dogs and women  whom I know have objective proofs for their existence which are not transferable to you, yet you accept their existence because you have experience with similar entities. But a ghost or an alien or an angel or a god is an unknown quality to you, and you are a person who refuses to even countenance the existence of such things.  That is your choice to make, not mine, and it is not my role to convince you . But i do have to know, as a logical, educated and rational  being, that given  the same evidences, everything one encounters in life in life has equal validity and reality.

I am well aware of the form and nature of delusion and hallucination; and physical realities have very different and measurable objective quilities which make them readily discernible.

My lack of, for example a photo, does not make an experience subjective. Nor does it invalidate the reality of a entity.

On the other hand  a photo of god or an angel manifested, would not constitute, even to me, objective evidence if i had not been there to observe the picture being taken and its processing.

I would need to know the context around, and in, which the picture was taken, and to have verified proof of its original and untampered  nature, before i even began to accept it as any form of evidence. And such proofs offer only a partial understanding of an objective reality, even if they are genuine.

To reiterate, I personally possess the same objective evidences of an angel's existence as i do of my wifes existence. Why should i need any more? I can touch feel see and interact with both. I can watch both interact with other people and with the environment around them.

I have no desire or need to prove my wife's existence to you,  but this would be impossible if you refused to believe me, or lacked trust in my word and evidences, despite the fact that I live wth her objective physical existence daily.

Edited by Mr Walker, 04 March 2013 - 10:41 PM.

[Mr Walker]

fullywired, on 04 March 2013 - 04:31 PM, said:

I  have made it quite plain that I am after concrete verifiable ,demonstrable evidence ,you know that and mr walker knows that, If you are telling me he can't do that ,all that he needs to do, is to  say so .Or if he can produce the evidence, then do so.   What's the problem? I am not entering a discussion on semantics

fullywired

That was never my claim, even if it is your desire.  I possess PERSONAL objective evidences for god/angels existence which are exactly the same as  the personal objective evidences for all other things in my life.

Unless you are claiming that nothing in life has objective independent existence, then those claims stand. Touch, sight, smell, sound, and logical analysis of observation, are the senses and means by which we establish the onbjective existence of everything in our lives. And each thing we encounter from birth to death, must be subject to the same (not more and not less) proofs of physical existence to establish its independent existence. God requires only the same physical proofs as a butterfly to verify his existence outside one's mind.

[strivin]

God realy helps you by generating the positive vibrations in life.One understand his blessingsis known as thiest.

[fullywired]

Mr Walker, on 04 March 2013 - 10:49 PM, said:

That was never my claim, even if it is your desire.  I possess PERSONAL objective evidences for god/angels existence which are exactly the same as  the personal objective evidences for all other things in my life.

Unless you are claiming that nothing in life has objective independent existence, then those claims stand. Touch, sight, smell, sound, and logical analysis of observation, are the senses and means by which we establish the onbjective existence of everything in our lives. And each thing we encounter from birth to death, must be subject to the same (not more and not less) proofs of physical existence to establish its independent existence. God requires only the same physical proofs as a butterfly to verify his existence outside one's mind.

I am not claiming anything just asking for your evidence but each time I ask you go off on one of your long discourses.that doesn't prove anything,

when proof is the thing that is wanted


    fullywired

[Paranoid Android]

Mr Walker, on 04 March 2013 - 10:30 PM, said:

Rather, your inability to comrehend what I am treying to explain to you reflects your lack of personal experience with such things.

You just do not /can not accept that an angel or a manifestation of god can have the same material properties as  other things like a dog or a woman or a man

Again, I apologise for interrupting.  In contrast to your assertion, I CAN and DO accept that an angel or manifestation of God can have material properties.  However, unless that can be studied by a third party without relying solely on your (or anyone else's) say so, then it is not objective.  Even if someone was with you when you experienced what you did and claims exactly the same as you, all it does is provide another eye-witness account.  Eye-witness accounts of events are NOT objective proof.  The very fact that you are sharing an event with a third party excludes it from being objective.

Does that mean you are wrong?  No. Does it mean what you saw was wrong, or perhaps an hallucination?  No!  You may very well be 100% right in everything you say.  But it is NOT objective!  Never will be.  At least, not in the sense that 99.99999% of people think of when they ask someone for objective proof.  And with respect to your experiences, I don't think it applicable to cater to that 0.00001% by accepting the way you use "objective" in the context of this discussion.

~ Regards, PA

[Sherapy]

Mr Walker, on 04 March 2013 - 10:49 PM, said:

That was never my claim, even if it is your desire.  I possess PERSONAL objective evidences for god/angels existence which are exactly the same as  the personal objective evidences for all other things in my life.

Unless you are claiming that nothing in life has objective independent existence, then those claims stand. Touch, sight, smell, sound, and logical analysis of observation, are the senses and means by which we establish the onbjective existence of everything in our lives. And each thing we encounter from birth to death, must be subject to the same (not more and not less) proofs of physical existence to establish its independent existence. God requires only the same physical proofs as a butterfly to verify his existence outside one's mind.

Mw, you are correct, we do take in information via our senses, but it is subjective,(and filtered) to be able to say your personal experience is objective doesn't work here. You can say I have not had the experience and you would be correct, but this doesn't mean anything as far as establishing your angel hypothesis(If this ...then that). Having others verify for you isn't going to work either without evidence to support your findings, e.g. an experiment that can be reproduced and the same results can be concluded by anyone.

Does this mean I think you making this up, No, it doesn't, I think it is exactly in line with your shema's/ perspective that you would  interpret your personal experience as an angel sighting. You would be correct to come back with a post that says I cannot understand this because I do not have your schema and perspective, you would be 100 percent on this, I don't and cannot your perspective is your own a unique reflection of the life and experiences of MW.

Edited by Sherapy, 06 March 2013 - 12:48 AM.

[Mr Walker]

Paranoid Android, on 05 March 2013 - 01:05 PM, said:

Again, I apologise for interrupting.  In contrast to your assertion, I CAN and DO accept that an angel or manifestation of God can have material properties.  However, unless that can be studied by a third party without relying solely on your (or anyone else's) say so, then it is not objective.  Even if someone was with you when you experienced what you did and claims exactly the same as you, all it does is provide another eye-witness account.  Eye-witness accounts of events are NOT objective proof.  The very fact that you are sharing an event with a third party excludes it from being objective.

Does that mean you are wrong?  No. Does it mean what you saw was wrong, or perhaps an hallucination?  No!  You may very well be 100% right in everything you say.  But it is NOT objective!  Never will be.  At least, not in the sense that 99.99999% of people think of when they ask someone for objective proof.  And with respect to your experiences, I don't think it applicable to cater to that 0.00001% by accepting the way you use "objective" in the context of this discussion.

~ Regards, PA

Are you saying then, that every time I am alone, everything I see touch or  smell etc is unverifiable and has no objective evidence for its existence?

Objective simply means that the object itself provides the evidences of its existence. Subjective means how the subject (who observes the object) interprets the object. Eg "A rose is a flower" is an objective statement and the rose has qualities which deonstrate that it is a rose. "A rose is beautiful" is a subjective statement and a rose can have no physical properties which prove beauty, because beauty is a subjective quality.
As i explained earlier the ocuurences on which i claim an objective appearance of god or an angel ARE witnesed or experienced by others  This in itself does not establishsh their objective nature,  and their subjective nature remains one of interpretaion as does their naming or categorisation. but in general if somethin has the physical  properties   of an object, and acts as an object acts, then it has objectice existence There  is no need for other proofs of a scientific standard to establish its objective existence All natural things in the world had objective existence before science, and scientific thinking, was even developed.


A human being, living alone on an island, can establish, absolutely, the objective existence of everything on that island entirely by them selves, using the nature of their senses, their past knowledge and experience, and their mind. They have to be able to do this to survive and so it is an evolved property of human kind. They dont require a second observer to ensure the boat they build is made of real wood and will therefore cary them. Or that the breadfruit they eat is teal and will thus sustain them, or that the water they drink is fresh.

By your definition NOTHING is objectively real, and cannot be, because all our experiences of reality are obtained through our senses and our mind. That includes scientific proofs and everything we hgain as second/third hand knolwedge form books or other sources. That leads us up the false path of descartian logic and to a dead end. ie That only we can be established as having objective existence.
No; objective simply means that  something has objective existence, and humans are quite capable of doing this and do it every second from birth, with increasing accuracy and efficiency.

We USE objective evidences held in common to convince third parties,  but first they are entirely personal and singular. Otherwise no one could  know that anything was real and physical. You only put your hand in a fire once if it has objective existence and the burns on your hand are objective proofs of its  objective existence. If you put your hand in a fire and it is not hurt then several hypotheses/propositions  arise immediately.

[Mr Walker]

Sherapy, on 06 March 2013 - 12:47 AM, said:

Mw, you are correct, we do take in information via our senses, but it is subjective,(and filtered) to be able to say your personal experience is objective doesn't work here. You can say I have not had the experience and you would be correct, but this doesn't mean anything as far as establishing your angel hypothesis(If this ...then that). Having others verify for you isn't going to work either without evidence to support your findings, e.g. an experiment that can be reproduced and the same results can be concluded by anyone.

Does this mean I think you making this up, No, it doesn't, I think it is exactly in line with your shema's/ perspective that you would  interpret your personal experience as an angel sighting. You would be correct to come back with a post that says I cannot understand this because I do not have your schema and perspective, you would be 100 percent on this, I don't and cannot your perspective is your own a unique reflection of the life and experiences of MW.

See my other posts While we often interpret objective existence subjectively, the definitions are quite clear A human being can establish (quite alone and singularly) the objective existence of anything by studying the object and its properties then referring them to a data base of internal knowledge and exerience.

eg when i lift up the mattress to help my wife  turn it over, the nature of its properties establishes its objective existence.

I was taught long ago and correctly, that humans can divide their observation and thinking into objective and subjective by using difernt processes definitions and understanings Some modern scientists emulate an old philosophic tradition that a person can not know anything objectively. This is clearly wrong in fact, and in principle, because if it was true  human beings could not interact with, and survive within, the totally objective reality of our environment. If a person is not capable of thinking objectively it is because they have not been taught how to do so. This is also true for logical thinking, which is not an innate  skill of the human way of thinking, but must be taught/learned to be used.

The other  modern proposition is that our environment HAS no objective existence and only exists as a property of the human mind. tha tis as  egocentric as believing god created the world for us to have as a possession Ie it presupposes that  existence is dependent on, or somehow shaped by, the existence of our minds within it.

"Scientific" verification  ie reproducible on demand in a laboratory Is not and never has been necessary for a person to establish the objective existence of something Other wise how did humans know anything was real before scientific method (a learned form of thinking) was established. And if witnesses are not enough to establish objectivity, then how is witnessing anything in a science laboratory any more  convincing than witnessing the same thing in a street?

All scientific experimentation is based on data obtained,  in the end, by human senses; and every result is subject to human senses even when collected and intepreted by computer or emote sensing. One has to believe,  basically in faith, that the data is correct, and has been collected, collated, and interpreted, objectively.
And if a hundred different people seeing god independently, and consistently describing the same entity, is not "proof", then 100 different results displaying the same thing, in science, cannot be either. Science simply raises the statistical probabilty that something has objective existence.

Humans all had objective evidence for the existence of gravity, long before science proved its existence, and in reality, long before science was thought of.