Arguments for the Existence of God

[ToddNotTodd]

If all subjective beings agree that life is good, how is that not a recognized objective goodness of life?

Because intersubjective and objective are two different things. You can't add subjectives and get an objective.

 

[Chriliman]

Because intersubjective and objective are two different things. You can't add subjectives and get an objective.

One can get all subjectives to agree and get the highest degree of objectivity possible.

Christian's and myself included believe the one who will achieve this is Jesus.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

One can get all subjectives to agree and get the highest degree of objectivity possible.

Once again: Intersubjective and objective are two different things. You can't add subjectives and get an objective.

If it's everyone's subjective opinion that chocolate is the best ice cream flavor, chocolate is not objectively the best ice cream flavor.

If everyone believes that life is "good", it does not follow that life is objectively "good". Because "good" is an opinion, and opinions are all subjective.

Christian's and myself included believe the one who will achieve this is Jesus.

So?

 

[Eudaimonist]

If all subjective beings agree that life is good, how is that not a recognized objective goodness of life?

How are you understanding the meaning of "objective" goodness? Do you think it has to do with universal agreement?

IMV, goodness could be agreed on by 0% of human beings, and still be objective. And it could be agreed on by 100% of human beings, and still be subjective.

Objective doesn't mean "universal" -- it means factual.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chriliman]

Once again: Intersubjective and objective are two different things. You can't add subjectives and get an objective.

If it's everyone's subjective opinion that chocolate is the best ice cream flavor, chocolate is not objectively the best ice cream flavor.

If everyone believes that life is "good", it does not follow that life is objectively "good". Because "good" is an opinion, and opinions are all subjective.

Are you saying it's impossible for anyone to be 100% objective? How could you possibly know that? At best you assume it's impossible, but you can't actually know it's impossible because you'd have to be 100% objective to know that.

 

[bhsmte]

Are you saying it's impossible for anyone to be 100% objective? How could you possibly know that? At best you assume it's impossible, but you can't actually know it's impossible because you'd have to be 100% objective to know that.

Strawman

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Are you saying it's impossible for anyone to be 100% objective?

It's impossible to be "100% objective" when discussing subjective things. Which is what we're talking about.

How could you possibly know that?

Because these words have definition, and if something is subjective, it necessarily cannot be objective by definition.

At best you assume it's impossible, but you can't actually know it's impossible because you'd have to be 100% objective to know that.

I don't assume anything. If something is impossible, it's impossible. And no, you don't have to be "100% objective" (whatever that means) to know that.

This isn't meant to be a dig at you, but your biggest problem in this thread and basically every thread I've ever seen you post in, is that you don't have a good grasp of the English language in regards to arguments. You equivocate, you construct non sequiturs, and commit other fallacies related to how you use language. It really hampers your ability to construct logical arguments.

 

[Chriliman]

Because these words have definition, and if something is subjective, it necessarily cannot be objective by definition.

Sure, but why then does that mean perfect objectivity is impossible?

I think of subjective as being partial and I think of objective as being impartial. So then perfect objectivity would be knowing all there is to know about all things and making perfect judgements based on that perfect knowledge.

Just because you and I are subjective beings does not mean a perfectly objective being is impossible.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Sure, but why then does that mean perfect objectivity is impossible?

I think of subjective as being partial and I think of objective as being impartial. So then perfect objectivity would be knowing all there is to know about all things and making perfect judgements based on that perfect knowledge.

Just because you and I are subjective beings does not mean a perfectly objective being is impossible.

What does a "perfectly objective being" even mean?

Even if god exists, his opinions and judgments would still necessarily be subjective. All opinions and judgments are subjective by definition, his may just be better informed.

 

[Chriliman]

What does a "perfectly objective being" even mean?

It would mean a being who has knowledge of all things and can make perfect judgements based on that knowledge.

Even if god exists, his opinions and judgments would still necessarily be subjective. All opinions and judgments are subjective by definition, his may just be better informed.

Right, you could say he is better informed or perfectly informed. Someone who is perfectly informed is able to inform others about what is true and you can trust this information.

Jesus is that someone who is perfectly informed by God and by listening to Jesus we come to know the true nature of God and his love for us.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Sure, but why then does that mean perfect objectivity is impossible?

Because everyone has opinions, no one can be objective in all matters.

In addition, the word "perfect" doesn't modify the word "objective", so it's superfluous. You either are or aren't objective. This is one of those misuses of languages I was talking about before. You tend to throw the word "perfect" into places where it shouldn't be. Like "The light switch was perfectly on." See what I mean?

I think of subjective as being partial and I think of objective as being impartial. So then perfect objectivity would be knowing all there is to know about all things and making perfect judgements based on that perfect knowledge.

Non sequitur. It doesn't follow that to be objective on any given position you have to know everything.

Just because you and I are subjective beings does not mean a perfectly objective being is impossible.

If any being has a subjective opinion, then they can't be objective all the time.

 

[Dave Ellis]

It would mean a being who has knowledge of all things and can make perfect judgements based on that knowledge.



Right, you could say he is better informed or perfectly informed. Someone who is perfectly informed is able to inform others about what is true and you can trust this information.

Jesus is that someone who is perfectly informed by God and by listening to Jesus we come to know the true nature of God and his love for us.

Neither of those would make god a "perfectly objective being" though.

Perfect judgments aren't objective, they're subjective. They just happen to be right.

 

[Chriliman]

Neither of those would make god a "perfectly objective being" though.

Perfect judgments aren't objective, they're subjective. They just happen to be right.

Define in your own words what it means to be objective.

To me, it means to do what's right all the time because being objective allows one to see clearly what is true.

 

[Chriliman]

Because everyone has opinions, no one can be objective in all matters.

In addition, the word "perfect" doesn't modify the word "objective", so it's superfluous. You either are or aren't objective. This is one of those misuses of languages I was talking about before. You tend to throw the word "perfect" into places where it shouldn't be. Like "The light switch was perfectly on." See what I mean?



Non sequitur. It doesn't follow that to be objective on any given position you have to know everything.



If any being has a subjective opinion, then they can't be objective all the time.

It is possible for a being to know all things and therefore that being would have the highest capacity of objectivity.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Define in your own words what it means to be objective.

A true objective statement is true regardless of anyone's opinion:
"The computer sitting in front of me is on at this moment in time."

A person who's being objective is someone whose statements are objective.

Simple as that.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

It is possible for a being to know all things and therefore that being would have the highest capacity of objectivity.

A. You haven't demonstrated that it's possible to know all things.
B. It's not necessary to know everything to make objective statements.
C. Knowing everything doesn't preclude a being from having opinions, which means that being isn't objective 100% of the time.

 

[Chriliman]

A true objective statement is true regardless of anyone's opinion:
"The computer sitting in front of me is on at this moment in time."

A person who's being objective is someone whose statements are objective.

Simple as that.

Sounds good.

 

[Chriliman]

A. You haven't demonstrated that it's possible to know all things.
B. It's not necessary to know everything to make objective statements.
C. Knowing everything doesn't preclude a being from having opinions, which means that being isn't objective 100% of the time.

If some things can be known then it's possible that all things can be known.

How is the above not an objective statement?

 

[HitchSlap]

If some things can be known then it's possible that all things can be known.

How is the above not an objective statement?

You would need to demonstrate how many things there are to know, and how it would be possible.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If some things can be known then it's possible that all things can be known.

How is the above not an objective statement?

It's rather contradictory non-sequitur. You'd need to show that all things that are not known are the sort of things that can be known. To do that, you'd have to know something about them, so they wouldn't be things that are not known.