What does 'objective' actually mean?

[bhsmte]

Every time you rejected our explanations was because you didn´t understand what we were saying.

More like, his personal faith beliefs wouldnt allow him to acknowledge what others have been saying.

 

[anonymous person]

Why do you believe this?
How does God's ability to "make/create anything possible" follow from his ability to know reality perfectly?

The Bible says God knows all things and alludes to this in quite a few places. Have you read the Bible?

 

[anonymous person]

The point is that, that statement is evidence of a truth value and this point is axiomatic, meaning if you deny this point then you're being illogical.

You assume he cares about being logical. As if being logical is something he desires so much that it would cause him to completely abandon his worldview and adopt one diametrically opposed to it in virtually everyway.

People are not that noble. People are not that objective. And I am talking about people in general. Not just atheists.

Some here would have you believe they are so concerned about believing only what is true, logical, rational, evidenced, etc. that they would do a 180 the moment they were presented with some piece of data that would warrant such an about face.

I am skeptical of any such thing ever happening and so that is why I refrain from entertaining such lipservice.

It would be easy to be duped by these people into thinking that your efforts will be of some merit. That they will avail some good purpose.

Sadly in most instances here with atheists, our endeavors tend to simply give them more multiplied reasons for misinterpretation.

Loving truth and desiring wholeheartedly to orient one's life according to it is a prerequisite to receiving truth. Sadly, many here are willfully blind. It usually boils down to something as base as some carnal sin or passion or lust which one refuses to deny and relinquish. They love the sin more than they love truth, and so find no shortage of justification for what they love, and dismiss with little to no reason, those things which threaten that love.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Loving truth and desiring wholeheartedly to orient one's life according to it is a prerequisite to receiving truth. Sadly, many here are willfully blind. It usually boils down to something as base as some carnal sin or passion or lust which one refuses to deny and relinquish. They love the sin more than they love truth, and so find no shortage of justification for what they love, and dismiss with little to no reason, those things which threaten that love.

You "love truth" so much that you've lied on here on more than one occasion. Take that log from your eye...

 

[anonymous person]

You "love truth" so much that you've lied on here on more than one occasion. Take that log from your eye...

I've made no attempt to remove a splinter from anyone's eye.

I have stated plainly that unless one loves the truth, they cannot receive it. Oh sure, you may absolutely hate the notion that you have lung cancer for example, but nevertheless receive the diagnosis if it comes from a competent physician.

But we are not talking about that.

When I say truth, I mean the truth about life in general and the worldviews which seek to account for all we behold.

In addition I have indeed lied on this forum on more than one occasion. I have made this known several times. I even spoke to the moderators about it and told them the truth and I spoke to you and confessed and asked forgiveness, something you have yet to give which is fine. I do not expect it.

None of this really has anything to do with what I wrote however, so to elaborate on it anymore would be to give it unmerited attention.

It is easy to assume on a philosophy forum that those engaged in discussion therein might have some sort of care for being logical and rational but all too often, this is not the case. That's all.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It is easy to assume on a philosophy forum that those engaged in discussion therein might have some sort of care for being logical and rational but all too often, this is not the case. That's all.

Yes, I assumed that about you, and I was mistaken.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

... It usually boils down to something as base as some carnal sin or passion or lust which one refuses to deny and relinquish. They love the sin more than they love truth, and so find no shortage of justification for what they love, and dismiss with little to no reason, those things which threaten that love.

Ah, back to your usual schtick. (1, 2, 3)

 

[anonymous person]

Yes, I assumed that about you, and I was mistaken.

No. I do appreciate the offer though. You are too generous and I am undeserving.

 

[anonymous person]

Ah, back to your usual schtick. (1, 2, 3)

If you mean simply relaying to you what the Bible says, then I agree. I'm back to it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If you mean simply relaying to you what the Bible says, then I agree. I'm back to it.

What does the Bible say about the semantics of 'objective'?

 

[Ana the Ist]

You assume he cares about being logical. As if being logical is something he desires so much that it would cause him to completely abandon his worldview and adopt one diametrically opposed to it in virtually everyway.

You're assuming Chiliman's post was/is logical....it isn't. Lacking that, any assertions about someone else's desires are based upon nothing.

The only thing that needs said in response to the rest of your post is that you cannot read minds.

 

[bhsmte]

You're assuming Chiliman's post was/is logical....it isn't. Lacking that, any assertions about someone else's desires are based upon nothing.

The only thing that needs said in response to the rest of your post is that you cannot read minds.

He; really, really, really needs to think he can though.

 

[anonymous person]

What does the Bible say about the semantics of 'objective'?

Nothing as far as I know.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Nothing as far as I know.

OK; bit of a red-herring then, considering the subject of the thread.

 

[Noxot]

It's possible! It's called science! Ever heard of it? It's an amazing thing....look into it.

lol science. what is planks constant then?

Physicists discover a new form of light
http://phys.org/news/2016-05-physicists.html

"One of the measurable characteristics of a beam of light is known as angular momentum. Until now, it was thought that in all forms of light the angular momentum would be a multiple of Planck's constant (the physical constant that sets the scale of quantum effects).

Now, recent PhD graduate Kyle Ballantine and Professor Paul Eastham, both from Trinity College Dublin's School of Physics, along with Professor John Donegan from CRANN, have demonstrated a new form of light where the angular momentum of each photon (a particle of visible light) takes only half of this value. This difference, though small, is profound. These results were recently published in the online journal Science Advances."


perhaps it all somehow works out as sane and I don't fully understand it. I certainly give those who understand such things more weight than my feeble understanding of such things. tis not my area of expertise. heck, i want people to make me understand this so my mind stops being annoyed by it. I don't even know how someone could accurately measure something so small.

maybe this video does not describe planks constant well enough ~shrugs~

my only guess is that when they say "half a value" they don't mean half the length of the planks constant but that somehow scientist think that reality is always magically a mathematical multiple of the planks but this form of light was not? because it would look pretty bad for a lot of scientist if they found out that the planks constant is not the constant, surly it is due to my lack of understanding of science who speaks the language of 'gobbledygook' to mine ears.

 

[Noxot]

here is another quote from the article:

"Commenting on their work, Assistant Professor Paul Eastham said: "We're interested in finding out how we can change the way light behaves, and how that could be useful. What I think is so exciting about this result is that even this fundamental property of light, that physicists have always thought was fixed, can be changed.""

so I mean what is so freakin objective about this if scientist always thought it was fixed but now they find out it can be changed?

 

[anonymous person]

OK; bit of a red-herring then, considering the subject of the thread.

Not really. But thanks for sharing your view.

 

[Ana the Ist]

lol science. what is planks constant then?

Physicists discover a new form of light
http://phys.org/news/2016-05-physicists.html

"One of the measurable characteristics of a beam of light is known as angular momentum. Until now, it was thought that in all forms of light the angular momentum would be a multiple of Planck's constant (the physical constant that sets the scale of quantum effects).

Now, recent PhD graduate Kyle Ballantine and Professor Paul Eastham, both from Trinity College Dublin's School of Physics, along with Professor John Donegan from CRANN, have demonstrated a new form of light where the angular momentum of each photon (a particle of visible light) takes only half of this value. This difference, though small, is profound. These results were recently published in the online journal Science Advances."


perhaps it all somehow works out as sane and I don't fully understand it. I certainly give those who understand such things more weight than my feeble understanding of such things. tis not my area of expertise. heck, i want people to make me understand this so my mind stops being annoyed by it. I don't even know how someone could accurately measure something so small.

maybe this video does not describe planks constant well enough ~shrugs~

my only guess is that when they say "half a value" they don't mean half the length of the planks constant but that somehow scientist think that reality is always magically a mathematical multiple of the planks but this form of light was not? because it would look pretty bad for a lot of scientist if they found out that the planks constant is not the constant, surly it is due to my lack of understanding of science who speaks the language of 'gobbledygook' to mine ears.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here noxot...

It's absolutely true that our knowledge of the universe (through science) is constantly increasing and at times even changing...

Those are points in favor of the objectivity of science...not against it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

He; really, really, really needs to think he can though.

Lol well that's not very objective then, is it?

 

[Noxot]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here noxot...

It's absolutely true that our knowledge of the universe (through science) is constantly increasing and at times even changing...

Those are points in favor of the objectivity of science...not against it.

yes I suppose that this form of 'objective understanding' is the attempt of limited, fallible, and subjective beings trying to learn what is already true and real via their own powers and abilities... science itself being limited to certain spheres which directly concern it.

so this subjective-objectivity is not the same thing as 'objective reality as it is' but it is the same thing (in the sense of correct knowledge of reality) as much as the subjective being is truly in accord with reality.

of course the religious often claim that there is an 'absolute reality' which the objective reality is an expression of and which it points to since it is part of it.