where is it written?

[savagewind]

I believe what you experienced may be as real as the sun shining is real kylixguru. Edison imagined electric light. It was real and he proved it. I think what they are saying is can you prove what you saw? If you cannot prove it it is not objective. It is turning into a battle of the meaning of words.

 

[kylixguru]

so why would it be objective?
objective includes others...it's your personal experience]

Anything objective by nature can and should be able to include others, but whether others are aware or not doesn't take away the objectivity for one person having an experience.

Your argument here is like saying unless there are two scientists in a lab there is no objectivity being employed.

I'm simply saying I can, as an individual, hold to the principle of being objective just the same as a lone scientist can hold to it in their explorations. And, I'm admitting that until a second scientist comes along and peer reviews and has or observes the same experience as I did, that he is welcome to not be subject to my findings.

You are more than welcome to not be subject to my findings.

not in the same sense as experiencing the sun...agreed?

If I agreed with you here I would be contradicting myself.
I already said earlier, the nature of my experience was just as real as that.
Didn't you happen to see the nice picture I included and remember what I said?

i never said it wasn't real for you
it was introspective in nature, right?
it was real for you. i get it.

Well, it did require some mental effort on my part, but no more than lab work requires mental effort on a scientist's part.

this has absolutely nothing to do with religion...it's about personal experiences. look at a painting..one person hates it, another may love it.
music, taste buds..our perceptions of the world surrounding when it comes to the nature of interpretation will and can only rely on how we subjectively take them in...the sun rising in the morning is not experienced that way...the sun speaks for itself...
hence:

1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.
3.
a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
vs.
a. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
b. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
2. Moodily introspective.
3. Existing only in the mind; illusory.

objective - definition of objective by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Yes, as I've said many times before that I get that.

Your continued insistence here is tantamount to saying I am either willfully ignorant or dishonest.

I claim neither and you are welcome to doubt that, but you are not in a position to declare otherwise.

 

[james2ko]

In other words... You have no supporting evidence other than the gospels - which are only historical documents because they are old,

And because some of its content has been corroborated by archeological evidence.

In not because they contain truth.

It's nothing but pure belief on your part.

Understood. No evidence. It's nothing but pure belief on your part. Thank you for sharing..

It's one more than you have to the contrary, which is "zero". Thanks for trying.

 

[waitasec]

Anything objective by nature can and should be able to include others, but whether others are aware or not doesn't take away the objectivity for one person having an experience.

Your argument here is like saying unless there are two scientists in a lab there is no objectivity being employed.

I'm simply saying I can, as an individual, hold to the principle of being objective just the same as a lone scientist can hold to it in their explorations. And, I'm admitting that until a second scientist comes along and peer reviews and has or observes the same experience as I did, that he is welcome to not be subject to my findings.

You are more than welcome to not be subject to my findings.

If I agreed with you here I would be contradicting myself.
I already said earlier, the nature of my experience was just as real as that.
Didn't you happen to see the nice picture I included and remember what I said?

Well, it did require some mental effort on my part, but no more than lab work requires mental effort on a scientist's part.

Yes, as I've said many times before that I get that.

Your continued insistence here is tantamount to saying I am either willfully ignorant or dishonest.

I claim neither and you are welcome to doubt that, but you are not in a position to declare otherwise.

if you and i can interpret these paintings the same way, i will concede to your objective interpretation...

 

[waitasec]

I have a historical document, written by a Jew, that states it did. The burden of proof he was lying about the curtain being torn is on you my friend. So far, all you have is "benefit of the doubt". That simply isn't going to....well.... "cut" it. (pun intended)

prove it.

 

[kylixguru]

if you and i can interpret these paintings the same way, i will concede to your objective interpretation...

Those paintings are irrelevant.

 

[waitasec]

Those paintings are irrelevant.

ok...
do you have a significant other...a child?

 

[kylixguru]

ok...
do you have a significant other...a child?

My having family members or not is also irrelevant.

 

[waitasec]

My having family members or not is also irrelevant.

well you are obviously backed up in a corner...

significant people in your life exist.

what you do not understand is that because they exist and your claim of an "objective" experience of them exists, i will experience your significant others in the same way you do because of your "objective" experience of her...for instance, i'd be sexually attracted to your wife and she will feel the same because, guess what....i exist too is that what you mean?


:areyoucra

 

[kylixguru]

well you are obviously backed up in a corner...

I'm simply stating that I have the capacity to operate with objectivity whether or not I have family members.

significant people in your life exist.

Yes, you should know from a prior post that I do have a wife and children.

what you do not understand is that because they exist and your claim of an "objective" experience of them exists, i will experience your significant others in the same way you do because of your "objective" experience of her...for instance, i'd be sexually attracted to your wife and she will feel the same because, guess what....i exist too is that what you mean?

That isn't what I mean. That's very strange logic there.

This is how simple my logic is, using your analogy here.

I'm this atypical guy on some internet discussion groups you meet. I exhibit strange notions to you that cause you to believe there is no way any woman could be happily married to such a man. The man claims that he and his wife are happy in their marriage, despite how impossible you think that is. So, you have much reason to doubt that such could be the case. But, since you don't actually know that man's personal life and how his marriage is actucally functioning, you really are not in a position to declare that they are just experiencing an illusion of happiness. That man and his wife could really truly be experiencing happiness, or the man could just be lying. Once you went ahead and moved in to be their nanny or a housemaid or something and you were privy to how they lived on a day to day basis and were there long enough to get a complete sense of what they are all about, then you could have a basis in your own experience to make some objective and empirical assessments of things. Unless and until you have your own experience and empirical data to draw objective conclusions from, you are in no position to declare anything about the man and his marriage.

Now, of course, this example dips deeper into subjective territory since it has the happiness of a marriage as its pivotal point, but the principle in question here is still visible within this example.

The crux of the matter is that until you have some objective and empiracal experiences of your own in the matter, don't be so hasty to assume anything. Where I come from, that is unscientific.

 

[waitasec]

I'm simply stating that I have the capacity to operate with objectivity whether or not I have family members.

Yes, you should know from a prior post that I do have a wife and children.

That isn't what I mean. That's very strange logic there.

This is how simple my logic is, using your analogy here.

I'm this atypical guy on some internet discussion groups you meet. I exhibit strange notions to you that cause you to believe there is no way any woman could be happily married to such a man. The man claims that he and his wife are happy in their marriage, despite how impossible you think that is. So, you have much reason to doubt that such could be the case. But, since you don't actually know that man's personal life and how his marriage is actucally functioning, you really are not in a position to declare that they are just experiencing an illusion of happiness. That man and his wife could really truly be experiencing happiness, or the man could just be lying. Once you went ahead and moved in to be their nanny or a housemaid or something and you were privy to how they lived on a day to day basis and were there long enough to get a complete sense of what they are all about, then you could have a basis in your own experience to make some objective and empirical assessments of things. Unless and until you have your own experience and empirical data to draw objective conclusions from, you are in no position to declare anything about the man and his marriage.

Now, of course, this example dips deeper into subjective territory since it has the happiness of a marriage as its pivotal point, but the principle in question here is still visible within this example.

The crux of the matter is that until you have some objective and empiracal experiences of your own in the matter, don't be so hasty to assume anything. Where I come from, that is unscientific.

"oh this experience is so real to me...therefore it has to be real to everyone else...
and if it isn't then hey they refuse it"

i "objectively" experience that sentiment as lame

a facepalm sandwich with a double foot in mouth for you

:areyoucra:foot::foot::slap:

 

[kylixguru]

"oh this experience is so real to me...therefore it has to be real to everyone else...
and if it isn't then hey they refuse it"

i "objectively" experience that sentiment as lame

a facepalm sandwich with a double foot in mouth for you

You have a very twisted sense of the scientific method.

Your logic says my experience of being sexually attracted to my wife is illusory unless you are also sexually attracted to her too.

I can assure you, the existance of my sexual attraction to my wife is 100% real.
I have experienced it many many times in a very objective and empirical way.
I am in no way deluded upon the matter. For you to say I'm under subjective illusion is laughable.

 

[waitasec]

You have a very twisted sense of the scientific method.

Your logic says my experience of being sexually attracted to my wife is illusory unless you are also sexually attracted to her too.

not at all. your attraction to your wife is real to you.
it can't be as real to me, even if i knew her, because this is your experience with her.

why can't this logic be apply to your experience with god?

I can assure you, the existance of my sexual attraction to my wife is 100% real.
I have experienced it many many times in a very objective and empirical way.
I am in no way deluded upon the matter. For you to say I'm under subjective illusion is laughable.

i am not questioning your attraction to your wife...
i am merely saying that i will never experience her the way you do
why can't this same logic be applied to the idea of god?

 

[kylixguru]

not at all. your attraction to your wife is real to you.

Or, I could be lying to you. You can believe me, but that's the most you can do in the matter unless you observed it in action such that you experienced it for yourself. Not as you yourself being sexually attracted, but you as the scientific observer making objective and empiracle analysis on the question of whether or not I actually am sexually attracted to her.

Of course if you were watching us I could pretend to be attracted to her to save face if I was put under scrutiny. So, a good scientist would also want to make sure to put brain wave scanners, heart rate monitors, breathing monitors, etc. to isolate and determine if in fact I am sexually attracted to her.

it can't be as real to me, even if i knew her, because this is your experience with her.

You can approach the matter as a scientist and make objective and empirical analysis of the conditions and reach a credible conclusion that my claim to objectively and empirically experience sexual attraction for my wife is real, or not.

At that point you would be able to move beyond belief or disbelief of my claim and have a basis upon which you could declare one way or another that my claim is substantiated or disproven.

why can't this logic be apply to your experience with god?

Why can't you accept that I have the capacity to objectively and empirically experience the Son of Man in the flesh just as I have experienced a sunrise and sexual attraction to my wife?

i am not questioning your attraction to your wife...
i am merely saying that i will never experience her the way you do
why can't this same logic be applied to the idea of god?

Why can't you accept that unless and until you put on your scientist hat and do some objective and empirical analysis of your own upon the matter that you are in no position to do anything but believe or disbelieve?

Absent any effort on your part to objectively and empirically investigate my claim, you are in no position to say I have not objectively and empirically experienced what I have.

Note: I am not trying to solicit you to investigate my claim. I'd really prefer you didn't because it is better for people to simply work this out independantly and have their own unique and personal experience.

 

[savagewind]

Why can't you accept that I have the capacity to objectively and empirically experience the Son of Man in the flesh

Please tell us more.

 

[kylixguru]

Please tell us more.

That would be off-topic here.

At some point I'll probably touch upon this experience in a more deliberate and explicit manner, but I'm not prepared to do so at this time.

Another part of my reasoning to only go so far is people are held accountable based upon the level of information they are given. I don't want to expose someone to a level of accountability they aren't prepared to handle properly.

Where much is given, much is required.

 

[Harmonious]

Kylixguru, the longer this argument goes on, the more something becomes more clear. You do not understand the definition of the words "objective" or "empirical".

This seems to be very important to you, as you seem to have confused them for synonyms for "true" and "real".

They are not.

As an English teacher who is more than passingly well-versed in science, I'm getting increasingly frustrated as you further demonstrate your lack of understanding.

In its broadest sense, "empirical" means demonstrable, and can be proven to others.

In the most common applications, "objective" is something that any person can observe. It is something that other people will share the same sensory observations as you do.

By definition, anything emotion-based is NOT objective, but subjective. That does not make it less honest or real. A subjective judgment is merely subject to change depending on who observes it.

The sentence "This experience was empirical and objective to me." would get full marks OFF. It demonstrates that, by the expression itself, you missed the point of both adjectives.

If it can be proven or reproduced for others, a situation is empirical. If a situation can be observed by many people and the same observation will be made by everyone, it is objective.

The reason waitasec brought in the artwork wasn't to show off liberal arts skills. It was to prove a point.

A circle will be round. This is an objective statement. The picture of the lady sitting in a state of undress is arousing is a subjective statement. For some, it might be true. For others, it might be false. It is subjective.

You might have experienced something fantastic, or horrific, or affirming. These are all emotions, so regardless of WHAT the experience was, these feelings are subjective. They were, no doubt, real.

If you experienced, for example, a person's presence, that might have been objective. What it made you feel is subjective, no matter how real it was.

If what you experienced can be proven or reproduced, it may even be empirical.

But nothing can be "objective and empirical for you". If it seemed to be, and only just for you, that is proof-positive that it was neither empirical nor objective, no matter how sincere and real it was.

That isn't an experiential argument; it is an English lesson.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

luke 24:46 He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,

Luke 24 v 46 corresponds to Jesus suffering at Isaiah 53 v 5
Jesus would rise on the 3rd day corresponds to Hosea 6 v 2
- See also Mark 9 v 31

 

[waitasec]

Or, I could be lying to you.

now that is irrelevant

You can believe me, but that's the most you can do in the matter unless you observed it in action such that you experienced it for yourself.

that still isn't an objective experience of your experience.

Not as you yourself being sexually attracted, but you as the scientific observer making objective and empiracle analysis on the question of whether or not I actually am sexually attracted to her.

Of course if you were watching us I could pretend to be attracted to her to save face if I was put under scrutiny. So, a good scientist would also want to make sure to put brain wave scanners, heart rate monitors, breathing monitors, etc. to isolate and determine if in fact I am sexually attracted to her.

we can both agree if we were to meet each other and our significant others at an airport, we will objectively experience our existence and the existence of our significant others. how you may feel about your wife will not be objectively experienced as my feelings for my husband will not be objectively experienced for you...
which in no way diminishes the meaning of our feelings for our respective significant others

i can of course witness an affection between the both of you...but the meaning of that affection will not translate to me because i also exist and own my own experiences.

You can approach the matter as a scientist and make objective and empirical analysis of the conditions and reach a credible conclusion that my claim to objectively and empirically experience sexual attraction for my wife is real, or not.

how is that relevant?

Why can't you accept that I have the capacity to objectively and empirically experience the Son of Man in the flesh just as I have experienced a sunrise and sexual attraction to my wife?

because your experience can not translate to my experience..

is this mis representing your position?

kylixguru has an objective experience with Y, therefore waitasec is to experience the same thing...if waitasec does not experience what kylixguru experiences then waitasec is refusing to experience Y in the manner kylixguru has.

Y =
1. the pain of attempting to run through a brick wall
2. kylixguru's feelings for his wife

in order to make this statement representative of your position, which one is Y?

 

[waitasec]

Luke 24 v 46 corresponds to Jesus suffering at Isaiah 53 v 5

is the "he" in verse 10 referring to the same "he" in verse 5?
if so...did jesus have offspring?

Jesus would rise on the 3rd day corresponds to Hosea 6 v 2

is the he in verse 2 the same he in verse 1
how has he injured us?

- See also Mark 9 v 31

circular logic