RadiantDanceMachine said:
Derek89 said:
RadiantDanceMachine said:
Now contrast this with the objective - that which is not subject to interpretation. For example, suppose I had filmed the 9/11 terror attacks. No one can argue that two planes did not collide with the WTC because it's right there on video. (ignoring the possibility of doctored videos, which can be detected anyway)
|
You either don't understand what objectivity is or you're projecting your own definition of it to shape the discussion on your terms.
Everything observed is subject to interpretation. Someone has to observe it and interpret it to be able to communicate it, and senses are not quite "not subjective" to be able to make such a claim that if you don't see it as I do, then you're seeing it wrong. If you did not learn this in your philosophy class; knowledge, the information you use to form any idea, is just memories. In terms of certainty, you don't really "know" anything. You just remember how you experienced it. Convention of knowledge just places your experiences in context in the enviornment you're in, for which it's helpful to understand and predict scenarios within that environment, but it doesn't make that knowledge any less "true" or "false". This applies to every kind of knowledge, including scientific knowledge which is ever changing and evolving.
Saying that you can observe objectively is a sign that you might be an intstrumentalist, which, ironically is a philosophy that is based off empiricism; the philosophy of "experiencing". But either way, even if you're an instrumentalist, you can claim all you want that you can observe objectively, but you can't prove it. Paradox much.
With that out of the way; as of now, no. If conventionalism says there is no observable proof of any god, then it can't be "objectively" verifiable.
But that's very positivist of me, though. I like the more open minded and yet secular answer; given we think the universe is infinite (observably) and the human understanding of quantum mechanics (and for which its mechanical wave function is actually being debated for ontological attribution, lol), I think yes. Everything that can happen has already happened somewhere.
A better question, IMO, is:
Is God's inexistence objectively verifiable?
|
I'll just leave this here.
Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
Might wanna make sure you actually know what you're talking about before attempting correction.
At no point did I make any proclamations about my ability to observe objectively, in fact I stated the exact opposite. How you confused what was so explicitly stated is truly baffling to me.
| g911turbo said:
But if God IS/ARE the laws of physics. Mind = blown.
You keep suggesting he has to operate outside the laws of physics. But if that IS God. Think about it, we are inherently obeying him and bending to his will, because we ALL have to adhere to the LAWs of physics.
Either that or an ancient alien.
|
Tell me this isn't a serious post? This is nothing but label swapping. We already have a term for the laws of physics, it's...the laws of physics.
|
"outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings."
You quote wikipedia, you fail to understand what it says AND to relate it with what I said.
Did objectivity's conventionalism part of my comment confused you too much to ignore it all together and call for individual objectivity and rule it out at the same time? I ruled it out myself with my previous comment, and you try counter argument with that, lol?
Also, if you'd bother reading your own "sources":
"The importance of perception in evaluating and understanding objective reality is debated. Realists argue that perception is key in directly observing objective reality, while instrumentalists hold that perception is not necessarily useful in directly observing objective reality, but is useful in interpreting and predicting reality. The concepts that encompasses these ideas are important in the philosophy of science."
You don't just "generalize" theories or use their summaries to try to use in your advantage.
What is really baffling to me is how clearly desperate you are to look smart yet you resort to use a closed answer discussion for easy argumentation against literal believers. If you want to look smart, you should use ontological resources to expand the discussion, but you limit it to the all so basic "objectivity".
