Is God's existence objectively verifiable?

[Derek89]

RadiantDanceMachine said:

Derek89 said:

"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".

You seemed to be arguing against the paraphrasing I offered of what objective means. What other way am I supposed to have taken your rebuke?

The paraphrase was essentially identical to the wiki definition of objective (philosophy). 

There are two possibilities here:

1. You were attempting to offer correction and were actually wrong.

2. You were confused about the minimum words I used to explicate objectivity.

I really don't see any alternative possibilities here.

I didn't address instrumentalism because it's irrelevant to the OP. Focus is important in discussions such as this. If you come into a steakhouse and attempt to order some lumber, you're going to receive a blank stare. 

Hahahaha, can you see no other alternative to the purpose here? Is it not important to bring to light the lack of objectivity involved in a theistic position? The reliance on alleged witness testimony, on feelings in the heart, on wishful thinking. Honestly, you've totally missed the boat on this one I'm afraid.

At no point have I closed the topic to the empirical, only the objective. That includes the entirety of philosophical argumentation. But, as you can plainly see, the believers tend not to bother with logic and apologetics.

Jesus Christ...

"I didn't address instrumentalism because it's irrelevant to the OP. Focus is important in discussions such as this. If you come into a steakhouse and attempt to order some lumber, you're going to receive a blank stare. "

Do you really say that instrumentalism isn't relevant to the OP as you make "objectivity" essential to your premise? Are you serious?

"There are two possibilities here:

1. You were attempting to offer correction and were actually wrong.

2. You were confused about the minimum words I used to explicate objectivity.

I really don't see any alternative possibilities here."

1. You have yet to explain how actually wrong I am. 2. It looks like you are confused about that yourself, otherwise you'd understand bringing objectivity in a discussion about faith is completely useless. 

"Hahahaha, can you see no other alternative to the purpose here? Is it not important to bring to light the lack of objectivity involved in a theistic position? The reliance on alleged witness testimony, on feelings in the heart, on wishful thinking. Honestly, you've totally missed the boat on this one I'm afraid."

Is it me that missed it? LOL.

No, it is not important at all. Metaphysics isn't subject to scrutiny or evidence. Being such a militant atheist, as you seem to be, should understand the implications of that for anything. You'd  way more humble about what you think is evidence or not evidence enough for your faith (because that's what it is) on scientific conventional knowledge. Until you can negatively prove, which you require based on your fixation with objectivity,  theists claims, specifically for their concepts of entity and argue Ontology itself, then you're on the same boat as them; Proofless Boat. And btw, philosophically, they one up you. The Ontological argument of the first engine hasn't been logically refuted (at least not conventionally, ofc) and for which only fault is only to not be able to be proved, as if that has ever stopped the flow of ideas. You so being into philosophy, it seems, you should've read the Quinque Viae by now.

"At no point have I closed the topic to the empirical, only the objective. That includes the entirety of philosophical argumentation. But, as you can plainly see, the believers tend not to bother with logic and apologetics."

Precisely that you close it to the objective is the problem. Since you like analogies: It is like trying to argue colors with math.

Logic is actually on their side. A negative can't ever be proved unless you control the system, so as long you can't observe what they say, what they say still falls in the realm of possibilities, regardless of how unlikely, according to what we can observe, they are, because for what we can't observe the posibilities are endless.