"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
Is that your subjective opinion?Kenny wrote:Objective truth based on fact doesn't change, but Subjective truth, or what we believe to be true can and often does change.PaulSacramento wrote:Kenny wrote:Right.PaulSacramento wrote:So no such thing as "your truth" or "their truth", right?Kenny wrote: Objective.
K
K
But our opinion of the truth or what we believe to be truth, can change,yes?
Early you said that truth is objective but now it is objective AND/OR subjective?Kenny wrote:Objective truth based on fact doesn't change, but Subjective truth, or what we believe to be true can and often does change.PaulSacramento wrote:Kenny wrote:Right.PaulSacramento wrote:So no such thing as "your truth" or "their truth", right?Kenny wrote: Objective.
K
K
But our opinion of the truth or what we believe to be truth, can change,yes?
Truth is objective, unless it's subjective. In that case, if we believe objective truth to be subjective, then objectively, that's subjectively true!PaulSacramento wrote:Early you said that truth is objective but now it is objective AND/OR subjective?Kenny wrote:Objective truth based on fact doesn't change, but Subjective truth, or what we believe to be true can and often does change.PaulSacramento wrote:Kenny wrote:Right.PaulSacramento wrote: So no such thing as "your truth" or "their truth", right?
K
But our opinion of the truth or what we believe to be truth, can change,yes?
Perhaps you can explain it to me.PaulSacramento wrote:I don't think that Kenny understands the issue with the above.Kenny wrote:
To not believe in God:
Whatever claims you make about whatever it is you choose to call God, I don’t believe those claims
To not believe God exist:
Whatever it is you call God, I don’t believe it exist
Subjective is what is believed to be true; objective is what can be demonstrated as true.PaulSacramento wrote:Early you said that truth is objective but now it is objective AND/OR subjective?Kenny wrote:Objective truth based on fact doesn't change, but Subjective truth, or what we believe to be true can and often does change.PaulSacramento wrote:Kenny wrote:Right.PaulSacramento wrote: So no such thing as "your truth" or "their truth", right?
K
But our opinion of the truth or what we believe to be truth, can change,yes?
Well..... That's easy for YOU to say! (LOL)RickD wrote:Truth is objective, unless it's subjective. In that case, if we believe objective truth to be subjective, then objectively, that's subjectively true!PaulSacramento wrote:Early you said that truth is objective but now it is objective AND/OR subjective?Kenny wrote:Objective truth based on fact doesn't change, but Subjective truth, or what we believe to be true can and often does change.PaulSacramento wrote:Kenny wrote: Right.
K
But our opinion of the truth or what we believe to be truth, can change,yes?
Kenny wrote: So in theory; if the singularity that expanded in what is known as the “Big Bang” was that something that always existed which everything sprouted from, you would consider that God? Fair enough. If it’s non intelligent, conscious, or capable of thought, I may recognize its existence, but I definitely would not call it God.
I would call it the first rock, singularity, material, whatever it is called, but definitely not God.Mallz wrote: And what would you call 'it', which is existence (it doesn't have existence, it just is).
Kenny wrote: To not believe in God:
Whatever claims you make about whatever it is you choose to call God, I don’t believe those claims
To not believe God exist:
Whatever it is you call God, I don’t believe it exist.
No; the idea that Atheists believe God doesn’t exist is what theists believe about atheists. If you really wanna know what atheists believe, talk to an actual atheist. And you’re in luck today my friend! I’m an atheist; so just listen to me. Forget about all that stuff (propaganda) they have been telling you about us; just take my word for it. Okay???Mallz wrote: I'm not sure what you're trying to show here? Atheists believe God doesn't exist, I think we both know that. What distinction are you trying to make and why?
Kenny wrote:Which God? Only YOUR God? Atheists don’t believe in any God. To limit atheism to a belief that what is called God doesn’t exist would mean that because there are those who worship the Sun, an atheist would have to deny the Sun exist because someone chooses to call it God. That would be a foolish and impossible position to hold. The reality is; if you don’t believe in God, people will label you atheist.
Well I understand there is NO God, but there are plenty of people who will swear up and down that there is. Ya see; when a theists ask me about God they usually want to know my opinion on not just what THEY call God, but what others may call God as well. This is what I was addressing, because you weren't very clear with your questions and claims. But hence fourth; for the sake of this conversation I will assume you mean the God of the Bible. Okay?Mallz wrote: My God? What are you talking about now?! How do you not understand that there either is God or is no God? Stop getting caught up in the identity.
Well there were an awful lot of Japanese who used to think it was! Shouldn’t surprise you; after all a few responses back you seemed willing to accept a rock/singularity/matter etc. as God as long as it is what lead to the existence of everything else. Perhaps they were taking your logic and applying it to the Sun instead of a rock; I dunno but that was before we agreed God in this conversation means the God of the Bible.Mallz wrote: IF there is a God, it is a God of EVERYTHING and EVERYONE. Atheist denying the sun exists? What nonsense is this? Is the Sun God Kenny? No.
Moving on.....Mallz wrote: Those people who worship the sun are wrong. They aren't worshiping God, but the sun (as we both know). So what game are you playing here?
Kenny wrote: Atheists don’t believe something came from nothing, that’s just theistic propaganda. Think about it; if I asked you where did God come from; would you claim he came from nothing? Whatever rules, or laws of nature, reality, etc. that you can break in order to proclaim God didn’t come from nothing; the atheist can break and apply to something that is not God.
Oh so there is an atheist philosophy now? And it requires faith? Tell me about it! (*hint* more theistic propaganda)
Yes. If you think there is, please explain.Mallz wrote: Propaganda? Where are you getting that from? There's a philosophy with everything, that shouldn't be news.. Are you going to say atheism has no philosophy!?
Some things require faith, others things don’t. From my experience; where there is adequate evidence no one speaks of faith. Nobody speaks of faith when it comes to math, or if the Sun will rise; they only speak of faith when there is a lack of evidence.Mallz wrote: Are you going to propose it doesn't take faith to believe in anything?
If you believe that, then you should understand why the belief that something comes from nothing is not an atheist position.Mallz wrote:And I don't break anything as the existence of God is self evident, as evident as something comes from something and not nothing. But that's propaganda, right?
Perhaps you’ve been talking to the wrong people. You’re talking to me now. If you feel Atheism is an unreasonable camp, explain why; perhaps I can dispel some of the propaganda Opps!! I mean misconceptions you’ve been taught about us.Mallz wrote: Atheism isn't an impossible camp and as I said in our earlier conversations, I've talked to people with that belief. It's just an unreasonable camp.
I can’t speak for the people you associate with, but most of the people I know don’t fit into that category.Mallz wrote: And I don't think many people fit into it. But I also see most people as hypocrites in their own world view and don't think past their day to day activities.
Are you sure about that? Because for someone who doesn’t get to say who God is, just a few posts ago; you sure spent an awful lot of time saying who God is, what God is, and what he is not! Might wanna rethink that one my friend!Mallz wrote: You keep throwing the term God around as if it is a changing definition. It's not. That's part of the point. You don't get to say who God is, I don't, nor anything that came from Existence.
C’mon let’s do it! Perhaps we can both learn something.Mallz wrote: Maybe i'll run you through the nothing=atheism conclusion by necessity, but I'm not really encouraged to do so.
Ken, I don't care what else you believe, but YOU don't get to redefine the dictionary definition of "atheist."Ken: No; the idea that Atheists believe God doesn’t exist is what theists believe about atheists. If you really wanna know what atheists believe, talk to an actual atheist.
Ken: No; the idea that Atheists believe God doesn’t exist is what theists believe about atheists. If you really wanna know what atheists believe, talk to an actual atheist.
“A person who does not believe in the existence of a God or any Gods.”Philip wrote: Ken, I don't care what else you believe, but YOU don't get to redefine the dictionary definition of "atheist."
Merriam-Webster Dictionary: "a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism."
How do you know this to be true?Philip wrote: Ken says he knows little of the Big Bang, but hopefully he realizes that SOME eternal intelligence of great power had to begin the Big Bang. He might not think that is God, but surely he realizes that it had to be some entity with those God-like attributes.
Jan says the sun is God. Jim says Jan is a liar and the sun isn't God. Jim also says God doesn't exist. This is what I see you putting forward, yeah?Kenny wrote: No; the idea that Atheists believe God doesn’t exist is what theists believe about atheists. If you really wanna know what atheists believe, talk to an actual atheist. And you’re in luck today my friend! I’m an atheist; so just listen to me. Forget about all that stuff (propaganda) they have been telling you about us; just take my word for it. Okay???
The point I was trying to make was that there is a big difference between not believing what people say about “X” vs the claim that “X” doesn’t exist. Now can you see the difference in that? Or do I need to explain further.
Don't assume! knowing the existence vs non existence of God is not the same as the identity of God. In our discussion, I'm pretty sure I've been clear (?) we are addressing the existence of God.Kenny wrote: Well I understand there is NO God, but there are plenty of people who will swear up and down that there is. Ya see; when a theists ask me about God they usually want to know my opinion on not just what THEY call God, but what others may call God as well. This is what I was addressing, because you weren't very clear with your questions and claims. But hence fourth; for the sake of this conversation I will assume you mean the God of the Bible. Okay?
Nope, I said that if you believe an infinite regress was possible then the multiverse very well could be God. I was glad you knew that to be unreasonable. But what you took from it was apparently different.. And I"ll still say it, God is what 'lead to the existence of everything else', even if God is a rock (and the logic is very different from concluding God is the sun). Attributes in our anthropomorphization (it's a wordKenny wrote: Well there were an awful lot of Japanese who used to think it was! Shouldn’t surprise you; after all a few responses back you seemed willing to accept a rock/singularity/matter etc. as God as long as it is what lead to the existence of everything else. Perhaps they were taking your logic and applying it to the Sun instead of a rock; I dunno but that was before we agreed God in this conversation means the God of the Bible.
) of God doesn't= God's identity. Mallz wrote: Propaganda? Where are you getting that from? There's a philosophy with everything, that shouldn't be news.. Are you going to say atheism has no philosophy!?
It's impossible to separate philosophy from.. anything.. If you think there's no philosophy to atheism then you're claiming atheism isn't a branch of knowledge or an experience. So I'm not quit sure why you're suggesting that?Kenny wrote:Yes. If you think there is, please explain.
Everything requires faith. We're not using the same term and I don't know where you're getting your definition from. Faith is synonymous with trust/confidence. You have complete faith that 1+1=2. Evidence backs up faith, there's no negative correlation. We both have faith the sun will rise the next day, but that faith isn't as strong as 1+1=2 as a solar system catastrophe potentially could happen resulting in the 'sun not rising' in our perspective. But even if the sun were destroyed, 1+1=2.Kenny wrote:Some things require faith, others things don’t. From my experience; where there is adequate evidence no one speaks of faith. Nobody speaks of faith when it comes to math, or if the Sun will rise; they only speak of faith when there is a lack of evidence.
Mallz wrote:And I don't break anything as the existence of God is self evident, as evident as something comes from something and not nothing. But that's propaganda, right?
Yes, I understand your view of atheism is that it is self-evident and a 'natural' worldview state (I obviously think you're delusional, here. And don't worry, I know you think I'm delusional too, and one of us isKenny wrote:If you believe that, then you should understand why the belief that something comes from nothing is not an atheist position.
). Have I? I'm pretty sure I've been trying to avoid the discussion of the identity of God because we need to figure out the existence of God, first. Which we do through our reasoning. If God exists, God will be revealed as God exists. What God is and not is part of reasoning the existence of God. Remember, I never got into 'Who' God is, or as I've been saying, His Identity (oops just did it) beyond grudgingly giving you a response out of courtesy to questions that really shouldn't be a part of this topic (until we get there).Kenny wrote: Are you sure about that? Because for someone who doesn’t get to say who God is, just a few posts ago; you sure spent an awful lot of time saying who God is, what God is, and what he is not! Might wanna rethink that one my friend!
Maybe, I'd like our conversation to progress further, first. I don't think it's helpful until we can be sitting at the same table and I don't think we're there yet.Mallz wrote: Maybe i'll run you through the nothing=atheism conclusion by necessity, but I'm not really encouraged to do so.Kenny wrote:C’mon let’s do it! Perhaps we can both learn something.
So, what is truth Kenny?Kenny wrote:Subjective is what is believed to be true; objective is what can be demonstrated as true.PaulSacramento wrote:Early you said that truth is objective but now it is objective AND/OR subjective?Kenny wrote:Objective truth based on fact doesn't change, but Subjective truth, or what we believe to be true can and often does change.PaulSacramento wrote:Kenny wrote: Right.
K
But our opinion of the truth or what we believe to be truth, can change,yes?
It seems Kenny is still conflating ontology and epistemology.PaulSacramento wrote:So, what is truth Kenny?Kenny wrote:Subjective is what is believed to be true; objective is what can be demonstrated as true.PaulSacramento wrote:Early you said that truth is objective but now it is objective AND/OR subjective?Kenny wrote:Objective truth based on fact doesn't change, but Subjective truth, or what we believe to be true can and often does change.PaulSacramento wrote:
But our opinion of the truth or what we believe to be truth, can change,yes?
By Kenny's own definition, there cannot be subjective truth. Where the "subjective" comes in, is where we interpret objective truth. It's our subjective opinion that such and such is truth. But that doesn't make truth itself subjective.Fact; Reality; the opposite of false.
So the ultimate question becomes: is truth knowable? That's what Kenny needs to answer.RickD wrote:By Kenny's own definition, there cannot be subjective truth. Where the "subjective" comes in, is where we interpret objective truth. It's our subjective opinion that such and such is truth. But that doesn't make truth itself subjective.
Indeed because from there most questions ( like is there free will for example) are answered.Byblos wrote:So the ultimate question becomes: is truth knowable? That's what Kenny needs to answer.RickD wrote:By Kenny's own definition, there cannot be subjective truth. Where the "subjective" comes in, is where we interpret objective truth. It's our subjective opinion that such and such is truth. But that doesn't make truth itself subjective.