We are all gods.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 If intersubjectivity is irrelevant, why bring it up in an objective thread?

Because there's nothing else to talk about besides a single sentence on objectivity and some jokes about your pseudo-belief.

And I never said it was irrelevant in the first place; in fact, I just said in my previous post that it's something to be looked at. So, read my post.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Ok, so when you look at it from a biased point of view, you will be.. biased to one frame of mind. This is not an applicable concept to the thread.

No, because I'll just say that your turtle universe is wrong no matter what. And I wouldn't care what your opinion is because only the opinion of my culture and I would matter. But I was being fair as an "unattached observer."

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Epistemologist Because there's nothing else to talk about besides a single sentence on objectivity and some jokes about your pseudo-belief. And I never said it was irrelevant in the first place; in fact, I just said in my previous post that it's something to be looked at. So, read my post.

The fact that there is no evidence does not validate looking at irrelevant facts for insight of the matter..

For example: I have never seen a picture of a gorilla, or an actual gorilla. I think that gorillas are purple, even though I have no proof for this sentiment. Does the fact that I think they're purple, when I have no proof, mean anything?

*ANSWER KEY*

No.

No, because I'll just say that your turtle universe is wrong no matter what. And I wouldn't care what your opinion is because only the opinion of my culture and I would matter. But I was being fair as an "unattached observer."

You'd be guessing, and you'd be spouting off what you personally were raised with. Objectively (which is what matters), your religion is just as justified as my turtle universe.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 The fact that there is no evidence does not validate looking at irrelevant facts for insight of the matter.. For example: I have never seen a picture of a gorilla, or an actual gorilla. I think that gorillas are purple, even though I have no proof for this sentiment. Does the fact that I think they're purple, when I have no proof, mean anything? *ANSWER KEY* No.

Ah snap, I can't seem to find the Answer Key Explanation. Just because you say it doesn't mean anything doesn't mean it's so. For that person, it means everything. Maybe not concerning the gorilla, but for God and more fundamental topics, it does.

Also, for your first statement, I never said there wasn't any evidence. I just said there wasn't any sufficient evidence for any of these beliefs we're talking about here. That's why I said I believe in faith.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 You'd be guessing, and you'd be spouting off what you personally were raised with. Objectively (which is what matters), your religion is just as justified as my turtle universe.

"Objectively" isn't what matters to me, and it isn't what matters to you in the egocentric sense. I wouldn't be guessing if I was evaluating your belief in my intersubjective frame of reference, I would be knowing it's wrong. Leave the matter now; you can't come up with anything new about it.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Epistemologist Ah snap, I can't seem to find the Answer Key Explanation. Just because you say it doesn't mean anything doesn't mean it's so. For that person, it means everything. Maybe not concerning the gorilla, but for God and more fundamental topics, it does.

That has nothing to do with objective truth. Since it does not, it is irrelevant.

Also, for your first statement, I never said there wasn't any evidence. I just said there wasn't any sufficient evidence for any of these beliefs we're talking about here. That's why I said I believe in faith.

Ok, but don't use your, or others' faith as proof for validity.

"Objectively" isn't what matters to me, and it isn't what matters to you in the egocentric sense. I wouldn't be guessing if I was evaluating your belief in my intersubjective frame of reference, I would be knowing it's wrong. Leave the matter now; you can't come up with anything new about it.

If you can feel that you "know" something when you really only believe it, you are simply deluded.

I am looking at this matter objectively. Objectively, my universe in the OP is just as logical as your religion. Logic does not care about what deluded people think they "know".

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 That has nothing to do with objective truth. Since it does not, it is irrelevant.

Whatever you want, since you started this. It is at least something to important to note, and to not do so is possibly abusive. But let's let this debate go the way you want it to go.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 If you can feel that you "know" something when you really only believe it, you are simply deluded. I am looking at this matter objectively. Objectively, my universe in the OP is just as logical as your religion. Logic does not care about what deluded people think they "know".

Yeah, and I was looking at it objectively too until I mentioned what "really matters."

This isn't a matter of logic. Your quasi-reality is just as metaphysically possible as my quasi-reality in the unbiased frame of reference, but only one or none is metaphysically true in the objective frame of reference, which we can't know now. And in my intersubjective frame of reference, I reiterate that your quasi-reality is metaphysically false.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Epistemologist Whatever you want, since you started this. It is at least something to important to note, and to not do so is possibly abusive. But let's let this debate go the way you want it to go.

No, to note it would be ad populum.

Yeah, and I was looking at it objectively too until I mentioned what "really matters."

No, your first post is about how more people believe in Christianity than my turtle universe.

This isn't a matter of logic. Your quasi-reality is just as metaphysically possible as my quasi-reality in the unbiased frame of reference, but only one or none is metaphysically true in the objective frame of reference, which we can't know now. And in my intersubjective frame of reference, I reiterate that your quasi-reality is metaphysically false.

Ok, so in your opinion, I am false.

Noted.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 No, to note it would be ad populum.

As I've said before, "ad populum" is not an appropriate term since it assumes the beliefs in question are fallacious/wrong. That's not necessarily the case. And what there is much more to note than that, but you ignored my previous posts, so you'll probably ignore it again.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 No, your first post is about how more people believe in Christianity than my turtle universe.

No, in my first post I also said something about the objective perspective. And it's not just my first post that I'm referring to when I talk about all my previous posts.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Ok, so in your opinion, I am false. Noted.

Okay, but I don't necessarily care what you think. So, there's not much we can debate anymore. This thread is dead.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Epistemologist As I've said before, "ad populum" is not an appropriate term since it assumes the beliefs in question are fallacious/wrong. That's not necessarily the case. And what there is much more to note than that, but you ignored my previous posts, so you'll probably ignore it again.

That isn't what ad populum entails.. Ad populum is trying to objectify the subjective opinion of a population, collectively, on the primary subject matter in question.

No, in my first post I also said something about the objective perspective. And it's not just my first post that I'm referring to when I talk about all my previous posts.

Perspective has no place in objectivity. It is only used to account for partial truths, and application of subjectivity to objective events or concepts.

Okay, but I don't necessarily care what you think. So, there's not much we can debate anymore. This thread is dead.

I'll take this statement as your realization of the fact that your religion is, objectively, just as valid as a parallel turtle universe.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 That isn't what ad populum entails.. Ad populum is trying to objectify the subjective opinion of a population, collectively, on the primary subject matter in question.

You're stretching the use oft the word, which is to describe a fallacy. And by claiming ad populum, you're basically saying that the subjective opinion of the population is wrong, and you're thereby being abusive and potentially wrong.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Perspective has no place in objectivity. It is only used to account for partial truths, and application of subjectivity to objective events or concepts.

You misconceive my use of the word. I meant that I was objectively speaking about it i.e. without the bias of my actual belief system. I wasn't talking about the objective truth. And we don't know the objective truth.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I'll take this statement as your realization of the fact that your religion is, objectively, just as valid as a parallel turtle universe.

What do you mean realization? You're just bending what I've been saying along; you're committing a red herring fallacy.

And, as I was saying before, you're misusing the word "objectively," because actually, in the objective sense, either one or none of the two beliefs is true. But when it comes to speaking about the beliefs objectively i.e. without the bias of our actual belief systems, then we would say they have equal chance. It's as equal as atheism's chance as well.

[Jack]

Kam , if you need a book to substantiate your claims (like, oh say, the bible does for christians), check out Terry Pratchett's DiscWorld series.

The world travels through space on the backs of four elephants that stand on the back of a giant turtle.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Epistemologist You're stretching the use oft the word, which is to describe a fallacy. And by claiming ad populum, you're basically saying that the subjective opinion of the population is wrong, and you're thereby being abusive and potentially wrong.

I never said that their perceptions were wrong. It is still ad populum to regard their perceptions as any form of evidence, proof, or a substantial point.

You misconceive my use of the word. I meant that I was objectively speaking about it i.e. without the bias of my actual belief system. I wasn't talking about the objective truth. And we don't know the objective truth.

No, I understood it perfectly.

What do you mean realization? You're just bending what I've been saying along; you're committing a red herring fallacy.

You have realized that there is no objective difference in validity between your religion and my proposed universe.

And, as I was saying before, you're misusing the word "objectively," because actually, in the objective sense, either one or none of the two beliefs is true. But when it comes to speaking about the beliefs objectively i.e. without the bias of our actual belief systems, then we would say they have equal chance. It's as equal as atheism's chance as well.

Correct. The whole point of this thread is to point out that my proposed turtle universe is just as objectively valid as Christianity.

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I never said that their perceptions were wrong. It is still ad populum to regard their perceptions as any form of evidence, proof, or a substantial point.

I never said a belief's intersubjective truth is evidence/proof for its objective truth. But in discussion, it should be a substantial point.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 No, I understood it perfectly.

Walk the talk.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 You have realized that there is no objective difference in validity between your religion and my proposed universe.

You're still not understanding the ways the word "objective" was used. I'm not saying that when we're dealing with objective metaphysics, they both don't have equal chance of truth. Either one or none is correct in that situation.

But when I speak in the objective perspective i.e. with objective epistemology in a sense, they both have equal chance. If I were to answer a poll with based on my own beliefs, for instance, I would, however, vote based on my intersubjective perspective.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Correct. The whole point of this thread is to point out that my proposed turtle universe is just as objectively valid as Christianity.

See above concerning your confusion. Those turtle beliefs, those Christian beliefs, or none of these are the objective truth. And that objective truth has already been determined. It's just that when we're talking about them in an unbiased fashion acknowledging that we can't actually know what that objective truth is, we could say that they have equal "chance." But people believe based on an intersubjective perspective.

Continuing this debate in order to get at some twisted point is rather immature, in my opinion. :rolleyes:

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Epistemologist I never said a belief's intersubjective truth is evidence/proof for its objective truth. But in discussion, it should be a substantial point.

It is an objective discussion.

Walk the talk.

Your posts about this are getting increasingly incoherent.

You're still not understanding the ways the word "objective" was used. I'm not saying that when we're dealing with objective metaphysics, they both don't have equal chance of truth. Either one or none is correct in that situation.

Correct, and the one that is correct is "unknown".

But when I speak in the objective perspective i.e. with objective epistemology in a sense, they both have equal chance. If I were to answer a poll with based on my own beliefs, for instance, I would, however, vote based on my intersubjective perspective.

This doesn't validate your opinion as objective.

See above concerning your confusion. Those turtle beliefs, those Christian beliefs, or none of these are the objective truth. And that objective truth has already been determined. It's just that when we're talking about them in an unbiased fashion acknowledging that we can't actually know what that objective truth is, we could say that they have equal "chance." But people believe based on an intersubjective perspective.

No, you are the one misunderstanding my use of the term "valid belief."

Continuing this debate in order to get at some twisted point is rather immature, in my opinion. :rolleyes:

Glad to see you've come to your senses :)

[Epistemologist]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 It is an objective discussion.

Okay, it might have been good to have that as a guide in the original post, and I probably wouldn't have posted in such a narrowly restricted thread. If you limit such a topic of discussion to just a single context, it often becomes easier to promote your agenda.

To put it simply, from the objective perspective of knowing, the objective Truth is unknown. That statement, with all its restrictions on what I could say, is what you wanted to hear. What tyranny. :eek:

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Your posts about this are getting increasingly incoherent.

I've only been incoherent here because I'm bored of repeating the same things over to your empty rebuttals. You clearly don't understand my diction perfectly, so I just said you have to act on your statement, which you haven't.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Correct, and the one that is correct is "unknown".

True, if we were speaking in the objective perspective.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 This doesn't validate your opinion as objective.

I never said that my belief in God (if that's what you meant by opinion) is objectively correct when I'm speaking from the objective perspective. But when I speak with true conviction from my intersubjective perspective, I say that it's objectively true. You're repeating what I'm saying.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 No, you are the one misunderstanding my use of the term "valid belief."

Wow, what's your definition of a valid belief? I don't like using the word "valid" when speaking about philosophy and particularly logic because it's often confused with the word "sound."

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Glad to see you've come to your senses :)

What do you mean by that? I was always right.

This is probably my last post in this thread, because like I said before, the thread is dead. :rolleyes:

[Kamehameha34]

No, it isn't a stringent discussion, you've just been pushing this BS about how you think subjective opinions have something to do with this objective discussion(Ad populum). Then you attempted a straw man, entailing "If you think my assertion is ad populum, then you are implying that the subject population is incorrect". That was a fallacy. Ad populum usually follows arguments like yours, when you lack all but subjectivity to back it up.

The discussion is one of logic. Therefore, it is objective. If you can not understand that, then I see why you think you were justified in your trolling :rolleyes:

[Gods_Mercenary]

Which is why We shouldn't really be discussing theology, it's not really a logical subject.

[Kamehameha34]

So theology is logically impossible?

Either it is logically impossible, or it is logical.

[Athena]

Ah, shouldn't we question the turtles who are subject the God of the turtle universe? Surely, a human desiring to play as a God to turtles, can hold the power of life or death over them to a degree, short of making them immortal. This human can create a virtual Eden for the turtles, by controlling the environment, and He can throw them out of Eden, exposing them all the dangers of an unprotected life. I do not question the possibility of such a God, but not even this God can stop the aging process of mortals.

However, I question the possibility of turtles to worship such a God. I don't think their reptilian brains are capable of worshiping a God. Now if this were a God of the dogs' universe, such a God could make its subjects behave in worshipful ways. Dogs accept such a hierachy of power, and will defer to the leader.

Another question is proof of immortality? Gods must be immortal, for if they are not, all returns to chaos. If a God experiences the normal birth and aging process, this being is a mortal, not a God. That is why Jesus stories must attempt to prove he is not a mortal. However, these stories can not be proven valid, so we have no reason to believe Jesus is immortal. Mohammed was a mortal, and Islam assumes Noah, Moses, and Jesus were also mortals. Mortals can speak of a God, but are not Gods. What proof do we have that the God of the turtles universe is immortal? Not only immortal himself, but also holds the power to make others immortal? How are mortals made immortal by a God? Or do, turtles, dogs, humans have the quality of immortality within themselves?

[Athena]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 So theology is logically impossible? Either it is logically impossible, or it is logical.

Logical possibility of other diminsional reality is in String Theory and quantum physics, or Kuldeep's understanding of consciousness. It does not come in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, religions that are built on myths.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Athena Ah, shouldn't we question the turtles who are subject the God of the turtle universe? Surely, a human desiring to play as a God to turtles, can hold the power of life or death over them to a degree, short of making them immortal. This human can create a virtual Eden for the turtles, by controlling the environment, and He can throw them out of Eden, exposing them all the dangers of an unprotected life. I do not question the possibility of such a God, but not even this God can stop the aging process of mortals.

I am not an omnibenevolent god.

However, I question the possibility of turtles to worship such a God. I don't think their reptilian brains are capable of worshiping a God. Now if this were a God of the dogs' universe, such a God could make its subjects behave in worshipful ways. Dogs accept such a hierachy of power, and will defer to the leader.

My turtles are a special breed of amphibian *cough*

Another question is proof of immortality? Gods must be immortal, for if they are not, all returns to chaos. If a God experiences the normal birth and aging process, this being is a mortal, not a God. That is why Jesus stories must attempt to prove he is not a mortal. However, these stories can not be proven valid, so we have no reason to believe Jesus is immortal. Mohammed was a mortal, and Islam assumes Noah, Moses, and Jesus were also mortals. Mortals can speak of a God, but are not Gods. What proof do we have that the God of the tu