@fmf said
We are both being subjective.
We are both offering our opinions about reality, right or wrong. Our opinions are
just us offering up our points of view; however, we are either accurately describing
reality as is or not. Even your (It's all just our opinions) is just an opinion.
If we were talking about something being dangerous, that could kill us if we did
something this way or that way, even though everything said, pros and cons are
all just opinions as we express them, the ones based on the reality of what we are
talking about would either kill us or not would be the correct one, despite it being
an opinion. So to dismiss something said about a reality-based topic because
someone who is only offering an opinion is missing the point about the object we
are discussing. You want to deny the possibility of something that transcends the
universe, even though many things we all agree are part of the universe that have
nothing material in their makeup exists; you already accept such things; you want
to deny very possibly God, so you dismiss Him out of hand.
The meta-narrative, from beginning to end, encompasses all things; while personal
opinions reside in one's self only, our opinions, our worldviews, they can accept or
reject that which doesn't conform with reality as we want it to be, and we can even
hold conflicting views as true at the same time. Its only reality-based views that
correctly encompasses all of the truth of reality that has correct merit. Simply
rejecting something because it is offered up even as a subjective point of view
because it is a subjective point of view could be missing the reality that may be
accurately identified in it.
If something is true, it is true, always, everywhere, at all times, for everyone no
matter how we feel about it. Opinions change as the wind blows.