20 Sep 19
1 edit
@dj2becker saidThis has already been talked about - i.e. "gravity" and the "temperature outside", "unprovable" things, empirical scrutiny etc. - several times on this thread. I refer you to that.
If somethings (like the laws of physics) can be true for everyone even when speaking for yourself, why can’t the same be true about supernatural things?
20 Sep 19
@dj2becker saidAll you and I are doing here is exchanging our subjective opinions about supernatural things.
Is that a fact or your subjective opinion?
If you want to talk about gravity, and talk objectively about it, start a thread on the Science Forum.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
20 Sep 19
4 edits
@fmf saidSo therefore you can have no certainty that what you are saying about the supernatural is true?
All you and I are doing here is exchanging our subjective opinions about supernatural things.
If you want to talk about gravity, and talk objectively about it, start a thread on the Science Forum.
And that’s because truth in terms of the supernatural is meaningless to you. In fact it is pure absurdity and nonsense.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
20 Sep 19
1 edit
@fmf saidInsisting that everything said about the supernatural is purely speculation and a subjective opinion, renders the above statement as subjective and pure speculation which makes any discussion about the supernatural meaningless, void and nonsensical.
There is nothing "self-defeating" about what I am saying.
You insisting that you are "arguing from a position" of "absolute truth" does not make any of your speculation and assumptions about the supernatural realm "objective".
At least when arguing from a position that objective truth exists and is knowable you could agree that certain things ring true for everyone. If spirituality is degraded simply to speculation and subjective opinions your actually implying that goodness isn’t in any way objectively better than evil and depravity. And that is a slippery slope.
20 Sep 19
@dj2becker saidNeither of us can claim to "know" any "absolute truths" about supernatural things. We can both but speculate and surmise etc. We can both say we are certain, but we are still merely swapping personal perspectives and opinions. You can disagree if you want to. You are entitled to your subjective opinions about supernatural things too.
So therefore you can have no certainty that what you are saying about the supernatural is true?
20 Sep 19
1 edit
@dj2becker saidAll either of us is doing is exchanging subjective opinions. I don't find your pure speculation to be meaningless, void and nonsensical. And it doesn't matter if you do think my perspective is meaningless, void and nonsensical. You can believe what you want. When it comes to supernatural things that are immune to empirical scrutiny, unlike the way gravity is, all we have is our conjecture and our opinions that stem from that.
Insisting that everything said about the supernatural is purely speculation and a subjective opinion, renders the above statement as subjective and pure speculation which makes any discussion about the supernatural meaningless, void and nonsensical.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
20 Sep 19
@fmf saidSo basically it’s impossible for you to say that love for example is objectively better than hate?
Neither of us can claim to "know" any "absolute truths" about supernatural things. We can both but speculate and surmise etc. We can both say we are certain, but we are still merely swapping personal perspectives and opinions. You can disagree if you want to. You are entitled to your subjective opinions about supernatural things too.
20 Sep 19
@dj2becker saidWe both have our perspectives on love and hate. You can share yours if you want. It means nothing to me if you insist that your perspective is "objective". Both of us apply our moral compasses - as I have explained to you before, many times - to such things and we reach our conclusions. It's a process of subjectivity.
So basically it’s impossible for you to say that love for example is objectively better than hate?
If we disagree, then we use our moral compasses to process and perceive the disagreement. You claiming that your perspective is based on "absolute truth" adds nothing to your personal opinion to my way of thinking.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
20 Sep 19
@fmf saidSo you agree that it’s impossible for you to say that love is objectively better than hate?
We both have our perspectives on love and hate. You can share yours if you want. It means nothing to me if you insist that your perspective is "objective". Both of us apply our moral compasses - as I have explained to you before, many times - to such things and we reach our conclusions. It's a process of subjectivity.
If we disagree, then we use our moral compasses to process ...[text shortened]... erspective is based on "absolute truth" adds nothing to your personal opinion to my way of thinking.
20 Sep 19
@dj2becker saidNeither of us can.
So you agree that it’s impossible for you to say that love is objectively better than hate?
20 Sep 19
Take the torturer god ideology peddled by several religionists in this community. I think it pertains to the most demented and depraved form of raw hatred that the human imagination has ever concocted, no matter how many times people babble on... "Er, yes but no, but, but no... cosmic justice... free will... ". I don't claim to be objective about this. If you disagree with me, that's fine. You can insist your viewpoint is "objective" if you want. It's neither here nor there.
20 Sep 19
@dj2becker saidWe are both just sharing our personal opinions.
You can only speak for me if you’re laying down an objective truth. Oh wait you don’t believe in those...