hopefulLandlord:


honestly, I admire your patience

budaatum:

Oh listen to yourself.

If you cared to notice, I said so myself, but you managed to disregard the argument involved and posited the counter to it which in effect makes your god a figment of your imagination! Or do you think the about three times I've said so on this thread is in error?

Stick with the discussion. Do not let your religious subjectivity stop you from seeing the objective truth!

budaatum:

You mean, it exists only because you are aware of it?
You funny, dude. Smh

vaxx:
you are a good observer

that is why hopefullanlord disagree when i said general acceptance of a phenomenon is the objective while subjective evidence is solely base on individual acceptance ....

this is what i assume may pop up on his mind, majority of the world believes in GOD ... that make it an objective evidence....

for him to reject this acceptance, he will have to treat objective evidence as fact which is clearly wrong

butterflyl1on:


Budaatum and hopefullandlord why did you guys scamper off like little rats when caught in this trap ?

Come back and answer my question o.

budaatum:

No. Gods do not exist. They are subjective creations that do not exist objectively.

And no, you do not get to limit me between your boundaries, especially ones you have failed to comprehend. As I mentioned, because some people call one a pig feed fraud does not make it objectively so!

hopefulLandlord:


General acceptance of a phenomenon does NOT make it objective

If the whole world says the earth is cone shape, it does not make it the objective shape of the earth, it seems I'll need Kingebukasblog here to explain further to you cuz I observe the other theists here are simply lapping up your posts without even thinking it through

Why not even google the meaning of objective and see how wrong you are?

vaxx:
i

objective evidence is base on general held believe why subjective is solely base on individual opinion

vaxx:
i salute your interpretation

budaatum:

Where did you get this from?

ScienceWatch:
@BudaAtum

When you say to Vaxx, "You obviously need to do some research on the topic at hand. You might want to read up on it here.
Good. You kept track.
I am saying the objective stands in its own right and has nothing to do with the eye of the beholder. This is the opposite of what vaxx said, so I imply vaxx's statement is false," you can make the needed correction later Sir.

If we consider that the mental experiences are the visible things that we take to be outside us, in this case the fallen tree. The thing itself is admittedly existent, but the character of the thing is what we have now found out and we have found it to be quite other than it is commonly thought to be.

BudaAtum, if you declare as in the bolded Red, that there are two separate facts, the fact of perception/subjectivity and the fact of an objective external material object, you have made a false analysis of sensation. The oneness of both idea and object is a discovery to which the subtle thinking of world religions and the sharp observations of good scientists inescapably lead us.

But this understanding emerges only after the hardest and most rigorous reflection, if one refuse to accept the anceint spiritual doctrines
Once this point is grasped, then one may say to himself: " I am aware of my awareness of this fallen tree," and he will then perceive that he cannot strip the second awareness from the tree in itself; they constitute an indivisible entity. Those who want to divide the facts, the tree known, into a perception of it on one hand, and its material objective substantiate on the other, who make perception a mental act and materialialty a non-mental thing, who challenges mind against matter, fall into a grievous fallacy. This is the downfall of Atheism.

What we can only know about the fallen tree is an idea, what we perceive is not a discovery but a mental construction. Those who deny this put themselves in the predicament of explaining away the inexplicable.

vaxx:
how do you verify the objective truth?

budaatum:

Dude, I have a life outside you. Today is BAOSA UK Meeting. I'm there rest of today. Learn to be patient.

budaatum:

I was in a bar one day reading Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics.
This beautiful young girl comes up to me and asks me how I know the table in front of us was there.
So, I took her by the arm, held her hand turned upwards, and brought it down hard towards the table but she quickly pulled her hand away.
So I asked, is the table there?
She, grunted.

budaatum:

I was in a bar one day reading Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics.
This beautiful young girl comes up to me and asks me how I know the table in front of us was there.
So, I took her by the arm, held her hand turned upwards, and brought it down hard towards the table but she quickly pulled her hand away.
So I asked, is the table there?
She, grunted.

butterflyl1on:


Your comment means that one does not need to OBSERVE, WITNESS, HEAR, FEEL, TOUCH, TASTE ANYTHING TO PROVE IT EXISTS.

budaatum:

I was in a bar one day reading Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics.
This beautiful young girl comes up to me and asks me how I know the table in front of us was there.
So, I took her by the arm, held her hand turned upwards, and brought it down hard towards the table but she quickly pulled her hand away.
So I asked, is the table there?
She, grunted.

vaxx:
i love that analogy good

what is a table?

ScienceWatch:
Very good Sir. Now your next step is to take that table to a science lab. They will tell you that it is not as solid as it seems. It is entirely made up of swirling untouchable atoms, molecules etc.

Suddenly the table is not so objective after all.

budaatum:

Please, anytime you read my responses to ScienceWatch you will be best minded to assume I am being sarcastic. I denoted this with the "Smh" at the end of that comment.

ScienceWatch:
Very good Sir. Now your next step is to take that table to a science lab. They will tell you that it is not as solid as it seems. It is entirely made up of swirling untouchable atoms, molecules etc.

Suddenly the table is not so objective after all.

butterflyl1on:


This analogy goes starkly against your very comments and arguments here.

Your argument has been that ONE DOES NOT NEED TO SEE OR HEAR A TREE FALL BEFORE THEY SAY THE TREE FELL IN THE FOREST.

NOT SEEING OR HEARING THE SAID TREE FALL DOES NOT MEAN IT NEVET FELL.

the above has been your position all along and now you are saying the above? ARE YOU CONFUSED?

you do realise that sensory perception is required to validate or invalidate anything and you declared that this wasn't required to validate a tree that fell in the forest outside your view or ears yet you declare here that objective evidence of the existence of the table to this girl was her feeling the pain of hitting it with her hand (which is also a sensory perception)

Stop jumping all over the place bro.

So I asked again based on your comments earlier (which have been your position all day) Can God exist even when you do not SEE, FEEL, TOUCH, HEAR him?

budaatum:

Please, anytime you read my responses to ScienceWatch you will be best minded to assume I am being sarcastic. I denoted this with the "Smh" at the end of that comment.

Good. You kept track. I am saying the objective stands in its own right and has nothing to do with the eye of the beholder.

It is a fact that the universe exists. Vaxx's statement would imply the universe does not exist until an observer exists to say it exists. This is clearly not true. The universe existed long before observers understood

Objective does exist in its own right.

vaxx:
i love that analogy good

what is a table?

butterflyl1on:


How can God not exist when you already said something can exist without us experiencing it?

So I ask again is this not your statement?
Based on your declaration can God exist without you experiencing him?

budaatum:


https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=table&hl=en-GB&dcr=0&prmd=ivnsp&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwia8OelkefYAhXBKMAKHTRDDxwQ_AUIBigB

budaatum:


https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=table&hl=en-GB&dcr=0&prmd=ivnsp&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwia8OelkefYAhXBKMAKHTRDDxwQ_AUIBigB

butterflyl1on:


No you were not being sarcastic . Let me post your numerous comments that show you were not being sarcastic and which show I am right and you are simply clutching at straws.

All comments from budaatum on this thread

1.

2.

3.

Since those were your very quotes why are you now seeking evidential sensory perception to believe a table exists or a tree fell?

So I asked again, Can God exist even when you cannot experience him using your sensory perception?

budaatum:
Oh their God! How do you let them mix analogies like this?
Or are they just trying to ensure they do not use the brain you gave them? Please, Lord their God, they do you dishonour if they cannot at least be honest to you. I beg you, help them!




You should have had this argument at the beginning. We have got so far now and accepted a hypothetical tree fell in a hypothetical forest.

By the way, the tree in the forest is chosen because everyone knows trees fall in forests without anyone observing the fall.

Gods might exist without anyone seeing, feeling, touching, etc, said gods, but so too can unicorns, teapots in space, aliens, spaghetti monsters etc. The fact however is that though they can exist, they categorically do not exist!

the objective stands in its own right and has nothing to do with the eye of the beholder.

butterflyl1on:


No you were not being sarcastic . Let me post your numerous comments that show you were not being sarcastic and which show I am right and you are simply clutching at straws.

All comments from budaatum on this thread

1.

2.

3.

Since those were your very quotes why are you now seeking evidential sensory perception to believe a table exists or a tree fell?

So I asked again, Can God exist even when you cannot experience him using your sensory perception?

vaxx:
you see yourself....this is what i accept to be table not yours

https://www.google.com.gh/search?q=arab+design+table&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=ejXJQB17vhERHM%253A%252CC9OZHeioTfI2lM%252C_&usg=__OVnXkWPa95jE3MGW55IP7JansIM%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjN6YH-kefYAhWB_qQKHYOoCYgQ9QEIKTAB#imgrc=ejXJQB17vhERHM: am sure butterfly1ion and sciencewatch will their own table definition