budaatum:

Good, some progress at last! Subjective views, as in one's personal opinion, can be verified or falsified objectively, however. It is my subjective opinion that 'Buhari is the current president of Nigeria'. It just so happens that my subjective opinion in this case, can be objectively verified to be true, while my, also subjective statement, that Prince Harry is the current president of Nigeria, can be objectively falsified.

Both can be said to be my subjective opinions. It just so happens that when we subject both statements to analysis, one corresponds to reality, it is supported by objective fact regardless of my personal opinion, while the other doesn't and has no objective evidence to support its validity. To borrow your words, "scientific analysis to identify an object, measure, quantify or qualify for various parameters and confirm the result", in either case.

No, not true. Read the above again. Both statements of mine about the current president of Nigeria are my subjective view. Both can "be subjected to scientific analysis" and will be verified or falsified with the objective evidence, as in evidence not based on my opinion, like asking the Attorney General of Nigeria who the current president of Nigeria is.

Not so simple I am afraid. Yes, "objective is independent of subject", but statements about things are always subjective, its just that some subjective statements can also be objective, (i.e. if they correspond to objective facts), or not, (i.e. if there is no Attorney General to ask or any other external evidence to objectively test for validity).

And that is the complexity of objectivity and subjectivity. It is not some thing on a straight line scale with objectivity on one end, and subjectivity on the other end of the scale.

One could indeed argue that a glass half full or half empty is subjective opinion. However, it can also be objective that a glass is half full and half empty if the case is such that it contains half of what it can contain. A glass that can take one litre of water is half full and half empty if only half a litre is accurately measured and poured into the glass. We can measure it objectively to verify whether our subjective opinion is valid.

A statement is said to be subjective in as much as it is one made by an individual, the subject. It can be a true statement or a false one. A statement is said to be objectively true if evidence outside the subject corresponds to it, i.e. the statement, 'Buhari is the current president of Nigeria', is a statement subject to me, but also objectively verifiable by asking the Attorney General, and if he agrees, we can say it is objectively true. There is no objective evidence to validate the equally subjective statement that 'Prince Harry is the current president of Nigeria'. We can objectively test It of course, by asking the Attorney General, but if he says it is not so, we would claim it is a subjective statement that is objectively false.

Einstein and Newton made subjective observations. They then looked at the objective evidence, which is what scientists rely on, and it corroborated their subjective opinion. Regardless of who looks at the evidence, they will come to the same conclusions they both came to. This is what the scientific method is based on and why there is an insistence on peer reviews.

Newton's error was simply in assuming that the way things work on earth is how they work all over the universe, which is not so much the case, as subsequent examination showed. Newton's laws are still valid within the parameters of earth.

Phew! You sure make me work for it vaxx!

vaxx:
Even after taking my time to analysed the two context with examples giving to each of them '' objective and subjective evidence , you are still making this bogus claim. making claims that can be scrutinized using scientific glass is not subjective, it is objective. opinion made that lack scientific evidence is what make it a subjective claim. making such claim like prince harry the president of NIGERIA is objective claim, it can be scientifically verified, it is empirical claim .

vaxx:
False, if your personal opinion can be empirically verified, then it become objective.

vaxx:
subjective analyses cannot be subjected to scientifically scrutinized because it lacks the tools to do so, it is empirical analyses that are objectively verified.

vaxx:
There is a huge number of statements out there that cannot ever be independently verified because no one has access to that kind of information. objectivity evidence will not work in this context.

vaxx:
sure, we can both objectively determine whether or not the glass is "half empty" or "half full" by considering the subjective action that led to the glass being half filled, but assigning "half empty" or "half full" is still subjective.

Butterflyleo:
Is therei no atheist capable of refuting the OP?

Gggg102:


your op is nonsense because it asks for scientific derivation of something before our universe. when science can't go before our universe because science started after the big bang.

Butterflyleo:
So no atheist is capable of refuting the OP

Gggg102:


your op is nonsense because it asks for scientific derivation of something before our universe. when science can't go before our universe because science started after the big bang.

Butterflyleo:
Thank you buda for constantly helping me bump the thread

You wished this went the way you thought but I am sure you were positively shocked to see that nobody could defeat the OP so this infuriates you enough to personally want to believe what you are posting as you bump the thread.

However my question remains.

Is there no atheist who is able to refute the OP?

Butterflyleo:
I

Every known proof for the existence of God hangs upon the principle of causality. Thus, if this can be dismantled then my argument would collapse, but the operation of this principle is observed from common every day experiences. It can be stated like this: Every effect has a cause and every cause has an effect.

1st proof. Proof from Movement

Movement in its strictest definition is best defined as the gradual process of becoming. For example, the world moves into another place in its orbit, an animal or a person or even a leaf moves from one place to another. This definition applies to any change be it gradual or be it instantaneous.

From the above definition it becomes rather obvious that the object must either itself possess power of movement or be moved by another or something else. The series of movers cannot be produced into an infinite number and motion cannot create itself. The cause which does move and has created for example the motion of the earth must itself be perfect and changeless or the problem is set up again. This immutable mover is an eternal Being called God,

Butterflyleo:
Is there no atheist capable of refuting the OP?

Butterflyleo:
I

Every known proof for the existence of God hangs upon the principle of causality. Thus, if this can be dismantled then my argument would collapse, but the operation of this principle is observed from common every day experiences. It can be stated like this: Every effect has a cause and every cause has an effect.

1st proof. Proof from Movement

Movement in its strictest definition is best defined as the gradual process of becoming. For example, the world moves into another place in its orbit, an animal or a person or even a leaf moves from one place to another. This definition applies to any change be it gradual or be it instantaneous.

From the above definition it becomes rather obvious that the object must either itself possess power of movement or be moved by another or something else. The series of movers cannot be produced into an infinite number and motion cannot create itself. The cause which does move and has created for example the motion of the earth must itself be perfect and changeless or the problem is set up again. This immutable mover is an eternal Being called God,

Butterflyleo:
I have told you your points are self refuting so stop trying to force it. I have moved on.

You cannot refute the OP with assumptions. You should have done so with facts.

First premise......faulty hence wrong

Based on this nothing else that follows is worth considering.

Is there no atheist who can refute the OP?

Butterflyleo:
I

Every known proof for the existence of God hangs upon the principle of causality. Thus, if this can be dismantled then my argument would collapse, but the operation of this principle is observed from common every day experiences. It can be stated like this: Every effect has a cause and every cause has an effect.

1st proof. Proof from Movement

Movement in its strictest definition is best defined as the gradual process of becoming. For example, the world moves into another place in its orbit, an animal or a person or even a leaf moves from one place to another. This definition applies to any change be it gradual or be it instantaneous.

From the above definition it becomes rather obvious that the object must either itself possess power of movement or be moved by another or something else. The series of movers cannot be produced into an infinite number and motion cannot create itself. The cause which does move and has created for example the motion of the earth must itself be perfect and changeless or the problem is set up again. This immutable mover is an eternal Being called God,

Butterflyleo:
Smh.

Some people sha.

Despite correcting witinet on his error they claim I still don't know how escape velocity viz a viz gravity works. Its okay sha

Is there no atheist who can refute the OP?

Butterflyleo:
I

Every known proof for the existence of God hangs upon the principle of causality. Thus, if this can be dismantled then my argument would collapse, but the operation of this principle is observed from common every day experiences. It can be stated like this: Every effect has a cause and every cause has an effect.

1st proof. Proof from Movement

Movement in its strictest definition is best defined as the gradual process of becoming. For example, the world moves into another place in its orbit, an animal or a person or even a leaf moves from one place to another. This definition applies to any change be it gradual or be it instantaneous.

From the above definition it becomes rather obvious that the object must either itself possess power of movement or be moved by another or something else. The series of movers cannot be produced into an infinite number and motion cannot create itself. The cause which does move and has created for example the motion of the earth must itself be perfect and changeless or the problem is set up again. This immutable mover is an eternal Being called God,

I guess we aren't  making as much progress as I hoped, so let me start with a definition

An objective claim is a statement about a factual matter-one that can be proved true or false. ... A subjective claim, on the other hand, is not a factual matter; it is an expression of belief, opinion, or personal preference.

You must be confusing even to yourself. What objective evidence would you find to support the statement "Prince Harry is the current president of Nigeria"? Is it not simply my objective opinion? Is it a valid claim?

But before verification, it is my subjective opinion. It is only on scrutiny that we can determine if it is objective as well. My statement "Prince Harry is the current president of Nigeria", remains subjective until subjected to scrutiny. If objective evidence is found to support it, then and only the can it become an objective statement.

I don't know why you chose to write "subjective analyses". Its a new introduction by you!

Subjective statements, on the other hand, can be subjected to scientific scrutiny! My subjective statement "Prince Harry is the current president of Nigeria", is scientifically scrutinised by asking the Attorney General of the Federal Republic of Nigeria who the current president is! It will be objectively falsified of course, but we only know this by subjecting it to scrutiny.

All science discoveries start with the scientist forming an opinion which by nature is subjective. They would then observe empirical (objective) evidence which would verify or falsify their opinion. In effect, science can be called the process of objectifying subjective opinion.

Agreed. Any statement that objective evidence cannot support is subjective, period.

There is a scientific method to measure half a litre of water in a glass that holds one litre. If I get you to measure the water in the glass when it is full, you will find it to be the objective one litre, and if I measure out half of that, you will find it to contain half a litre of water so it is essentially objectively half full of water and half empty. But I'll admit its hair splitting.

Butterflyleo:
Lmao yet the small mass of voyager 2 though closer to the sun needs just 15.4km/sec escape velocity speed.

Go and rest please.

Is there no atheist capable of refuting the OP?

Butterflyleo:
I

Every known proof for the existence of God hangs upon the principle of causality. Thus, if this can be dismantled then my argument would collapse, but the operation of this principle is observed from common every day experiences. It can be stated like this: Every effect has a cause and every cause has an effect.

1st proof. Proof from Movement

Movement in its strictest definition is best defined as the gradual process of becoming. For example, the world moves into another place in its orbit, an animal or a person or even a leaf moves from one place to another. This definition applies to any change be it gradual or be it instantaneous.

From the above definition it becomes rather obvious that the object must either itself possess power of movement or be moved by another or something else. The series of movers cannot be produced into an infinite number and motion cannot create itself. The cause which does move and has created for example the motion of the earth must itself be perfect and changeless or the problem is set up again. This immutable mover is an eternal Being called God,

vaxx:
Your definition is limited in scope, in philosophy of science , Scientific objectivity is a characteristic of scientific claims, methods and results. It expresses the idea that the claims, methods and results of science are not, or should not be influenced by particular perspectives, value commitments, community bias or personal interests, to name a few relevant factors. Objectivity is often considered as an ideal for scientific inquiry, as a good reason for valuing scientific knowledge, and as the basis of the authority of science in society(https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/). while subjectivity in philosophy is divided into thee definition, it Three common definitions include that subjectivity is the quality or condition of:Something being a subject, narrowly meaning an individual who possesses conscious experiences, such as perspectives, feelings, beliefs, and desires.Something being a subject, broadly meaning an entity that has agency, meaning that it acts upon or wields power over some other entity (an object).Some information, idea, situation, or physical thing considered true only from the perspective of a subject or subjects(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity).

Butterflyleo:
Thank you buda for constantly helping me bump the thread

You wished this went the way you thought but I am sure you were positively shocked to see that nobody could defeat the OP so this infuriates you enough to personally want to believe what you are posting as you bump the thread.

However my question remains.

Is there no atheist who is able to refute the OP?

budaatum:

I never wished anything, but believe what you may. The objective evidence is that in between your erroneous logic, vaxx and I were able to hold a discussion with minimum insults even though we could not agree. That's all I wish for so I'm happy.

As to bumping your thread, you're welcome. I know it meant that much to you.

Butterflyleo:
For the ignorant. This is real time information. A careful study of the DISTANCE FROM EARTH against DISTANCE FROM SUN shows the voyager 2 is getting closer to the earth as it is pulling away from the sun.

https://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/status/

I hope they can read and understand sha

Butterflyleo:

However,the Voyager 2 is right now closer to the sun than the earth is yet has an escape velocity from the suns gravitational pull of 15.4km/sec

Its escape velocity should be higher than 42.1km/sec since the closer you get to the gravity generating object the stronger the pull.

But in their ignorance they are arguing with nonsense as their information.


Please is there no atheist who can refute the OP.

Martinez19:
But Mr butterfly said everything has a cause. If so yahweh must have a cause. If infinite regression is impossible and we say our universe is the beginning of that a finite regression, what problem would you have with that?

Butterflyleo:
Just so they would realise how silly their argument is. They say any object within the same distance the earth is from the sun would have the same escape velocity if 42.1km/sec

However,the Voyager 2 is right now closer to the sun than the earth is yet has an escape velocity from the suns gravitational pull of 15.4km/sec

Its escape velocity should be higher than 42.1km/sec since the closer you get to the gravity generating object the stronger the pull.

But in their ignorance they are arguing with nonsense as their information.


Please is there no atheist who can refute the OP.

wirinet:


So in effect you are telling us that voyeger is travelling from the earth to the sun? What is the distance of the earth to the sun and what is the distance of voyeger 2 right now? Are you on drugs or there are deeper issues?

Butterflyleo:
So no atheist is capable of refuting the OP

superhumanist:


lol....your op is self refuting. There is nothing scientific about your God.

After all, you have forgotten that you clearly claimed that God is fully a spirit?


When does science prove spirits?

budaatum:

Butter's god must be a scientific spirit.

superhumanist:




A spirit that is beyond time and space.

The two very items needed by science to measure/prove things

budaatum:

An uncaused immovable scientific spirit.