Can you be more specific?
What doesn't change, and to whom?
if something is objective then it does not change depending on opinion, on perspective etc.
If something exists objectively then it doesn't matter if some think it exists or not: it exists.
If something has no objective existence then it likewise doesn't matter if people think it exists or not: it doesn't exist.
What has been objectively true?
Apologies but I have no intention of trawling through the various posts and highlighting those things that are objectively true or not.
When you grasp what it is for something to be objective rather than subjective, perhaps you might want to go through and highlight them yourself?
What do you mean by the question ''Objectively exist''?
It was a question looking for clarification of your question asking "does God exist...?" to ask if you meant "does God objectively exist...?"
Assuming that is what you meant, I replied that I don't know.
Do you currently have any experience of God, objective or subjective?
Nothing objective.
Subjective, nothing with regard God, only with regard the concept of God (so as to distinguish between the two - I wouldn't want us talki cross purposes).
I don't, and I don't.
I simply take it to the level of atheists.
I think we'll simply have to disagree on those, then.
If you remove a carpet, there is no carpet.
Does that mean carpet doesn't exit?
If you remove the carpet from objective existence then no, the carpet would not exist.
If you simply mean remove it from view, then the carpet still exists.
If these answers don't satisfy you, perhaps you would care to elaborate on the question.
For the explanation I gave in my post following that sentence.
Feel free to reread it.
What can manifest itself?
The emotion we call "love".
But the manifestation is not the thing itself, it is merely the physical result of the subjective pattern of activity.
So you believe exams can be passed without any comprehension of the subject?
Some, yes.
You simply have to remember things.
I recall doing a Latin translation on a set text with no comprehension of which words I was translating.
I had been taught the English and simply regurgitated the correct passage when I recognised the Latin.
The fact that you have to get people to comprehend for themselves, and given it a title, is dubious, as you have no real knowledge of anything, according to your reasoning
You have little regard for critical thinking, it seems.
As they say, give the poor a fish and they can eat for a day.
Teach them how to fish, though...
Kind of like, the blind leading the blind.
So sayeth the blind.
You find the idea of people learning how to think for themselves to be arrogant???
Define how it is possible that God could be evidenced in the way you require the evidence to be?
We've been through this.
I can't.
I don't know what the evidence would be.
Given that they are all written documents, how are they unique to scriptures?
They each tell different stories.
It can easily equate to divine inspiration, but that's not the point.
It can indeed.
But I do not know that it is.
Was the information subjective or objective?
Which information specifically?
Yes you don't know if God, as defined by you, exists.
So you don't define God as "original cause"?
I guess he will exist if you want him to.
If God is subjective, then perhaps.
What a priori assumption?
You said "
What would be the point of accessing this information on the assumption that God doesn't exist?"
I took this to mean that you access the information on the assumption that God does exist.
After all, you seem adamant that those are the only two options available.
I accept the information, and it makes to me.
It makes what to you?
If you meant that it makes sense, then so do many theories in psychology.
And subjectively they may work.
That is a far cry from them being objectively true.
You deny the information, and make up your definition.
Again, if you don't agree that God is defined as "original cause" then you may have a point.
But I seem to have read elsewhere that you see this as the definition of God?
If you insist that God is objective, then you must know what you're talking about.
Why must I know?
To me either God exists objectively or he doesn't exist objectively.
There are no other alternatives with regard objective existence.
Subjective existence is just that: subjective.
It may still be as meaningful to those who hold to this subjective existence, but a subjective God doesn't exist for me at the moment, but that is irrelevant with regard whether or not God exists objectively.
You must have some idea of what God is, in order to only accept Him on those terms.
Your whole philosophy, and reasoning is subjective. You believe what you write without objective evidence.
Now all of a sudden you want strictly objective evidence of God, just to accept the information.
How obvious are you?
God does not currently exist to me subjectively.
I don't need objective evidence if all I'm talking about is subjective reality.
If that is all you think God is, part of a subjective reality, then we have reached agreement.
I do not know what evidence could bring God into my subjective reality.
I guess I'll know it when I see it.
Or perhaps one day I'll just wake up believing.
With regard the objective reality of God's existence or not, I also don't know what would constitute evidence.
Not sure how many more times I can say that.
Can you just give me a simple yes or no answer?
Are you telling there is NO information about God?
I don't know.
As previously explained.
Can you answer the question?
You asked me if I believed in anything.
How is what I wrote not an answer to that?
That's your answer to everything. It means nothing.
You can give a real answer, but you choose not.
And previously you said that you don't struggle with people who claim not to know.
If the answer I gave means nothing to you then you clearly do struggle with such people.
I gave you the only answer I can honestly give.
Either accept it for what it is or take your insults elsewhere.
How do you know we all know very little?
Because there are infinite pieces of information, and infinite amount of information has been lost to us.
Some undoubtedly know more than others, but such is merely a relative measure.