isn't god relative?

[scifes]

no.

some guy told me in the middle of a long discussion that the relativity theory, (not the physical one) contradicts god's properties, and so we should not apply it to that concept, i absorbed what he said overtime, and found out he was mistaken.

what i'm about to say is not only applied to god, but i believe it's the bridge to cross when trying to practically set subjective things apart from objective ones, because i believe according to philosophy, everything is subjective, i don't know how they manage the exceptions:scratchin::, anyway...

first, what do i mean by "relative"?
an elephant is big, isn't it? well, no, it's small compared to a whale. so, not only is it big and small.. but also gigantic compared to an ant and tiny compared to a skyscraper.
so any object doesn't have a set value of any adjective, but actually an unlimited number of variations of said adjective corresponding to the varied values other objects hold of said adjective..

this is easily shown in the nature of numbers, no number is the biggest, because you can double it and get one bigger, this method can be used when imagination fails of finding another object with the same property or adjective and is superior to it.. for example, who can imagine something bigger than the universe? if you're having problems just imagine two universes, or a hundred, which when compared to one universe will be bigger, well, kind of..

applying it to god:

god being omnipotent is not a set value, but one relative to us, simply put, it's subjective and not objective.

i think the brain disregards such argument automatically, the reason it does that IMO can be generalized to many things which seem subjective but are actually more or less objective, or have shades of objectivity.

put simply:
if something is subjectively X to all people, can't we say X is objective?

a generalization would be:
the more people share a certain unified subjective view X, the more their unified view X is objective.


so god is objectively omnipotent.

a universe is as big as can be for our imagination.

and the biggest number is that which has a practical use in human history and the highest value, not that number plus one or times two.

for example, this would be my answer to something like this:

Because "too complex" is a notion in your mind relative to your personal limitations. Reality doesn't have your limitations.

there were many others who said something similar in more than one occasion, but i don't feel like searching for them all.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

put simply:
if something is subjectively X to all people, can't we say X is objective?

No. The earth was subjectively flat at one point... but it objectively is not.

 

[Michael]

water at 25C is lukewarm for human (subjectively)
water at 25C is hot for crabs (their nervous system stops functioning, objectively).

Crabs do NOT deserve animal rights.
I think they taste yummy (subjective).

where am I going with this?
Oh, yeah, I think Crunchy Cat made the point

 

[noodler]

L. 'sub' means beneath or under.
L. 'ob' means for, preceding.
L 'iactare' means to throw or compel; also to build or mention (i.e. instantiate)

"subject" = thrown under, placed beneath; "object" = thrown before, built ahead, ...

 

[swarm]

...

Sure he's on my mother's side of the family.

 

[swarm]

set subjective things apart from objective ones

There are no subjective things. It only seems like there are.

 

[scifes]

No. The earth was subjectively flat at one point... but it objectively is not.

:roflmao::roflmao:

you are AMAZING..

but you don't make a point, if you want to change time frames, then:

how can ANYTHING that is considered now to be objective be so?

how is what you said useful or practical?

so, am i to understand that your evolution theory and all the objective things you believe in now are not objective because they might be wrong in the future?

so, two choices: in the past, the earth being flat was objective.:blbl:

or it wasn't objective, and, lol, even the earth being a ball isn't objective, cuz who would know what would be discovered in the future??

lol...crazy isn't it?

and michael, stop playing with your crabs and pay some attention.

 

[scifes]

L. 'sub' means beneath or under.
L. 'ob' means for, preceding.
L 'iactare' means to throw or compel; also to build or mention (i.e. instantiate)

"subject" = thrown under, placed beneath; "object" = thrown before, built ahead, ...

:wtf:

 

[Crunchy Cat]

:roflmao::roflmao:

you are AMAZING..

Correct!

but you don't make a point, if you want to change time frames, then:

how can ANYTHING that is considered now to be objective be so?

It has to be validated by reality. Once reality agrees with whatever you *think*, then you know it's objective.

how is what you said useful or practical?

Because it shows that what you think and what is are often not the same and if you cannot find that equality then what you think isn't true.

so, am i to understand that your evolution theory and all the objective things you believe in now are not objective because they might be wrong in the future?

The phenomena of evolution is quite objective. It is observable and thus validated by reality. The theory of evolution is both subjective and objective. It WILL change in the future and some of the model might currently be wrong.

so, two choices: in the past, the earth being flat was objective.:blbl:

or it wasn't objective, and, lol, even the earth being a ball isn't objective, cuz who would know what would be discovered in the future??

lol...crazy isn't it?

Not very crazy at all.

 

[swarm]

The earth has been known to be round probably since the invention of sailing.

Eratosthenes calulated the diameter of the earth, and also the inclination of its axis of rotation to its orbital plane about the sun.

 

[Doreen]

No. The earth was subjectively flat at one point... but it objectively is not.

Guess we'll never be sure until it is all over what is objective. Of course then it will be over and we won't be around to know.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Guess we'll never be sure until it is all over what is objective. Of course then it will be over and we won't be around to know.

Sure about what and what is "it"?

 

[noodler]

If you understand what the words mean, you might have a chance of understanding what an object is and what a subject is.

What does "obtract" mean? Is it a word? Subtract and detract are ordinary words...

 

[Doreen]

Sure about what and what is "it"?

IOW advances in science may continue to reveal that what we thought was universal was local, or what we thought was objective was more consensus subjective.

I am, basically, calling into question, the notion of objectiveness, given that future revelation can undermine what is considered objective now.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

IOW advances in science may continue to reveal that what we thought was universal was local, or what we thought was objective was more consensus subjective.

I am, basically, calling into question, the notion of objectiveness, given that future revelation can undermine what is considered objective now.

That's true and at the same time some things that are objective (like the earth not beig flat) will remain the same.

 

[Doreen]

That's true and at the same time some things that are objective (like the earth not beig flat) will remain the same.

So we can be objective in the negative. But then again, it may turn out on some deeper level that our whole damn universe is flat.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

So we can be objective in the negative. But then again, it may turn out on some deeper level that our whole damn universe is flat.

Perhaps in terms of local geometry (i.e. curvature or non-curvature of space-time). In non-local geometry it is clearly not.