Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Love is a linguistic term that refers to a subjective feeling. If love was not an objective reality, at least to some extent, we would not be able to discuss it. Imho, though, love is far too vague to be proven part of objective reality, but the concept certainly does.

That's the mystery of it, we are able to discuss it while it is categorically subjective. For the exact same decision, the one may say it is hateful, the other may say it is loving, and then they each may change their opinion that the first says it is loving, and the other says it is hateful. This excludes your idea that it is partially objective.

And of course when you say it is "part" objective, then it is a slippery slope. Then you will only ever be talking about the objective parts, and not leave any room for choosing the conclusion at all. You have never paid any attention to different ways of how the opinion is chosen, which is really much of the meat of subjectivity.

You are dying to insert objectivity in there, but it is a logical impossiblity that what chooses can be a fact in any way whatsoever. So it means you must redefine love as a hybrid term, which in part refers to what chooses, the subjective part, and another part refers to how it is decided, the objective part.

There would be no logical error in doing that. One can define that love can only refer to agency of a decision, where the decision is made in a human brain. Then one would require the fact of the decision being made by a human being, and only then one can make the opinion whether or not the decision was loving.

 

[Kirran]

Mohammad, for clarity of discussion, would you please define 'love' for us?

 

[leibowde84]

That's the mystery of it, we are able to discuss it while it is categorically subjective. For the exact same decision, the one may say it is hateful, the other may say it is loving, and then they each may change their opinion that the first says it is loving, and the other says it is hateful. This excludes your idea that it is partially objective.

And of course when you say it is "part" objective, then it is a slippery slope. Then you will only ever be talking about the objective parts, and not leave any room for choosing the conclusion at all. You have never paid any attention to different ways of how the opinion is chosen, which is really much of the meat of subjectivity.

You are dying to insert objectivity in there, but it is a logical impossiblity that what chooses can be a fact in any way whatsoever. So it means you must redefine love as a hybrid term, which in part refers to what chooses, the subjective part, and another part refers to how it is decided, the objective part.

There would be no logical error in doing that. One can define that love can only refer to agency of a decision, where the decision is made in a human brain. Then one would require the fact of the decision being made by a human being, and only then one can make the opinion whether or not the decision was loving.

You are again missing my point.

How do you define the term love? What do you mean when you use it? That meaning is a concept that can be discussed by more than one subjective consciousness simultaneously. Thus, the concept of love exists objectively.

 

[leibowde84]

Mohammad, for clarity of discussion, would you please define 'love' for us?

Lol.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

At least I didn't jump to the conclusion that we all reject subjectivity in its entirety. Right?

You all reject any objective knowledge about how things are chosen in the universe, and then you make explicit and suggestive remarks rejecting subjectivity. It is just a reasonable statement that you reject subjectivity wholesale. You have many times said that maybe later there will be objective evidence for God. Maybe later we will find evidence there is water on Mars. By phrasing that way you are categorizing the existence of God as an objective issue, regardless that you have no evidence either way yet.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You are again missing my point.

How do you define the term love? What do you mean when you use it? That meaning is a concept that can be discussed by more than one subjective consciousness simultaneously. Thus, the concept of love exists objectively.

No the expression of love exists objectively. But then since we cannot know for a fact the love referred to in the expressions of love is real, there exists no definition of love, other than that by definition it makes a decision turn out the way it does. Which means it is a perfectly valid answer to start singing when somebody asks what love is, or poetry.

 

[leibowde84]

You all reject any objective knowledge about how things are chosen in the universe, and then you make explicit and suggestive remarks rejecting subjectivity. It is just a reasonable statement that you reject subjectivity wholesale. You have many times said that maybe later there will be objective evidence for God. Maybe later we will find evidence there is water on Mars. By phrasing that way you are categorizing the existence of God as an objective issue, regardless that you have no evidence either way yet.

Why is merely allowing for or recognizing a possibility denying subjectivity altogether? If there is one thing that cannot be said for this erroneous conclusion, it is that it is "reasonable".

 

[leibowde84]

No the expression of love exists objectively. But then since we cannot know for a fact the love referred to in the expressions of love is real, there exists no definition of love, other than that by definition it makes a decision turn out the way it does. Which means it is a perfectly valid answer to start singing when somebody asks what love is, or poetry.

So you are using a term without a meaning? Can u at least try to answer my question?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Why is merely allowing for or recognizing a possibility denying subjectivity altogether? If there is one thing that cannot be said for this erroneous conclusion, it is that it is "reasonable".

It is categorizing the existence of God together with questions like whether or not there is water on Mars, or whether or not there is an invisible teapot in orbit. It is plainly categorizing the existence of God together with objective issues. It is plainly rejecting subjectivity.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So you are using a term without a meaning? Can u at least try to answer my question?

No I cannot try to make love objective.

 

[leibowde84]

It is categorizing the existence of God together with questions like whether or not there is water on Mars, or whether or not there is an invisible teapot in orbit. It is plainly categorizing the existence of God together with objective issues. It is plainly rejecting subjectivity.

No it isnt. You are again confused. It isn't "categorizing" anything whatsoever. It is merely recognizing the existence of the possibility that this categorization might be accurate. No declarative statement. You are merely putting word in my mouth, misrepresenting my argument due to your intolerance for ideas that go against your own beliefs about reality.

 

[leibowde84]

No I cannot try to make love objective.

Why would you use a word when you don't even know what it means. That seems a tad ludicrous.

 

[leibowde84]

No I cannot try to make love objective.

1love

\ˈləv\noun
: a feeling of strong or constant affection for a person, thing, or other entity.
From Merriam Websters dictionary. This is a start.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No it isnt. You are again confused. It isn't "categorizing" anything whatsoever. It is merely recognizing the existence of the possibility that this categorization might be accurate. No declarative statement. You are merely putting word in my mouth, misrepresenting my argument due to your intolerance for ideas that go against your own beliefs about reality.

It's a nonsense, it falls perfectly in line with atheistic arguments about an invisible teapot orbiting the earth.

And this is also in the context of you actively opposing any factual knowledge whatsoever about how things are chosen in the universe, and insisting on that love is partially objective.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Why would you use a word when you don't even know what it means. That seems a tad ludicrous.

I am sure you don't have a clue what love means fundamentally, because you never actually dealt with the subjective "part" at all, in saying it was partially subjective. You never addressed how to decide in forming an opinion what is loving, which means, you have no clue about how subjectivity works, you only understand objectivity.

 

[leibowde84]

It's a nonsense, it falls perfectly in line with atheistic arguments about an invisible teapot orbiting the earth.

And this is also in the context of you actively opposing any factual knowledge whatsoever about how things are chosen in the universe, and insisting on that love is partially objective.

Nope, not rejecting (not sure if you quite understand what that word means). Merely allowing for possibilities.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

1love

\ˈləv\noun
: a feeling of strong or constant affection for a person, thing, or other entity.
From Merriam Websters dictionary. This is a start.

Which means other mentions of love are scientifically wrong? It's a nonsense, that is just reasonable judgement in the dictionary, a popular judgement, but still a judgement.

 

[leibowde84]

I am sure you don't have a clue what love means fundamentally, because you never actually dealt with the subjective "part" at all, in saying it was partially subjective. You never addressed how to decide in forming an opinion what is loving, which means, you have no clue about how subjectivity works, you only understand objectivity.

I've been in love before. And I feel I've for many people. Wrong yet again. And, btw, you have admitted repeatedly that you don't even know what love is.

 

[metis]

It was initiated by ACLU to challenge the Butler Act but they lost and the law remained on the books until 1967..

I'm not only aware of that, I taught it in my basic anthropology course.

No such thing. Show me the court transcript...

Right here: State V. Scopes - UMKC Law School Famous Trials Series

Also, it appears that you're totally unaware of the fact that Bryan was a broken man after the trial, which I do believe was a shame as he truly was a great man.

Read Galton’s theory and George William Hunter’s Civic Biology

I read the transcripts myself and drew my own conclusions. Second-hand information always need to be checked because all too often what one gets is bias.

 

[leibowde84]

Which means other mentions of love are scientifically wrong? It's a nonsense, that is just reasonable judgement in the dictionary, a popular judgement, but still a judgement.

I said this was a start. Never rejected alternative definitions. What definition are you using? You still haven't answered that.