Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[Beaudreaux]

Do you honestly think art doesn't exist? Or love?

Just being utilized as a noun qualifies a thing as "a distinct entity" (or, if you wish, "as if a distinct entity", effectively the same, as even the "really-real" nouns are utilized "as if" nouns) complete with characteristics, function and form. Art exists. Concepts exist. Flying reindeer are imaginary, not abstract, unless symbolized.

Don't such things only exist in the mind of the perceiver?

 

[PureX]

See, there you go again, PureX.

Your mixing up different categories here. "Art" is an attribute or a process, but there is no actual "art" that exists as a distinct entity.

Art is an ideal that exists as an indistinct quality or set of qualities. It is pursued through a process of the exploration of various mediums.

I'm not "mixing categories". I'm simply giving you an analogy to help explain why no one can give you a clear and distinct definition of "God". Not all human ideals/endeavors are clear and distinct. Some of them are deliberately vague and subjective because that's how they work.

Yes, we use it as a noun to say "this has the attribute we call art, therefore we call it art". No one is asking you to identify what counts as art and what does not. We are simply asking you to explain what you mean when you say "god". Just as you could explain art as "(the creation of) beautiful or significant things". Yes, the decision whether or not something is beautiful or significant and could therefore count as art is subjective, but the definition of "art" is not something mysterious - in fact, it's quite trivial.

When I was in art school, I took an Aesthetics class. Aesthetics is a branch of philosophy dealing specifically with the question of what is art. And it turns out that nearly every major philosopher in history has taken a crack at defining art. And as we read through them in class, it became apparent that they were all right, even though they all disagreed with each other. A few of the definitions I remember were: "art is a special form of communication", "art is an expression of balance and symmetry in pursuit of perfection", "art is the pursuit of immortality", "art is the expression of an existential illness or unease", "art is the pursuit of novelty" ... Art is all of these things and many more. And in fact, we discovered that the best way to identify art was to identify it by what it ISN'T, rather than by what it is, with the exception of the rule that art is always man-made. After that, if it's readily identifiable as any other form and function, it's probably NOT art. Yet even that rule was flawed as functional objects were co-opted as works of art in the 1950s and 60s.

I'll try this again: what do you mean when you say "god"?

I mean different things at different times. My general quick philosophical definition for "God" might be that "God" is the "mystery source and sustenance of all that exists". A more socialized definition of "God" might be that: "God is love expressed". A more universal definition might be that "God is the existential benevolence that I see being expressed through the material universe" (grace). And I may invent/discover new concepts for "God" at any time due to new conditions and circumstances.

If you think "god" is like "art", then can you really say you're talking about something that exists beyond the conceptual level?

I don't know. That becomes a 'metaphysical' question and in my experience those tend to lead to headaches (smile). Most human beings experience art. There is no doubt about this. Yet most human beings have no idea what art is. Likewise, many human beings experience "God" in some way (or say they do) yet most of them have no idea what God is and will admit it. Some human beings do not experience art, and some do not experience "God". This I also know. And if I were one of these, I would likely presume that they don't exist except as some sort of mass delusion. But I HAVE experience both, and so I KNOW they are not a form of mass delusion. They are real experiences, just as sitting in a chair is a real experience. The fact that the "chair" in this case is a subjective ideal does not negate the experience at all.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

OMG, PureX is your God Subjective or Objective cause they can't be both.

 

[PureX]

OMG, PureX is your God Subjective or Objective cause they can't be both.

Of course it can. "Objective" and "subjective" are just concepts based on the limitations of perspective. Ideals like God and art and love and justice transcend perspective.

Here are a few questions for you: Is infinity an objective or subjective phenomenon? Is it a real phenomenon? How do/can we determine it's realness?

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Of course it can. "Objective" and "subjective" are just concepts based on the limitations of perspective. Ideals like God and art and love and justice transcend perspective.

No. No. No. Name something that's both Objective and Subjective.

Here are a few questions for you: Is infinity an objective or subjective phenomenon? Is it a real phenomenon? How do/can we determine it's realness?

It's subjective becuase we can only imagine infinity, we can never observe it or measure it.

 

[Commoner]

Of course it can. "Objective" and "subjective" are just concepts based on the limitations of perspective. Ideals like God and art and love and justice transcend perspective.

Here are a few questions for you: Is infinity an objective or subjective phenomenon? Is it a real phenomenon? How do/can we determine it's realness?

Infinity is a concept we use to describe an un-ending series, PureX. It does not exist, there is no "an infinity" anywhere outside our minds.

Is this what your god is like?

 

[Commoner]

Art is an ideal that exists as an indistinct quality or set of qualities. It is pursued through a process of the exploration of various mediums.

It exists in your mind.

I'm not "mixing categories". I'm simply giving you an analogy to help explain why no one can give you a clear and distinct definition of "God". Not all human ideals/endeavors are clear and distinct. Some of them are deliberately vague and subjective because that's how they work.
When I was in art school, I took an Aesthetics class. Aesthetics is a branch of philosophy dealing specifically with the question of what is art. And it turns out that nearly every major philosopher in history has taken a crack at defining art. And as we read through them in class, it became apparent that they were all right, even though they all disagreed with each other. A few of the definitions I remember were: "art is a special form of communication", "art is an expression of balance and symmetry in pursuit of perfection", "art is the pursuit of immortality", "art is the expression of an existential illness or unease", "art is the pursuit of novelty" ... Art is all of these things and many more. And in fact, we discovered that the best way to identify art was to identify it by what it ISN'T, rather than by what it is, with the exception of the rule that art is always man-made. After that, if it's readily identifiable as any other form and function, it's probably NOT art. Yet even that rule was flawed as functional objects were co-opted as works of art in the 1950s and 60s.

I've just given you a definition. PureX, let me make this very clear to you. The word "art" can mean different things. And certainly does mean different things to different people. Those things are in our minds, they are not the same thing. They are different concepts that share some common attributes with other concepts of art. That's it.

I mean different things at different times. My general quick philosophical definition for "God" might be that "God" is the "mystery source and sustenance of all that exists". A more socialized definition of "God" might be that: "God is love expressed". A more universal definition might be that "God is the existential benevolence that I see being expressed through the material universe" (grace). And I may invent/discover new concepts for "God" at any time due to new conditions and circumstances.

None of those things mean anything, you do understand that, don't you?

God is a reverse triangle! God is the smell of burnt toast lying in red! God is a backwards facing dog in a transcendental room!

These are not things you believe in. You might use them as your "philosophical definition", but I'm askin you, what do you believe in? What are the actual properties of god? Describe the thing you're talking about. What is it? Not some philosophical nonsense.

I don't know. That becomes a 'metaphysical' question and in my experience those tend to lead to headaches (smile). Most human beings experience art. There is no doubt about this. Yet most human beings have no idea what art is. Likewise, many human beings experience "God" in some way (or say they do) yet most of them have no idea what God is and will admit it. Some human beings do not experience art, and some do not experience "God". This I also know. And if I were one of these, I would likely presume that they don't exist except as some sort of mass delusion. But I HAVE experience both, and so I KNOW they are not a form of mass delusion. They are real experiences, just as sitting in a chair is a real experience. The fact that the "chair" in this case is a subjective ideal does not negate the experience at all.

PureX, I and others have now explained this to you a fair number of times. Are you intentionally being obtuse?

 

[PureX]

It's subjective becuase we can only imagine infinity, we can never observe it or measure it.

That only means it's not measurable by us. It doesn't mean it's not measurable, or that it's not a "real" phenomenon. In fact, I think most scientists and mathematicians would consider it as "real" as anything else is, because the concept "works" for them, repeatedly, and predictably.

 

[PureX]

No. No. No. Name something that's both Objective and Subjective.

Temperature. Density. Gravity. Light. Time. Placement. Speed. Duration. We could go on.

It's subjective becuase we can only imagine infinity, we can never observe it or measure it.

It is it's own perpetual measure. And many scientists and mathematicians use it that way all the time. The fact that we are not able to observe it isn't relevant to it's existence. Lots of things exist that we can't observe. Life exists, yet none of us has seen it, either. Love exists, yet none of us has seen love. We experience the effect of these phenomena, and we can interact with these effects somewhat predictably, and thus we can know they exist. Yet we still can't observe them directly, or quantify them accurately. The limitations are ours. "Objective" and "subjective" are ways of describing our own limitations. They have nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of a phenomenon.

 

[PureX]

(Art) exists in your mind.

Existence is itself a concept that exists only in our minds. Every concept exists only in our minds. You keep stating this as though we're supposed to recognize something significantly different about art, or God, that makes them somehow "unreal" or less real than all the other concepts that exist in our minds. But it's not working for me.

I've just given you a definition. PureX, let me make this very clear to you. The word "art" can mean different things. And certainly does mean different things to different people. Those things are in our minds, they are not the same thing. They are different concepts that share some common attributes with other concepts of art. That's it.

The term "art", like the term "God", refers to a broad range of ideas. I agree. Yet there is an over-arching ideal that limits that range, too. Not everything is art. And not everything is God. Yet it's very difficult, and perhaps impossible to define exactly what that over-arching ideal is.

None of those things mean anything, you do understand that, don't you?

They don't mean anything to you, because you have already closed your mind to such ideas. They mean a great deal, however, to millions of other people. You are not the yardstick by which meaning is established for all.

These are not things you believe in. You might use them as your "philosophical definition", but I'm askin you, what do you believe in? What are the actual properties of god? Describe the thing you're talking about. What is it? Not some philosophical nonsense.

God in my life is love, forgiveness, generosity, joy, peace, unity and freedom. God in me is courage, wisdom, kindness, strength, tenderness, and humility. God in you is seeing you in me and me in you and that we are all one, unique but together. God is an ideal that heals us, if we will act on it. God is an ideal that transcends life and existence, so as to give them meaning and purpose. God is the challenge of becoming that which is the greatest in me to be. I'm being as clear about this as I can be.

 

[Willamena]

Don't such things only exist in the mind of the perceiver?

Yup. They exist.

 

[Willamena]

No. No. No. Name something that's both Objective and Subjective.

Everything. A thing is objective when spoken about, and it is subjective when it is the speaker.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Does the brain control us or do we control the brain?

 

[Willamena]

Does the brain control us or do we control the brain?

"Control" is the illusion that either grants or robs you of "free will."

 

[Vile Atheist]

"Control" is the illusion that either grants or robs you of "free will."

Really? I thought it was just what mother exercises on me

 

[nonbeliever_92]

That only means it's not measurable by us. It doesn't mean it's not measurable, or that it's not a "real" phenomenon. In fact, I think most scientists and mathematicians would consider it as "real" as anything else is, because the concept "works" for them, repeatedly, and predictably.

If it was measurable to anyone, it would not be infinity. If you're suggesting that there's something out there that can measure something umeasurable, than demonstrate it. And actually most scientists and mathematicians abhor the concept of infinity, becuase it's functionally nonsense. There's no true concrete use of infinity in real world applications.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Temperature.

No, although the measuring system for it is, subjective that is.

Density.

No, although the measuring system for it is, subjective that is.

Gravity.

No, although the measuring system for it is, subjective that is.

Light.

No, although the measuring system for it is, subjective that is.

Time.

No, although the measuring system for it is, subjective that is.

Placement.

No, although the measuring system for it is, subjective that is.

Speed.

No, although the measuring system for it is, subjective that is.

Duration.

Well actually, it depends on what you mean for this, this could either be objective or subjective, but not both.

We could go on.

It actually is quite clear to me that either you are simply ignoring the differences between objectivity and subjectivity, or that you just don't know the difference. Although I believe you're being honest, so I'm going to believe the latter.

PureX, could you please explain to me what you believe the definitions for subjectivity and objectivity are and then tell me how could something be both of them.

It is it's own perpetual measure. And many scientists and mathematicians use it that way all the time.

Many scientists and mathematicians don't use it all the time, in fact I believe only theoretical sciences and mathematics tend to use it the most heavily, aside from high school math instructors that is... ugh AP Calc.

The fact that we are not able to observe it isn't relevant to it's existence.

As a concept, you're right, so we agree! As an actual "thing" no, you're wrong, so we disagree.

Lots of things exist that we can't observe.

Again, distinguishing between subjectivity and objectivity will vastly help this statement, but if you mean that lots of concepts-as in not tangible exist that we cannot observe, then yes, you are correct. The ability to observe it is a disqualifier if you are going to call something SUBJECTIVE.If you mean lots of actual (I don't want to use things again, but I'm gonna have to) things- as in tangible -exist that we cannot observe, then no, you are incorrect. The ability to observe it is actually a qualification for something being OBJECTIVE.

Life exists, yet none of us has seen it, either.

This is simply not true. You never squashed a bug?

Love exists, yet none of us has seen love.

Not true, unless you mean the emotion, then true. We know love exists because nearly everyone has experienced it and we have brain scans concerning the eefect of love on the brain patterns. But there is no physical thing as love, nothing objective.

We experience the effect of these phenomena, and we can interact with these effects somewhat predictably, and thus we can know they exist. Yet we still can't observe them directly, or quantify them accurately. The limitations are ours. "Objective" and "subjective" are ways of describing our own limitations. They have nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of a phenomenon.

No one's saying that they don't exist, just as no one has claimed that your god concept doesn't exist. What we're trying to tell you is that your god concept is more than likely nothing more than a concept (which you've unintentionally verified and defended) and that there are things that are strictly objective.

We're showing that if "x" is unobservable and untestable than it is subjective. And subjective only.

If "y" is observable and testable than it is objective and objective only. And although we may have a subjective concept of "y" in our minds, it in no way or form effects the objectivity of "y"

 

[Willamena]

Possibly.

Found this quote recently that I like. The "inwardness" that the individual is --that we each are--passionate about is "I am."

Faith is precisely the contradiction between the infinite passion of the individual's inwardness and the objective uncertainty. If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. If I wish to preserve myself in faith I must constantly be intent upon holding fast the objective uncertainty, so as to remain out upon the deep, over seventy thousand fathoms of water, still preserving my faith.

- Soren Kierkegaard, Concluding Unscientific Postscript

 

[PureX]

We can measure the precise degree of molecular agitation within matter, as it's temperature. We cannot define when that matter becomes "hot" or "cold", however. In this way, temperature is both objective and subjective. It's also both actual and conceptual.

The agitation of molecules within matter is a real phenomenon regardless of it's "objectivity" or it's "subjectivity". But it's only "real" to us, however, as an experienced idea. If no humans existed, the molecules within matter would still agitate, but there would be no temperature. Because there'd be no hot or cold, and no scale to quantify the agitation within the molecules.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Yup. They exist.

Yeah, but what about the "only in the mind of the perceiver" part? Are you saying that part is not true?