Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
That's not true. Among other things, I can touch the screen. Can't touch the flying saucer. And, there would be no way of knowing whether it was a real flying saucer just by looking at it. It could be a number of other things. This is because it is not verified objectively.
If you're the only person left in the entire universe, objectivity still exists.
You can touch the flying saucer, I'll let it land. There...
Straw man!! We aren't talking about "truth" in general. We are talking about verifiable evidence vs. Solitary Subjective experience.
Truth informs objectivity, so while we are talking about one, we talk about the other. Solitary individuals can have objectivity.
Never said itherwise. But you would be unable to verify anything, which is the point.
Objectivity implies that something is verifiable because it's true.
Great...except that, you are claiming to be a Christian, and Christianity relies on subjective experience, or rather, you have to trust that you are reading the correct narrative, /in any capacity/, in order to have, any actual beliefs on the religion and what it teaches. So, perhaps if you can justify your own subjective adherence to what you think Christianity is/teaches, so forth, then you would seem more credible, with your ''verifiable'' wordage.
Can you define "objectivity" specifically, because you are losing me. I don't understand how something can be verified if there is no verification going on.
Something objective stands in contrast to personal feelings or opinions, it is represented by facts. Those can be personal facts.
I feel like you are confusing what is true with how we can possibly KNOW that it's true. Of course subjective experience can be true. But the question is how can it be verified without external tools. Iow, not whether something is true but how we can better KNOW it is true (aka verification).
To know is for something to be true: a justified and TRUE belief.
What is a personal fact? A fact is something that is indisputably the truth. So, considering that our personal experience is severely flawed, how can a solitary personal experience be known to be "fact" without further verification?
Ok, so how can something be "justified" without further verification.
By the way, to know is not merely to think something is true that happens to be true. Knowing is to think something is true based on verifiable evidence. Anything else is belief.
A personal fact is some fact you hold that is indisputably the truth. Even if others verify it (and if your personal experience is questionable, remember that you've personally verified all these other people exist), it's still a fact that you hold. There is nothing inherently flawed about our personal experiences. Some can be mistaken, but 'missed' takes happen. The bottom line is that we can and do hold facts.
You can verify it further all you want, but that's further to the initial verification, which is objectivity. A belief is justified for simply having good reason to have it (good reason usually is just truth).
To know is for something to actually be true that you also happen to justifiably think is true. All bachelors are male. So, you'd better get out there and start independently verifying that every bachelor is male (a more difficult task in this modern world). I'll just wait here.
How is "blerg is true" an example of choosing to believe? If you don't define blerg, nobody can possibly believe the claim.
Without research from visual it could be both , is mutations due to nuclear radiation outside of "evolution" near the Fukushima nuclear plant
Was a guess?