Can We Be Objective Regarding Our Own Objectiveness?

[ElCodeMonkey]

Objective:
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

I believe that I am completely objective in my reasoning of all things. That doesn't mean I'm always right, but I don't believe I'm influenced by personal feelings or opinions (at least not for long ). I am willing and able to listen to all evidence and make decisions based on facts. I presume most people feel the same way, however. Can we really know our own objectiveness? Is it really all that hard to be objective? Am I worse at it than I believe? Is there a way to test objectiveness?

[ElCodeMonkey]

Nobody can ever prove the existence or non-existence of God or to really even have evidence one way or the other.

This is a statement born of arrogance.

You can speak for yourself and your own abilities. You have no reason to believe you can speak for anyone else.

Anyone who has spoken to God and has received a response can testify to his existence. It's as simple as that, and there are literally billions of us. We have existed in every century of history.

No, it's a statement born of logic. I'm rather good at logic. "God spoke to me" isn't proof of anything. It's evidence, perhaps, but certainly not proof. There are many things it could be. Hallucination being one of them. Aliens being another. Lies yet another. Self-deception. Mis-perception. Drugs. Pranks. The list goes on. God can never be proven because he has no yardstick by which to be measured. He could tell us all kinds of mysteries and yet we'd have no method of verification or reason to believe he's not lying. Short of creating a measurable planet by snapping his fingers, we'd be pretty hard pressed to prove someone is God. Especially a God who keeps himself well-hidden and doesn't try to convince us. I suppose, being God, he could find a way to prove he's God, but he's obviously not doing that. Again, even if he has spoken to you, without some measurable proof he could be any of the things mentioned above. And he has never spoken to me even during my 20 years of seeking him diligently. At least, not audibly in a definitive "I am God" way. And I sincerely doubt he has done otherwise for you (or anyone else for that matter). You may consider your intuitions to be a response from God as I used to, but this is most certainly not God.

[The Me's]

[Replying to ElCodeMonkey]

"God spoke to me" is the basis of personal experience, and an eye-witness is the highest quality of evidence related to history.

I'm sorry, but your logic has led you astray.

[Aetixintro]

Objectivity also entails the assessment of this! W/o circularity problems and without "from the subjective" problems. I.e., say the testing of neuro-values or any such!

Good?

[ElCodeMonkey]

Objectivity also entails the assessment of this! W/o circularity problems and without "from the subjective" problems. I.e., say the testing of neuro-values or any such!

Good?

Sorry, I have no idea what you're saying... The first two sentences are incomplete and don't express a subject and I have no idea what a neuro-value is.

"God spoke to me" is the basis of personal experience, and an eye-witness is the highest quality of evidence related to history.

I'm sorry, but your logic has led you astray.

You haven't done enough research on eye witness accounts then. They're absolutely terrible and unreliable. Take Jennifer Thomspon's story for example. She studied the face of her rapist over 30 minutes and took huge mental notes and yet still identified the wrong man. The Invisible Gorilla goes into great detail regarding how our eye-witness accounts are "God-awful" and not worth crap. This is yet another reason I put little faith in the accuracy of the accounts written in the Bible. We can see the accounts are different from each other and it's no wonder given our mind's limitations. Subliminal is another good book regarding how our our minds REALLY work and, in essence, make stuff up to fit our patterns. It's going to be a hard sell to say that ancient brains worked differently than our current brains.

If you believe it's my logic that "led me astray", then by all means show me the proper logic. I haven't expressed any logic yet so I can only imagine you must not know what logic is. Logic requires taking facts and making conclusions such as "if A then B" and "if C then A" and we know C so it follows that B. That is logically sound whether or not we agree on the actual true/false details. And no one can do this for the existence of God.

[dianaiad]

Nobody can ever prove the existence or non-existence of God or to really even have evidence one way or the other.

This is a statement born of arrogance.

You can speak for yourself and your own abilities. You have no reason to believe you can speak for anyone else.

Anyone who has spoken to God and has received a response can testify to his existence. It's as simple as that, and there are literally billions of us. We have existed in every century of history.

Moderator Final Warning

Make your point by addressing what is written. Do not address, especially negatively, the writer.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[rbarton]

[Replying to post 21 by ElCodeMonkey]

There are over a billion Catholics, and we are not taught that the earth is 6000 years old. Which branch of protestants were you following that believed this? Did you ever see pictures of the Grand Canyon? That kind of erosion takes.....well, anyway, I'm sorry your Christianity was so harmful to you