Philosophy Discussion Forums

MAYA EL wrote: ↑January 9th, 2023, 2:39 am "A common example could be if a tree fell in the forest and nobody was around to hear it, would it still have fallen? Objectively, it seems as though it would still have fallen. In physics, the answer would be yes, it still fell. Yet subjectively, it would not have fallen particularly if a subject-person was not there to observe it, witness it or hear it. With respect to observations in history or witnessing, this poses yet another threat to Atheism. In Christianity, Jesus who existed in a history book, those accounts involved subject persons who witnessed his existence. What kind of belief would that be? What is its truth value?"

What? The tree falling has nothing to do with mankind seeing it happen or not so I'm not sure exactly we're your logic is from but it is an odd one
And the accounts of Jesus in the bible are not first hand accounts like you say they are infact I can't think of any first hand accounts of Jesus

ME!

Thank you for your contribution! Are you sure that it has nothing to do with mankind "seeing it happen"? In other words, what does it mean that one has a "first hand account" of something happening? As a helpful hint, maybe thing about and consider the differences between objective and subjective truths.

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑January 9th, 2023, 10:56 am

MAYA EL wrote: ↑January 9th, 2023, 2:39 am "A common example could be if a tree fell in the forest and nobody was around to hear it, would it still have fallen? Objectively, it seems as though it would still have fallen. In physics, the answer would be yes, it still fell. Yet subjectively, it would not have fallen particularly if a subject-person was not there to observe it, witness it or hear it. With respect to observations in history or witnessing, this poses yet another threat to Atheism. In Christianity, Jesus who existed in a history book, those accounts involved subject persons who witnessed his existence. What kind of belief would that be? What is its truth value?"

What? The tree falling has nothing to do with mankind seeing it happen or not so I'm not sure exactly we're your logic is from but it is an odd one
And the accounts of Jesus in the bible are not first hand accounts like you say they are infact I can't think of any first hand accounts of Jesus

ME!

Thank you for your contribution! Are you sure that it has nothing to do with mankind "seeing it happen"? In other words, what does it mean that one has a "first hand account" of something happening? As a helpful hint, maybe thing about and consider the differences between objective and subjective truths.

A first hand account means that they were the one they are talking about in the writing it means they were the one doing whatever it is that they claim happened and or they literally saw it happen,

And we have books attributed to Matthew Mark Luke and John but it does not say that Matthew wrote Matthew Mark wrote Mark so on and so forth and these writings give a hint to alluding to the fact that they're not firsthand because it's spoken about in a past tense kind of manner and not a first person witness manner and I don't think anybody says they were first person witness to anything relating to Jesus now that I think about it but I could be wrong

Also I'm on the fence as to if it's possible for a person to know a objective truth and share it with somebody else and it remain an objective truth especially when that second person was not there to see it so they are relying solely on the explanation of the first person which I think disqualifies the information is objective

MAYA EL wrote: ↑January 9th, 2023, 9:53 pm

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑January 9th, 2023, 10:56 am

MAYA EL wrote: ↑January 9th, 2023, 2:39 am "A common example could be if a tree fell in the forest and nobody was around to hear it, would it still have fallen? Objectively, it seems as though it would still have fallen. In physics, the answer would be yes, it still fell. Yet subjectively, it would not have fallen particularly if a subject-person was not there to observe it, witness it or hear it. With respect to observations in history or witnessing, this poses yet another threat to Atheism. In Christianity, Jesus who existed in a history book, those accounts involved subject persons who witnessed his existence. What kind of belief would that be? What is its truth value?"

What? The tree falling has nothing to do with mankind seeing it happen or not so I'm not sure exactly we're your logic is from but it is an odd one
And the accounts of Jesus in the bible are not first hand accounts like you say they are infact I can't think of any first hand accounts of Jesus

ME!

Thank you for your contribution! Are you sure that it has nothing to do with mankind "seeing it happen"? In other words, what does it mean that one has a "first hand account" of something happening? As a helpful hint, maybe thing about and consider the differences between objective and subjective truths.

A first hand account means that they were the one they are talking about in the writing it means they were the one doing whatever it is that they claim happened and or they literally saw it happen,

And we have books attributed to Matthew Mark Luke and John but it does not say that Matthew wrote Matthew Mark wrote Mark so on and so forth and these writings give a hint to alluding to the fact that they're not firsthand because it's spoken about in a past tense kind of manner and not a first person witness manner and I don't think anybody says they were first person witness to anything relating to Jesus now that I think about it but I could be wrong

Also I'm on the fence as to if it's possible for a person to know a objective truth and share it with somebody else and it remain an objective truth especially when that second person was not there to see it so they are relying solely on the explanation of the first person which I think disqualifies the information is objective

ME!

Thank you again for that clarification. With respect to antiquity or any historical account of some-thing happening, in your view, which truth takes a position of primacy?

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑January 10th, 2023, 8:30 am

MAYA EL wrote: ↑January 9th, 2023, 9:53 pm

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑January 9th, 2023, 10:56 am

MAYA EL wrote: ↑January 9th, 2023, 2:39 am "A common example could be if a tree fell in the forest and nobody was around to hear it, would it still have fallen? Objectively, it seems as though it would still have fallen. In physics, the answer would be yes, it still fell. Yet subjectively, it would not have fallen particularly if a subject-person was not there to observe it, witness it or hear it. With respect to observations in history or witnessing, this poses yet another threat to Atheism. In Christianity, Jesus who existed in a history book, those accounts involved subject persons who witnessed his existence. What kind of belief would that be? What is its truth value?"

What? The tree falling has nothing to do with mankind seeing it happen or not so I'm not sure exactly we're your logic is from but it is an odd one
And the accounts of Jesus in the bible are not first hand accounts like you say they are infact I can't think of any first hand accounts of Jesus

ME!

Thank you for your contribution! Are you sure that it has nothing to do with mankind "seeing it happen"? In other words, what does it mean that one has a "first hand account" of something happening? As a helpful hint, maybe thing about and consider the differences between objective and subjective truths.

A first hand account means that they were the one they are talking about in the writing it means they were the one doing whatever it is that they claim happened and or they literally saw it happen,

And we have books attributed to Matthew Mark Luke and John but it does not say that Matthew wrote Matthew Mark wrote Mark so on and so forth and these writings give a hint to alluding to the fact that they're not firsthand because it's spoken about in a past tense kind of manner and not a first person witness manner and I don't think anybody says they were first person witness to anything relating to Jesus now that I think about it but I could be wrong

Also I'm on the fence as to if it's possible for a person to know a objective truth and share it with somebody else and it remain an objective truth especially when that second person was not there to see it so they are relying solely on the explanation of the first person which I think disqualifies the information is objective

ME!

Thank you again for that clarification. With respect to antiquity or any historical account of some-thing happening, in your view, which truth takes a position of primacy?

That doesn't matter what does matter is that your statement and or opinion/perspective is wrong because a tree will fall in the woods regardless of rather or not a human is awair of it

My phone is giving me problems I meant to say "aware of it" . And I can't see where to edit my post? Are we not able to?

MAYA EL wrote: ↑January 10th, 2023, 8:26 pm

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑January 10th, 2023, 8:30 am

MAYA EL wrote: ↑January 9th, 2023, 9:53 pm

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑January 9th, 2023, 10:56 am

ME!

Thank you for your contribution! Are you sure that it has nothing to do with mankind "seeing it happen"? In other words, what does it mean that one has a "first hand account" of something happening? As a helpful hint, maybe thing about and consider the differences between objective and subjective truths.

A first hand account means that they were the one they are talking about in the writing it means they were the one doing whatever it is that they claim happened and or they literally saw it happen,

And we have books attributed to Matthew Mark Luke and John but it does not say that Matthew wrote Matthew Mark wrote Mark so on and so forth and these writings give a hint to alluding to the fact that they're not firsthand because it's spoken about in a past tense kind of manner and not a first person witness manner and I don't think anybody says they were first person witness to anything relating to Jesus now that I think about it but I could be wrong

Also I'm on the fence as to if it's possible for a person to know a objective truth and share it with somebody else and it remain an objective truth especially when that second person was not there to see it so they are relying solely on the explanation of the first person which I think disqualifies the information is objective

ME!

Thank you again for that clarification. With respect to antiquity or any historical account of some-thing happening, in your view, which truth takes a position of primacy?

That doesn't matter what does matter is that your statement and or opinion/perspective is wrong because a tree will fall in the woods regardless of rather or not a human is awair of it

Within the context of the OP , it seems you are thinking that the historical account of the person Jesus is both an objective/subjective truth of some kind? Please clarify if you are able.

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑January 10th, 2023, 8:45 pm

MAYA EL wrote: ↑January 10th, 2023, 8:26 pm

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑January 10th, 2023, 8:30 am

MAYA EL wrote: ↑January 9th, 2023, 9:53 pm
A first hand account means that they were the one they are talking about in the writing it means they were the one doing whatever it is that they claim happened and or they literally saw it happen,

And we have books attributed to Matthew Mark Luke and John but it does not say that Matthew wrote Matthew Mark wrote Mark so on and so forth and these writings give a hint to alluding to the fact that they're not firsthand because it's spoken about in a past tense kind of manner and not a first person witness manner and I don't think anybody says they were first person witness to anything relating to Jesus now that I think about it but I could be wrong

Also I'm on the fence as to if it's possible for a person to know a objective truth and share it with somebody else and it remain an objective truth especially when that second person was not there to see it so they are relying solely on the explanation of the first person which I think disqualifies the information is objective

ME!

Thank you again for that clarification. With respect to antiquity or any historical account of some-thing happening, in your view, which truth takes a position of primacy?

That doesn't matter what does matter is that your statement and or opinion/perspective is wrong because a tree will fall in the woods regardless of rather or not a human is awair of it

Within the context of the OP , it seems you are thinking that the historical account of the person Jesus is both an objective/subjective truth of some kind? Please clarify if you are able.

What are you talking about? I am telling you how you were wrong in your original post and yet your askingy questions as if I was the one that said it and not you?

MAYA EL wrote: ↑January 11th, 2023, 7:11 am

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑January 10th, 2023, 8:45 pm

MAYA EL wrote: ↑January 10th, 2023, 8:26 pm

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑January 10th, 2023, 8:30 am

ME!

Thank you again for that clarification. With respect to antiquity or any historical account of some-thing happening, in your view, which truth takes a position of primacy?

That doesn't matter what does matter is that your statement and or opinion/perspective is wrong because a tree will fall in the woods regardless of rather or not a human is awair of it

Within the context of the OP , it seems you are thinking that the historical account of the person Jesus is both an objective/subjective truth of some kind? Please clarify if you are able.

What are you talking about? I am telling you how you were wrong in your original post and yet your askingy questions as if I was the one that said it and not you?

ME!

How were you able to demonstrate that??

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑January 11th, 2023, 7:48 am

MAYA EL wrote: ↑January 11th, 2023, 7:11 am

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑January 10th, 2023, 8:45 pm

MAYA EL wrote: ↑January 10th, 2023, 8:26 pm

That doesn't matter what does matter is that your statement and or opinion/perspective is wrong because a tree will fall in the woods regardless of rather or not a human is awair of it

Within the context of the OP , it seems you are thinking that the historical account of the person Jesus is both an objective/subjective truth of some kind? Please clarify if you are able.

What are you talking about? I am telling you how you were wrong in your original post and yet your askingy questions as if I was the one that said it and not you?

ME!

How were you able to demonstrate that??

What? Is English not your first language? You keep side stepping what I say by constantly asking me questions and that question doesn't make any sense

MAYA EL wrote: ↑January 11th, 2023, 2:57 pm

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑January 11th, 2023, 7:48 am

MAYA EL wrote: ↑January 11th, 2023, 7:11 am

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑January 10th, 2023, 8:45 pm

Within the context of the OP , it seems you are thinking that the historical account of the person Jesus is both an objective/subjective truth of some kind? Please clarify if you are able.

What are you talking about? I am telling you how you were wrong in your original post and yet your askingy questions as if I was the one that said it and not you?

ME!

How were you able to demonstrate that??

What? Is English not your first language? You keep side stepping what I say by constantly asking me questions and that question doesn't make any sense

ME!

You mean like Atheism?

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑January 11th, 2023, 7:38 pm

MAYA EL wrote: ↑January 11th, 2023, 2:57 pm

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑January 11th, 2023, 7:48 am

MAYA EL wrote: ↑January 11th, 2023, 7:11 am

What are you talking about? I am telling you how you were wrong in your original post and yet your askingy questions as if I was the one that said it and not you?

ME!

How were you able to demonstrate that??

What? Is English not your first language? You keep side stepping what I say by constantly asking me questions and that question doesn't make any sense

ME!

You mean like Atheism?

What? No I don't mean like atheism and I'm not an atheist is that's what you think . Now how about you respond like a normal persone to my comments saying that you were wrong in your OP

MAYA EL wrote: ↑January 12th, 2023, 2:06 am

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑January 11th, 2023, 7:38 pm

MAYA EL wrote: ↑January 11th, 2023, 2:57 pm

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑January 11th, 2023, 7:48 am

ME!

How were you able to demonstrate that??

What? Is English not your first language? You keep side stepping what I say by constantly asking me questions and that question doesn't make any sense

ME!

You mean like Atheism?

What? No I don't mean like atheism and I'm not an atheist is that's what you think . Now how about you respond like a normal persone to my comments saying that you were wrong in your OP

ME!


I'm not following the logic there. Let's see, Jesus, Washington, Lincoln all existed in a history book. You haven't demonstrated how that affects not only our human belief systems, but their subjective/objective truth values. Did I miss something?

Nevermind I mis read your original post. I fail to see how you came to the conclusion that sky daddy made all of this but I doubt you will have an actual duel logos with me

MAYA EL wrote: ↑January 12th, 2023, 10:42 am Nevermind I mis read your original post. I fail to see how you came to the conclusion that sky daddy made all of this but I doubt you will have an actual duel logos with me

Keep trying ME!!!

3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑January 12th, 2023, 11:41 am

MAYA EL wrote: ↑January 12th, 2023, 10:42 am Nevermind I mis read your original post. I fail to see how you came to the conclusion that sky daddy made all of this but I doubt you will have an actual duel logos with me

Keep trying ME!!!

That's the problem your trying to make a nonproductive back and forth while I'm trying to have an actual conversation