Subjective Truth vs Objective Truth

Jump to Last Post 1-19 of 19 discussions (232 posts)

59
emrldphxposted 13 years ago
For those who are interested, I am putting together a primer on the difference between subjectivity and objectivity. Much of the disagreement in this forum is due to confusion between the two. We'll start with a comparison of the definition of the terms.

Subjectivity

Subjectivity is a personal process, and as such, subjective truth is also personal. There is no method, mechanism, or process, by which one can project their own subjective knowledge onto another person. Let's demonstrate this with two examples.

These two can discuss their feelings, experiences, and knowledge with each other, and perhaps both of them will gain a greater understanding of the others' point of view. Perhaps one of them will change their point of view. The point is, discussion between differing models of subjective knowledge is ok. It works, and it doesn't have to hurt anyone's feelings.

I'm not trying to make a statement here about Diety vs. Non-Diety beliefs, it can go either way. The point is that when you depart from the nature of subjective information, there is nothing to be gained(except the possibility of an artificially inflated ego due to putting someone else down).

Objectivity

Objectivity is a process that allows people to work together and share knowledge, as long as the process is followed. The best objective method of discovering truth is the scientific method.

Following this method, information can be discovered, shared, and experienced by anyone. Objective information is difficult to argue over.

Problems

The problem comes when people start to mix objective information and subjective information. Let's look at an example.

When something can't be considered objectively(i.e. can't be measured, detected, or manipulated), it falls in the realm of subjectivity. Trying to argue one against the other can't work. You can't change fact based on the way you feel, and you can't change the way you feel based off of facts that can't be measured or detected.

What's the point?

I think we would all be better off if we stuck to mature discussion, whether subjective or objective, without trying to irrationally try and mix the two, or put others down.
reply report
1. 60
  paradigmsearchposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Deleted
  59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks paradigm... it's rare to find anything but sprawling drivel when I write it
  reply report
2. 51
  paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  A useful post.
  One should not put others down; one should respect others; one way of respecting others is that one gives rational arguments for one's point of view and does not ridicule and does not deride others.
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I agree completely. It's like the difference between Steve Pavlina saying everyone in any religion is either an idiot or a hypocrite, and someone stating they don't believe in Diety/religion, but that's just them.
  reply report
3. 60
  kessposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Truth is absolut .... Otherwise no thing can ever Exist.
  
  Truth cannot ever be divided against itself..... If it does it has become a lie and cease to be Truth,.......
  
  Truth can be subjective and objective ONLY when the two are in total unity.
  Or we may also say Truth cannot be subjective and objective at the same time going different ways.....
  
  Anyone who do not know These thing to be TRUE......
  
  Do not know TRUTH and this forms the basis of endless arguments like this one.
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Subjectivity vs Objectivity doesn't define two different types of truth. It defines two different ways of discovering truth.
  
  Obviously all truth is truth, having two paths to find it doesn't change that.
  reply report
  60
  kessposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Nothing I have said negated this position....however
  
  In rereading your post I will also say this to you.....
  
  Objectivity alone is weak when it comes to showing the Specific nature of Truth....
  Why because Objectivity is still subjective to the observer(s).
  
  While the Observers alone is directly Subjective to Truth.
  
  So all Objectivity can only be directly subjective to Truth Through the subjective Observer...
  
  So if one divides the Path to Truth into Subjectivity and objectivity it merely means that both path are merely one and the same or.....
  
  ....That one NEVER knew Truth to begin with.
  
  This obvious answer is the latter through objective reasoning which is exactly the same as subjective reasoning...
  
  What do you see?....
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I would have to disagree about objectivity. Experimental results show the laws of nature, perfectly. Yes, we can interpret them incorrectly, but the objectivity of science is perfect. Everything else(theories, laws, formulas) is just an *attempt* to explain them. That is subjective, but any scientist worth their salt knows that.
  reply report
  60
  kessposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Can science be explain science without involving it same "laws theories and formunlaes".
  
  If Science belongs to the scientist (feel free to twist it around if it suits you), how come the scientist still do not know Truth....... even though they supposedly approach it objectively?
  
  Every scientific concept can and has already been disproved by the law of Life and Life alone is perfect.
  
  I may agree with the fact that science is perfect.. but its perfection is not of itself otherwise it too would be absolute....for it changes on a daily basis.
  
  Science can be considered as perfect only when interpreted within he context of Life, which perfectly manipulates all things for its benefits.
  reply report
4. 69
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I saw this thread posted last night and was too tired to say anything, however, I guess I'll just say
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  ?
  reply report
  73
  lone77starposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Ah, Cags. Forever adding nothing of value to the discussion. Such emptiness. Such a waste.
  reply report
5. 0
  Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The thing is....the evidence for God's existence (as some people may have already said here? ...I haven't read the entire thread..) is based on both subjective and objective reasoning. Mankind has both subjective and objective powers of thinking, feeling, and deduction. Try as you might to separate the two, it won't work.
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No, you must separate the two. Let's say there is this thing called spirit. It's made up of something that we can't detect. Maybe dark matter, maybe something else.
  
  While we as a race can't detect or measure it, it can't be proven, or explained, objectively. If tomorrow we discover a spiritometer, then it would become an objective discovery.
  
  Until then, though, it can only be discussed subjectively. The problem is when people try to put forward their subjective opinions as objective facts.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  But there is evidence (overwhelming evidence!) that people have spirits. We detect that from people's personalities, words, and even actions.
  And when a person dies, we know there's something gone besides just a physical body.
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It can be considered subjective evidence, but not objective, until it can be measured empirically.
  
  I'm not dissing subjectivity at all, or trying to say there is no such thing as Diety. I'm just saying, there could be other reasons for any current evidence of God.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No, that is their personality, their words and their actions.
  
  No, there isn't. Their biological functions simply cease to function, that is all. Nothing actually leaves the body.
  reply report
  71
  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Taking your point a stage further, suppose we had been discussing, say television in 1890, then I guess you would agree that at that point you would have called my belief that pictures could be transmitted around the world and seen in another country instantly a subjective viewpoint.
  
  Would TV waves be any less real, or just unknown at that time to science?
  
  We are all 'spiritometers' everyone of us, some are tuned into the wrong spiritual wavelengths, some flick channels out of boredom, and some have their favourite channels locked on the remote control.
  
  Some people refuse to tune in at all and deny that TV is real, never possessing the receiver to tune them into what is unseen and therefore unproven to them.
  
  I tune in and turn on daily to my spiritual broadcasts, and therefore cannot care whether you or anyone views it as subjective by sciences rules, I just enjoy the show.
  
  Science may catch up in time, if any scientist will pay the price of a receiver.
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, I would call it subjective at that point, because by definition, until something can be empirically measured by science, it can't be proven by science.
  
  That doesn't mean I would say it is impossible. Most objective discoveries are the result of a lot of subjective thought.
  
  I believe in spirit, but I'm not going to try and show anyone empiric proof of it, not yet.
  reply report
  71
  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Cool with that....
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  ^
  The epitome of maturity.
  reply report
  69
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  And I'm sure that some time in your life you've laughed at something that was funny to you, but wasn't to someone else.
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  There is a big difference between laughing at something you think is funny, and bringing in your laughter as an argument against what you read.
  
  After all, isn't the same as laughing... you have to hit reply, type it, and hit submit. It's intentional to try and demean someone or something.
  reply report
  69
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  And, that's YOUR interpretation. Good to know you're a negative individual.
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You really wouldn't call me negative if you knew me
  reply report
  69
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Knew you? Why would I want to get to know you? I've learned enough from your posts to know that you and I would never be friends.
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That's fine, it's your choice.
  
  I consider everyone my friend anyway
  reply report
  51
  paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Sure you are.
  report
  69
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It's actually not my choice. It's not a choice at all.
  report
  59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You don't believe in choice?
  report
  69
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Believe in choice? I hold no belief with regards to choice. I know choice exists. I don't choose friends.
  report
  59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Ok, fair enough. Do they choose you, or are they just... there?
  
  Personally, I choose all mankind as my friend and family.
  report
  69
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  They are just there.
  I've already stated countless times. I love all of humanity and would sacrifice my life for any one of them. It doesn't make them friends and it doesn't make them family.
  report
  59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I have no argument with you. I can consider you both, and you not consider me either, and no harm on either side.
  report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Laughing hysterically at simple-minded claims of magic and mysticism is not the action of bringing in an argument, it's just plain laughter.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You flatter me.
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Are you ever going to attempt to answer my questions? Or, are you just going to continue ignoring them and claiming I make no valid arguments?
  
  You refuse to define what makes something real, and you refuse to answer my questions I pose to you about what makes things real.
  
  I'll ask them again, just on the off chance you feel like having a reasonable discussion.
  
  1 - Does something have to be visible in the visible light spectrum to exist?
  
  2 - Do atoms exist?
  
  3 - How can atoms exist if they can't be seen with visible light?
  reply report
  71
  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Frankly, you are wasting your time with this ghost, just look at his profile, 1,664 inane posts with no content, keeping count he has produced nearly 60 posts in the last 36 hours.... an empty vessel with no hubs, ignore him, I do.
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Eh, I'm not doing any writing right now, and I enjoy demolishing others in debate even when they don't acknowledge or realize it
  reply report
  71
  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, but in 3 days you have 3 hubs published and make intelligent conversation without malice or inanities... liked! whereas that other person.....
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Haha, thanks agua. Maybe you'll join us in the bible discussion thread? I think we're going to get some real sharing coming out.
  reply report
  71
  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Where is that bible discussion thread? if you think it 'incorrect' to link from it in the forums, drop me a line.... (in fact, don't let the secularists know where we hang out, they will gatecrash)
  
  aguasilver@gmail.com
  
  Thanks
  report
  59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Got it, you should prob. delete your email now.
  report
  71
  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No reason or point, I have am easily found!
  
  I just put a filter on all the nutters who abuse it.
  
  John
  report
  59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Alright, good enough
  
  If you want to talk about some of those points we discuss privately, feel free to email me.
  report
  71
  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks, and if you have any questions, 'ditto'
  
  It took me 42 years of searching to find where I belonged.
  report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You laugh troubled, but I'm so proud of you finally admitting that things don't have to be seen to exist.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That is your own personal fantasy.
  report
  59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Really? You don't remember this?
  
  report
  71
  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I think we will enjoy your presence here in the forums... Thanks!
  
  Game, set and match I think!
  report
  59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Haha, thanks agua... however, I'm fairly certain that he will either change the topic, tell me that my reasoning is a fallacy, or... hmmm... what else is there...
  
  1 - Change Subject
  2 - Declare I'm using a fallacy
  3 - Say I'm twisting his words
  4 - Reply with or something similar.
  
  Shall we take bets?
  report
  71
  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No, why not just wait until he's scratched his butt for a while and see what smart alec reply he makes!
  report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  More dishonesty. You've been responding to me so obviously you haven't been ignoring me even though that's what you're saying to others.
  reply report
72
AEvansposted 13 years ago
I give you kudos for trying but it will not happen. I however appreciate that you took the time to clearly define and give examples of objectivity and subjectivity. I am looking forward to seeing what others have to say about the thread. Welcome to HubPages! Be prepared and tread lightly.
reply report
1. 59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Haha, thank you for the kudos. I understand that it won't happen, at least on a community level. But, you never know what will trigger a thought in someone's brain that will end up changing their life. This is why I love discussion and debate... it's my favorite way to open up new possibilities for both parties.
  reply report
  51
  paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks and regards
  reply report
74
Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years ago
Very Nicely Stated.

Following your objectivity model, and your model for scientific method.

I have objectively/scientifically proven the existence of God.
reply report
1. 59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you.
  
  I would be very interested in your proof.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Read the Hub.
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Haha, sorry, I'm new to HP, so the thought hadn't crossed my mind yet. Still working on so many things at once at this point
  reply report
  51
  paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I think this thread should remain here as it is.
  reply report
60
paradigmsearchposted 13 years ago
The op is one of the most logical, intelligent posts that I have seen in awhile.

If it was me, I'd delete it and put it in a hub.

If you do decide to do that, I'll delete my previous post as well, so as to remove the extra copy.

[edit:In fact, I'm going to go ahead and do that.]
reply report
1. 59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I don't know what all the rules are, but if I were to make a hub out of this I would have to expand on it, and clarify some points that I didn't put in... I don't know if I would have to delete this or not...
  reply report
  60
  paradigmsearchposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Duplicate content is a major no-no around here. So you would need to delete the post if you want to use it in a hub.
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well... I'm not sure, honestly. I guess I have a time limit for making changes.
  
  It's not really the kind of thing I envisioned writing hubs on at this time...
  
  Lol.
  reply report
  60
  paradigmsearchposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  For future reference, the last I heard we have a "poster's remorse" 3-hour time limit to change/delete posts. When HP set that, I don't think they even envisioned me using it for my "should have put that in a hub" remorse.
  reply report
60
paradigmsearchposted 13 years ago
I've done it myself. I just replace it with <post deleted to be used as part of hub> or some such nonsense.
reply report
74
Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years ago
On your comment:

Logic IS science

log·ic [loj-ik] noun
1.the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.

2.a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.

3.the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.

4.reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move.

5.convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts.
reply report
1. 59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I guess I'll respond here rather than in your comments.
  
  I don't consider logic a science, but I guess some do. The definition I think of most would be similar to:
  
  LOGIC
  Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
  
  My problem with calling logic 'science', is how do you apply the scientific method? What is there in reasoning itself, that can be measured and tested. I consider it more of a tool of science, used in the stages of forming hypothesis and drawing conclusions from data.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Actually the definition I provided is straight from dictionary . com.
  It is the correct definition.
  
  Measured and tested... You are assuming only physical things can be tested and measured. To you only physical touch is valid.
  
  Concepts, Ideas can also be tested and measured. The tools are different, but the testing is no less valid.
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I know there are multiple definitions for things... we can use that definition. Even still, it's not something that can be subjected to the scientific method, which is extremely important to me.
  
  Logically, I think it is a great argument.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Then what you believe to be the scientific method is flawed, incomplete. Again the scientific method is not exclusively the physical.
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, the scientific only deals with things that can be measured. If you can't measure something, you have to use something else to deal with it. That's where subjectivity comes in.
  
  If we developed a technique for measuring, let's say, the power of prayer, then prayer would start to move from a subjective topic to an objective topic.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Physical measurement isn't the only type of measurement.
  
  Truth can be measured, scientifically. Using facts and Logic is the way truth is scientifically measured.
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Tell me, how do you measure logic and apply it to the scientific method?
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Logic is the measure.
  
  What you asked is how you measure the inch and apply it to the scientific method.
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I think we are just going to have to disagree on what the scientific method is and isn't capable of. I consider what you are talking about more of a subjective thing... from experience, I've found that different cultures have different methods of thinking, different methods of logic... which makes it subjective.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Different cultures have different ways of measuring the inch as well. They call it the metric system.
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Your point being?
  
  Inches, meters, yards, are all units of length. Length is measured in these units.
  
  According to you, logic is like an inch.
  
  So logic is a unit of... what?
  
  You also said it's the measurement.
  
  What is it measuring? How do we objectify it?
  
  With length, no matter what unit a society uses, the length is still the same. 39.36 inches is the same as 3.28 feet is the same as 1 meter. No matter the unit, the distance is the same.
  
  With logic, different cultures would 'measure' different concepts differently. It's not objective at all.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  correct or reliable inference.
  
  Truth
  
  By excluding the illogical and the emotional.
  
  With Truth, no matter what unit a society uses, the truth is still the same.
  
  log·ic [loj-ik] noun
  1.the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
  
  2.a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.
  
  3.the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.
  
  4.reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move.
  
  5.convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts.
  report
  59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It doesn't really work that way though, because it's not objective, it is subjective.
  
  With length, you can have different units of measurement among different people, but they can all be compared to a length, which is an objective fact. This way, you have a conversion between the different measurements of length.
  
  This doesn't work with logic. You have to first define a truth with logic to be able to compare it to other logic... do you see the difference? There is no way to create a conversion between different methods of thinking, because they are subjective truths that can't be measured.
  
  You can't 'exclude the illogical' by using logic, because that assumes that the logic is correct and the illogical is incorrect.
  report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No it isn't. Truth is truth even if no one believes it. Logic is logical even if no one agrees with the logic.
  
  and no I don't see a difference, the conversion process of an inch to meters is simpler than the conversion process of two society's logic, but that doesn't make it impossible or unreliable(inconstant).
  
  The illogical can be excluded, we do it all the time. You're doing it right now.
  
  Your OP 'Subjective Truth vs Objective Truth' is flawed in that Truth is Truth, regardless of subjective/objective reasoning that got you to the truth.
  Subjective Proof vs Objective Proof is what you are really discussing.
  report
  59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Mikel, the discussion is on logic. Yes, truth is truth, no matter what. That doesn't mean that logic is logical no matter what. How can you prove logic? If there are different types of logic in the world that are at odds with each other, how do you prove which is right?
  
  It's subjective. It's *NOT* something you can measure and experiment with. If you say all logic is logical, then different people would arrive at different truths, meaning truth isn't necessarily truth.
  
  The illogical can only be excluded by defining what is logical. That means you are proving a tool with it's own definition... you can't do that scientifically.
  
  I'm sorry, logical proof is not the same as scientific proof.
  report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes it does. Logic that isn't logic is something else, it is illogic/illogical.
  Through facts. Historical knowledge. Truth. Discussions like this one.
  No it isn't. Truth is Truth as you stated.
  
  If different people arrive at different opinions of the truth then somewhere someone has included something illogical in thier search for the logical truth. Like your illogical result that since two people use a measuring tape and measure something and thier results are different they are both correct. That is incorrect, one of them measured incorrectly. The actual length is the length. The truth is the truth, the correct logic is correct. It is as simple as that.
  report
  59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Ok, I see where you are making your assumption. You have to be careful of assumptions.
  
  Yes, you can say that correct logic is correct. But, what says your logic is correct? You define logic with historical knowledge and experiences. Consider again the difference between objectivity and subjectivity:
  
  For logic to be objective, it must be based on observable phenomena, not personal experiences. It's not something we can measure, so it's not something we can objectively define.
  
  It's the same as trying to argue that the correct religion is correct. You can't define it with itself, so what do you define it with? Historic texts? Personal experiences?
  
  Back to the tape measure. You said it's illogical that two people can measure the same thing and get different results, yet it's not only logical, you can prove that it's possible yourself. Measure the length of a book with a ruler, and then with a meter stick. You will get different results! But, since length is objective, and can be measured, we can make conversions between units of measurements.
  
  It's not the same with logic.
  report
  51
  paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē)[1] is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning. Logic is used in most intellectual activities, but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy, mathematics, semantics, and computer science. It examines general forms which arguments may take, which forms are valid, and which are fallacies. In philosophy, the study of logic is applied in most major areas: ontology, epistemology, ethics, metaphysics. In mathematics, it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language.[2] Logic is also studied in argumentation theory.[3]
  Logic was studied in several ancient civilizations, including the Indian subcontinent,[4] China[5] and Greece. Logic was established as a discipline by Aristotle, who gave it a fundamental place in philosophy. The study of logic was part of the classical trivium, which also included grammar and rhetoric.
  Logic is often divided into two parts, inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
  report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  From your Hub...
  
  Here are the fallacies (from a link previously provided which you did not read) that apply to your so-called 'logic'...
  
  Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam): assuming that a claim is true (or false) because it has not been proven false (true) or cannot be proven false (true)
  
  Begging the question (petitio principii): where the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises
  
  (shifting the) Burden of proof (see: onus probandi): I must not prove my claim, you must prove it is false
  
  Circular cause and consequence: where the consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause
  
  Correlation does not imply causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc): a faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other
  
  Existential fallacy: an argument has two universal premises and a particular conclusion.
  
  Appeal to probability: assumes that because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen.
  
  Argument from fallacy: assumes that if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion itself is false.
  
  Base rate fallacy: making a probability judgement based on conditional probabilities, without taking into account the effect of prior probabilities.
  
  Conjunction fallacy: assumption that an outcome simultaneously satisfying multiple conditions is more probable than an outcome satisfying a single one of them.
  
  Affirming the consequent: the antecedent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true; if A, then B; B, therefore A.
  
  Ludic fallacy: the belief that the outcomes of a non-regulated random occurrences can be encapsulated by a statistic; a failure to take into account unknown unknowns in determining the probability of an event's taking place.
  
  Fallacy of the single cause (causal oversimplification): it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.
  
  False attribution: an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument
  
  Incomplete comparison: where not enough information is provided to make a complete comparison
  
  Inconsistent comparison: where different methods of comparison are used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole comparison
  
  Intentional fallacy: addresses the assumption that the meaning intended by the author of a literary work is of primary importance
  
  Mind Projection Fallacy: when one considers the way he sees the world as the way the world really is.
  
  Onus probandi: from Latin "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat" the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion
  
  Post hoc ergo propter hoc (false cause, coincidental correlation, correlation not causation): X happened then Y happened; therefore X caused Y
  
  Psychologist's fallacy: an observer presupposes the objectivity of his own perspective when analyzing a behavioral event
  
  The list goes on and on, but you get the drift...
  report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I don't know why I'm even going to bother....but here I go...
  
  So which of these can you prove I've done, or are you saying because all these fallacies exist, and you don't like the results of my proof, it is a fallacy?
  
  (and what you're saying came from my hub actually came from the comments section below the Hub.)
  report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You have used them all, and more, in your Hub and your so-called proof. Like I said before, if you actually took the time to read and understand those fallacies, you would never have written that Hub.
  report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  and as I have said again and again and again, Got Proof?
  
  I have not used any of the fallacies you have listed. Not one applies to my proof. You'll have to do much better than that.
  report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  (shifting the) Burden of proof (see: onus probandi): I must not prove my claim, you must prove it is false
  
  Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam): assuming that a claim is true (or false) because it has not been proven false (true) or cannot be proven false (true)
  
  Keep em comin'!
  report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  This is what you're doing now, shifting the burden of proof to me. It is you claiming my proof is a fallacy...soooo.....GOT PROOF?
  Obviously not.
  
  I am not claiming that my proof is true because it has not been proven false. I am claiming that my proof is true because it has been proven to be true. You're dismissing the proof because you don't like it, but you lack the ability to dis-prove it. Which does nothing to dis-prove the proof. Since I am showing how and why the proof is true, through proof, this fallacy does not apply. In fact this is the fallacy I list and dis-prove at the begining of my hub.(the DNA)
  report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You are the one making fallacious claims, not me. And, it's pretty obvious you're going to remain acting childish about it.
  
  No, it hasn't, by you or anyone else.
  
  So, now you're ignoring the reasons for dismissing your nonsense and making more false claims.
  
  Once again: Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam): assuming that a claim is true (or false) because it has not been proven false (true) or cannot be proven false (true)
  
  Hilarious stuff. See the long list of fallacies provided to see why your silly reasoning of DNA = God exists.
  report
  60
  paradigmsearchposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I read your profile. How in god's name do you know what god wants? Did he call you, drop you a note, send you a fax, what?
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  A little defensive there aren't you?
  reply report
  60
  paradigmsearchposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  About what? And nice try; you dodge the question and attack the questioner.
  
  Kind of sad really... I was really hoping for a sincere answer, but I guess it is not to be.
  
  I guess I know all I need to know about Mikel G Roberts. Enjoy your dodge ball game. And keep attacking those questioners; otherwise, you might actually have to engage in some self-examination. And we certainly don't want that, do we?
  
  What's really sad is that I actually liked some of your hubs and wanted to talk with you about them. I liked some of the things you said. Oh, well. Bye.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  To use your words:
  ...nice try; you dodge the question and attack the questioner.
  
  Kind of sad really...
  reply report
  51
  paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I agree with you. logic is art of reasoning;science makes its use as a common tool; but of itself it belongs to artsa and is not science.
  reply report
2. 51
  paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  Logic preceded science; it is more concerned with arts .
  reply report
  60
  couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I've never in all my 6o+ years as an artist heard the word logic applied even remotely to the arts, in any form. Please elaborate. With the exception of the previous argument where 'a system of principles and methods is employed in the performance of a set of activities' thereby being referred to as 'the art of reasoning', there is no art in logic. Logic itself studies reasoning. I could 'reason' that blue and yellow make green because every time I mix blue and yellow, I get green. It's therefore logical to assume this. But the nature of art itself, at least when referring to painted or sculptural art, is man's effort to imitate life or nature by arranging mediums to create. In this sense, I suppose logic does come into play. Most 'chaos' 'artists' are generally not accepted by the juries because they are too difficult to 'see'. So art, then, remains subjective.
  reply report
72
earnestshubposted 13 years ago
Who exactly would be in need of a hub, or for that matter a thread about the dictionary definitions of two common words?

Is this aimed at primary school children?
reply report
1. 59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Nice to see you here Earnest
  
  You were part of my inspiration, from our discussion last night(yesterday for you) where you were trying to define my beliefs by your beliefs.
  reply report
  72
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That is perspective for you. I thought I was separating fact from fantasy.
  reply report
59
emrldphxposted 13 years ago
We're obviously not going to get anywhere going back and forth like this. We just have to agree to disagree on whether or not logic is objective or subjective.
reply report
1. 74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No, we don't. You can point out a flaw in my logic that I can't refute, like I've been doing to yours. Or we can do what you're wanting and allow you to continue to believe the correctness of your incorrect conclusions.(Which is what most people choose).
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You haven't pointed out flaws in my logic that I can't refute. I have pointed out ones you haven't.
  
  If you can objectively test concepts and ideas, then it should be possible to objectively prove or disprove the existence of Diety. It's not. Your first post said you followed my explanation of objective/subjective, but you didn't. You have used subjective proof. There is no phenomenon in logic that you can measure. There is nothing you can experiment with. Logic is a way of thinking, which is by definition, personal. Once you can lay out your way of thinking for us to experiment and measure, then we'll talk objectivity.
  
  Again, you defined logic as 'what isn't illogical'. You can't define something with itself.
  
  Lastly, here's this for your thought. The scientific method relies on empirical observation. In other words, things that can be observed with the senses, not things based off of feelings or reasoning.
  
  I'm sorry, I just have to end it here unless you learn a little more about the scientific method. You can't use logic as a form of proof in the scientific method... you can use it to try and explain things, but not as the proof.
  
  In other words, you can't scientifically prove the existence of god using logic.
  
  You can only logically prove the existence of god(or try to, at least).
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  It is and I have.
  
  Got Proof? My proof is supplied in the hub. However simply put, for there to not be a Supreme Being, there could not be any beings in existence.
  
  Again assigning your assumptions as truth doesn't make them the truth. Got Proof that things are the way you say they are? If my proof was subjective then with me out of the equation it would no longer be true. But my personal experiences and subjective feelings aren't what constitutes the proof. No where in the proof are my intuition or gut feelings used as proof.
  
  No. I supplied the definition of Logic from dictionary . com. This is a misquote on your part that was in answer to a question you posed.
  
  Then I would love to see the spaceship that Einstein took to outer space and proved that Relativity was true. You know the ship that couldn't go faster than light speed. Yea, that one.
  
  I'm sure Einstein will be sorry to hear this, as his greatest discovery was proven in just this manner. Glad you're around to set us straight.
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Einstein didn't prove relativity with thought experiments. He proved them with real experiments. Nobody would accept a theory with no foundation in verifiable experimentation.
  
  I'm getting tired of this back and forth with you. I didn't mis-quote you. I quoted you.
  
  Go learn about the scientific method, and tell me how logic can be used as empirical observation. Do that one thing, and we'll talk.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Sure thing Boss... Thanks for Playing
  reply report
58
recommend1posted 13 years ago
You are out of date - there is no such thing as objective, everything is subjective.
reply report
1. 59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Science is dead?
  reply report
  58
  recommend1posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No - just subjective. It doesn't change many of the conclusions but it does change observed phenomena - and the only proof is that lots of people agree with the conclusion.
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Science can't be subjective by definition. If you want to expound on that, feel free.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Truth can't be subjective by definition. If you want to expound on that, feel free.
  reply report
  58
  recommend1posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe you both should do some expounding on what you mean because science certainly is subjective and so is truth.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I disagree. Truth is truth, just like a fact is a fact.
  
  Thinking incorrectly that something is true when it isn't might lead some to think that Truth can be untrue, which is of course a fallacy.
  reply report
  58
  recommend1posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  As YOU are thinking it - everything that follows is by definition subjective.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No that just proves my thoughts are subjective. Truth does not change because I think it or don't think it. Truth remains constant regardless of opinion, consensus, or the lack of either.
  
  If in any way a truth is untrue, it isn't a truth and never was. We just mistakenly thought it was. Therefore my opinion of what is true is subjective, but the actual truth (whatever that is) is and always will be true by definition.
  reply report
  60
  couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  This is an interesting, and very subjective conversation. I believe truth is implicitly subjective. It falls into the category of 'as a man thinks'. Science has created its own rules and those rules are the accepted standards by which science plays it own game.
  
  The truth will differ for everyone. Of course, this is based on the assumption of enlightenment for which is necessary a dispelling of archaic beliefs about visible forms of reality such as burning your feet when you walk across hot coals, for example.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I have to disagree. Truth is Truth regardless of what anyone thinks or believes.
  
  Thoughts, beliefs, what we believe is true, are subjective.
  
  The 'actuality' of the situation, the 'actual truth', is not subjective.
  
  What we believe to be true may or may not be, but the 'actual truth' is always true.
  reply report
  60
  couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I can agree with that in theory, though I must admit I have not become enlightened to the truth in actuality. Practicing the release of all forms of ego and flesh and becoming pure spirit is a bit of a way off for me yet.
  reply report
59
emrldphxposted 13 years ago
Setting aside all philosophical arguments about reality...

Truth, as determined by science, comes through the scientific process, which requires an empirical observation of natural phenomenon. Empirical is objective. It is observation through the senses, as compared to thought or feeling.

Therefore, by definition, science has to be objective.

Truth can be discovered either subjectively or objectively, depending on the type of truth. Science deals with the objective. Logic and rationalism deal with the subjective.

Just because you think something doesn't mean it's necessarily subjective. Think of it this way. Objective things can be, in one form or another, physically compared with others. The length of a meter is objective, and can be physically shown to someone with a meter stick.

Subjective things can't be shared like that, because there is no physical representation of the truth. We can try and explain it and share it that way.

If you can't understand the difference between the two, then there's no point in arguing semantics when you don't understand them.
reply report
1. 74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  What is a meter?
  
  It is a length of measure decided by consensus. If humanity wanted to, the length we assigned as a meter could have been twice as long or half as long as the length we settled on.
  
  This is a truth.
  
  saying the meter always was and is what we say it is regardless of consensus is untrue.
  
  Lengths exist.
  
  This is a truth.
  
  The way we determine and classify the different lengths is subjective, and based on a consenses. Science is a measuring system. As such it is based in consenses. Truth isn't dependent on consenses, it remains unaffected by opinion or consenses.
  
  Science may be subjective, but the truths it uncovers aren't.
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Ok, I see you changed your post.
  
  Your statements have nothing to do with the difference between subjective truth and objective truth. What we name as a 'meter' is simply semantics. The length that we call 'meter' has always been the same, but it's still objective. It's something you can actually measure. An objective truth.
  
  The existence of Diety is subjective. There is no measurement we can make, no experiment we can undertake. It's a subjective truth/untruth.
  
  Science *can not* be subjective. If you find truth subjectively, by definition it isn't science.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Truth is Truth. A subjective truth is an oxymoron.
  
  No it is subjective based on a consenses. What you're trying to say (I Believe) is it is constant/unchanging.
  
  Fallacy, Again I ask can you prove this assumption. I have proven your mistaken assumption/opinion is false. Simply restating your flawed opinion a million times will not ever force it to be true, because it isn't true and never was.
  
  I understand this is a profound belief of yours. That you believe it profoundly however doesn't make it true if it isn't.
  
  The definition of science:
  Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. An older and closely related meaning still in use today is that found for example in Aristotle, whereby "science" refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained.
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You obviously don't know what subjective means Mikel. Go back and read your definitions from your favorite online dictionary. Subjective truth includes truth found through reasoning and personal experience... I would consider it ignorant to say it is impossible to discover truth with subjective methods.
  
  I'm saying that the actual length, not the word, of a meter, would be the same if we called it a pugwar, or 2 tingbals. The word doesn't make the thing, it just explains it. The length is the truth. 'Meter' is just a word to represent the truth.
  
  But the fact that you can have an object that is 1 meter and show it to others, they can measure it themselves, makes it objective. It is empirical = objective.
  
  Again, you don't understand what subjective means. You can't prove something that is subjective to someone else. If you could, it would be objective. Seriously, do yourself a favor, and learn what the words mean. I can't prove it to you, neither can you disprove it to me.
  
  I find it very funny that you didn't use the definition of science from your beloved dictionary.com, which according to you is the right definition.
  
  Your 'definition' includes Aristotle's kind of science, which is over 2300 years old. Your 'definition' came from wikipedia
  
  Besides, all science uses the scientific method. I've defined that very clearly for you. If you can't do an empirical test, it can't be objective.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Taking my discussion with Emile R and Cagsil and replacing thier questions/comments with your different questions/comments ....Pathetic
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No Mikel, I was replying to everything I had missed when I was out of town.
  
  I would like you to actually address those things, instead of call them pathetic... but you won't. You want to use a 2300 year old definition of science, 'prove' God with a definition that has nothing to do with diety, and only use real definitions when they suit you. If they don't you grab a section of wikipedia
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe if I only address 1 point at a time?
  
  Where should all definitions come from? Dictionary.com, as you argued earlier?
  reply report
  51
  paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I add here.
  
  Dictionaries and definitions of the words and terms change when the knowledge of human beings increases or decreases.
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Pathetic? Come'n Mikel. There is nothing pathetic about people disagreeing. It's life. Especially when it comes to philosophy and religion.
  
  I have a question. You swear your proof would help identify a Supreme Being. Do you agree that the being identified as'Supreme' would not necessarily be agreed upon?
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  He's just trying to make a stretch based off a false definition. According to Mikel, if the universe had 1 snail and 1 human, that would make the human God.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So, I take it you see the weakest link in your proof also. Now we're on the same page, somewhat.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  ???
  
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I see you have decided to ignore my proof that your 'proof' is incorrect. Not approving my comments on your page, not responding to them here. Well done, sir.
  reply report
  60
  couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You're both correct, imo. What was once subjective, the deciding of the length of the meter, is now an accepted objective standard. Theoretically, the subjectivity of the creating of the standard was once open to opinion and concensus. Now it is necessarily not.
  reply report
74
Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years ago
Scientific measure cannot be subjective.
reply report
0
Emile Rposted 13 years ago
Interesting OP. Recommend1 is right. Everything is subjective. You can be as objective as possible on anything; but the end conclusion is always subjective. And that is the problem with a spiritual argument. Since you posted this in the Religion and Philosophy section I think it is pertinent to remember that the objectivity of the spiritual advocate is not only in question, it can never be proven; no matter how well spoken the spiritual person might be.

You are being subjective about personal experience. Experience that cannot be observed by anyone but you. The spiritual person is expecting others to take their words at face value. Those who don't tread lightly will be ridiculed, and I think rightly so at times.

As I said, interesting OP; but the points are out of place when it comes to religion. Imo.
reply report
1. 74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  By this logic Objective is subjective.
  
  Not liking the Truth doesn't make it untrue.
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I think, the point is that a spiritual conversation cannot claim truth. Only your perception of it. No one can prove anything. We argue otherwise because of ego.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I disagree, my proof of the existence of the Supreme Being is logical and rational. It is not affected by my personal subjective thoughts or beliefs. That is why it is scientifically sound proof.
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I enjoy, and agree with, many things I've seen you post. Your 'scientific proof' doesn't fall into that category, simply because I find it difficult to understand why you can't see that this is no proof. Anyway, we've been round the block with that one. No point in attempting to see this eye to eye.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Me Too!
  
  Your inability to "understand why I can't see that this is no proof" is simple, because it is proof by every definition.
  
  My proof does fall into the category of 'scientific proof' as illistrated by the definition of science:
  
  Science- (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. An older and closely related meaning still in use today is that found for example in Aristotle, whereby "science" refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained.
  
  True, if someone decides to ignore the truth even when presented with proof, then there is nothing left to do but sigh and allow them to believe what they want, no matter how illogical and irrational that belief might be.
  
  *Sigh*
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  Hhmmm. It appears you are now taking your cues on interacting (while not sharing conclusions) from a few other hubbers.
  
  You be careful out there among them atheists.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Deleted
  0
  Emile Rposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Ok. I'll ask as politely as possible...... Does anyone, other than people who want to believe, agree that your proof is really a proof? That's what I mean by not coming to the same conclusions. Other than that, your reaction to those who disagree is the same. Somewhat condescending.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes actually, a couple adamant athiests admitted it was correct (even though they didn't like it) in the forum threads that were provided in the hub, and one person in the comments section.
  
  ***You're all about popular consenses equating to truth and believability huh??
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Please share a link where anyone says they think this is proof. I'd love to read it.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  as I said the links are in the hub.
  reply report
  60
  couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Wow, Mike. You make a good argument for science and the existence of god. (At least I think that's what you were trying to do.) I believe that 'truth' exists everywhere, takes many forms and is continually changing. This is why we reach different stages at different times in our lives. If I use a parallel universe as an example, with teen years being one and mature adulthood being the other, I can see from the older universe into the teen, whose truth is quite different from his reality. The fact that he does not 'see' it does not mean that it does not exist. Once the parallax occurs, however, he is amazed at what hwe once thought of as truth.
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Again, using wikipedia to define science. I dare you to take that definition to any science professor and ask them to critique your proof of God.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If you remove all the logical fallacies, it's wonderful.
  reply report
  57
  OutWestposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Logic and absolute proof are not the same thing.
  reply report
  69
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Correct they are not the same thing, however, absolute proof can be explained through using logic. If not, then it's not absolute proof.
  reply report
  57
  OutWestposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Absolute proof just means it is tangible. It can be repeated or physically observed. Things can be proven that still may not make logical sense. Gravity exists scientifically but no one can even prove what it is or how it exists.
  reply report
  69
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That's because it doesn't need to be.
  reply report
  57
  OutWestposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  ??
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So, your logic is thus:
  
  Gravity exists, but cannot be shown how it works, therefore God exists because He cannot be shown... AT ALL!!!
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That would only be true if logic were proven true.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Bravo! Well done!
  
  Now, do you have a point?
  reply report
  57
  OutWestposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I thought it was obvious. If you use logic you could logically deduce that a Creator exists but there's still no absolute proof.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Just like you can logically deduce the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.
  reply report
  57
  OutWestposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Try it. I believe our existance is a logical first step towards believing we were created. Tell me all about your spagetti monster.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Sure, our existence is a logical first step towards believing we were created with a wave of his noodly appendage. RAmen.
  reply report
  71
  aguasilverposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Ahhh sounds familiar, maybe beginning to guess who you are, which sock puppet you have replaced.
  
  Still no actual hubs?
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I'm assuming that you continue to focus on the individuals here rather than the discussions because you can't form a coherent argument.
  
  report
  59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Did you give up on dodging my arguments? I was enjoying it
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You haven't formed any arguments yet, all I've seen so far is an imagination gone awry with claims of magic precluding rational thought.
  report
  59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You dodged it! I'm not going to stop here until you address it:
  
  Really? You don't remember this?
  
  No more dodging arguments when you have been shown to have contradicted yourself.
  report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Logic by definition, if used correctly, leads you to absolute truth. You're assuming what you define as 'absolute proof' and only what you define as absolute proof is absolute proof.
  
  So define absolute proof.
  
  ab·so·lute [ab-suh-loot, ab-suh-loot] adjective
  1.free from imperfection; complete; perfect: absolute liberty.
  
  2.not mixed or adulterated; pure: absolute alcohol.
  
  3.complete; outright: an absolute lie; an absolute denial.
  
  4.free from restriction or limitation; not limited in any way: absolute command; absolute freedom.
  
  5.unrestrained or unlimited by a constitution, counterbalancing group, etc., in the exercise of governmental power, especially when arbitrary or despotic: an absolute monarch.
  
  proof [proof]noun
  1.evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
  
  2.anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
  
  3.the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.
  
  4.the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
  
  5.Law. (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.
  
  Proof is Proof. Lack of Proof is Lack of Proof
  
  Simply stating "That isn't 'Absolute Proof' " is just another way of adamantly saying "I don't like it but can't dis-prove it". Soooooo I'll come up with a stronger way of denying it which will lend weight to my unprovable and mistaken opinion.
  
  I have provided Proof of the existence of a Supreme Being, only Proof that my Proof is false can dis-prove it.
  
  So AGAIN... Got Proof?
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Wash. Ignore others. Rinse. Learn nothing. Repeat.
  reply report
  69
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  State Fallacy as proof. Ignore Truth. Rinse. Learn Nothing. Fail to Provide Proof. Repeat.
  reply report
  60
  paradigmsearchposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  reply report
  69
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Hey Mikel, I don't mean to reharsh old stuff, but since you continue to bring it up that you've scientifically proven "god" exists....I have to ask how is it that you don't see your failed argument?
  
  I mean seriously, as far as "beings" are concerned, the only ones in existence are humans that we know of it. Your "proof" is assumption. Secondly, the definitions you use are a flawed part of your explanation, considering the highest authority for anyone is self.
  
  To make a claim that there's a higher authority than self is state that no one is any authority with regards to their own life and that would simply be untrue.
  
  As I've stated time and time again, yes there may be a higher power(supreme power), but under no circumstances does that higher power actually mean a higher authority.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You, A Troubled man and Para are bringing in your own baggage and using that baggage to prove what I'm saying is incorrect.
  
  I'm not including the baggage that your using to dis-prove the proof.
  
  It isn't that I'm not understanding, it's that you're failing to understand.
  
  If I include the assumptions you have as to 'What constitutes God as God'(what makes God, God) then my proof would be false. But I DON'T and that makes the proof valid and true. It is a simple truth, If a being exists then a supreme example exists. A Supreme Being exists. Proving 'what makes it supreme' is something else, and not what I am talking about.
  
  The definitions are not flawed as they are taken from reliable and verifiable sources.
  
  Repeating the same old thing, Your wrong, Your proof isn't proof, the definitions are flawed, without providing proof to the correctness of your statements accomplishes nothing. So find your proof and provide it. It is as simple as that.
  
  Truth is Truth, no amount of denial will make it untrue.
  report
  69
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I'll agree truth is truth. But, you're not making the grade.
  
  As I just stated- the highest authority is self. This is the truth. This disproves you statement.
  
  Unless you're going to say that SELF IS God! Then you might be on to something. Other than that, regardless of what you continue to spout...it will change nothing except to show you cannot recognize truth.
  
  As I've said before- TRUTH exists and it's universal. It requires to see beyond self and had you seen beyond yourself, then you would that no higher authority exists other than self.
  report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Stating it doesn't make it true. Got Proof? Can you prove the highest authority is self? Can you prove the Highest authority is or isn't God?
  Stating I'm right because I believe it and since I'm right your wrong proves nothing, nothing at all. It only shows you believe it. Sooo again... Got Proof?
  Arriving at a conclusion based on the erroneous assumption previously provided without proof to validate the assumption, does not validate your erroneous conclusion in any way. So we are again at the question Got Proof?
  
  Again a conclusion based on Fallacy as proof. So to use your words:
  
  you cannot recognize truth.
  
  As I've said before- TRUTH exists and it's universal. It requires to see beyond self
  
  You should take your own advise.
  report
  69
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, I can. I have a human will and have no rhyme or reason or need to answer to anyone but myself. I cannot be FORCED to listen to anyone else.
  Just did.
  
  Again, just did.
  I see beyond myself Mikel. My life isn't about me, it's about living for others. So you're spouting again, twisting things to make yourself look better. That's called "ego". And, that means you're not seeing beyond yourself.
  
  Learning long ago that seeing beyond myself leads to truth and that truth is universal became common sense to me.
  report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Then go commit murder and when they put the needle in your arm repeat that you don't have to answer to anyone besides yourself. Come to my house and try and enforce your supreme authority and see how long it takes for you to understand you are not the supreme authority. On earth 'Society' is possibly the supreme authority and that entity is greater than any single human.
  
  UH NO, you didn't.
  
  Again...UH NO, you didn't.
  
  The only person spouting here is you. Your logic trail that since you live your life for others somehow makes your following statement, that I am spouting, true is again a fallacy. It is called 'Ego' and you have an overinflated one, by thinking you are the supreme authority in your life. Your not. None of us are, we all answer to someone.
  report
  69
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Is this your attempt at proving there's a higher authority?
  
  I don't have to commit murder and get away with it prove no higher authority. Your argument is foolish.
  You just proved my point. Thank you.
  report
  60
  paradigmsearchposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It's a loss.
  report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The simple fact that you would have to 'get away with it' proves you are not the authority. The entity you would have to trick in order to 'get away with it' is.
  
  Thank You for proving my point.
  report
  60
  paradigmsearchposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I have become curious...
  
  Based on previous posts,
  
  who wishes to respond?
  report
  69
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, only ignorance would have to commit a crime? to prove a higher authority.
  
  I am the highest authority, because I can control myself and need not answer to anyone.
  report
  60
  paradigmsearchposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No baggage. Stop doing that accusing thing. Now, maybe we can talk?
  report
  0
  Emile Rposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Mikel, Your statement that you can’t assume what constitutes God is the sticking point and you know it. You can’t go around hemming in the definition so that you can claim proof. A god is not simply a supreme being. It is a supernatural being, by all definitions in a spiritual conversation. It is a supernatural being for everyone claiming belief in God. To claim proof that God exists and then to insist that no one is allowed to use a definition but the one you provide is dishonest; to say the least.
  report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The definition of God is the Supreme Being. There are other definitions, If you want to dis-prove my proof then dis-prove that the definition of God is the Supreme Being.
  
  Prove God is not the Supreme Being. Simple. Then get the dictionaries changed and the Encyclopedias and in so doing you will have proven my proof is incorrect. Until then it is a valid proof.
  
  your baggage, your position that 'this and only this constitutes God as being God' and if what in your opinion defines God as God is not proven then the proof of the existence of a Supreme Being is untrue, is fallacy. We've been over this a million times. Prove that the attributes you ascribe to God make God ,God. Then those proven attributes would have to be included in the proof. But they aren't so they don't have to be included.
  
  I don't have to prove that a man has blonde hair in a proof that the man is a man, I just have to provide the correct chromosome(spelling?). Saying that unless I also prove 'it' has blonde hair is required to prove he is a man is fallacy. That is what your asking for and what I won't provide.
  report
  0
  Emile Rposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I'm sorry, that is a ridiculous argument. What you are doing is hemming in, so you can claim victory. I've read enough exchanges to know that you can't accept the fact that no one agrees with you on this. I've seen much better debaters than myself offer you ample explanation and you refuse to have an intelligent dialogue on this topic, because you want to believe you are right. I'm not going to beat my head against the wall.
  
  You have every right to believe what you want but, without a valid proof your whole argument is simply wishful thinking.
  report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Dismissing my stance because 4 people who cannot refute my stance don't agree with me doesn't put me in the wrong.
  
  It isn't ego or my inability to admit that I'm wrong IF I was wrong, which I'm not. Standing my ground because the facts support my stance is a good thing, even if it means you think I'm just "hemming in" out of pride, or being pig-headed.
  
  To use your words:
  
  "without a valid proof your whole argument is simply wishful thinking."
  
  I have provided proof, you have not.
  report
  0
  Emile Rposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No. what you have done is presented an argument. We've been over this. It isn't proof, unless each point is true and agreed upon. If you say A equals B and I don't agree, you can't build up from there. We have to agree. You can't then say B equals C therefore A equals C when we haven't even agreed on A and B.
  
  I don't accept the beginning of your argument as valid, so everything that comes after is flawed. Being bullheaded and claiming I have to prove you wrong doesn't make you right. It makes you incapable of proving your point. I'm not trying to make the point. You are.
  report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Consensus does not make the truth true. This is a fallacy. Consensus has nothing to do with proving or disproving something it is merely a measurement of popularity. Which is irrellevant.
  
  Using the erroneous belief that something irrelevant(consensus) is required for the truth to be true is fallacy.
  
  Consesus makes it popular and that is all it can do.
  
  If A is defined as being equal to 2 and I prove that B=2 then I show you the proof that B=2 and then say therefore A=B I am correct, even if you then say NO. A isn't proven to be equal to 2.
  
  The definitions of the words, the subjective agreement(consensus) that the words mean what they mean is the only agreement we have to have. The subjective agreement that the inch is this long and only this long is the only subjective part of the measure. After that is established saying No I believe the inch must also be classified as it relates to the metric system is irrelevant.
  
  Repeating your stance that the additional information 'MUST BE' also proven in order for the proof to stand is incorrect.
  Refusing to admit that and saying I'm Hemming in because I won't agree with this part of your argument is as you say ridiculous.
  
  ***as I posted this earlier and you ignored it I'll repost it:
  
  I don't have to prove that a man has blonde hair in a proof that the man is a man, I just have to provide the correct chromosome(spelling?). Saying that unless I also prove 'it' has blonde hair is required to prove he is a man is fallacy. That is what your asking for and what I won't provide. He may have red hair, he may be bald, none of which dis-proves he is a man.
  report
  0
  Emile Rposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well, I suppose your next argument will have to be that you are the supreme being. You'll have to win that argument in order for anyone to bow to the first argument. The rest of us understand you don't get to claim you are right when you can't prove your points.
  report
  69
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Hey Emile, it's the same problem he had when he opened a thread about it. The claim that there's a higher authority other than self is the falsehood of the entire argument.
  report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The fact that most will just pass over your ridiculous claims with a chuckle does not mean just 4 people don't agree with you.
  report
  59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  From your favorite dictionary:
  
  GOD - the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
  
  You can't just cut things in half and change their intended meaning to fit your arguments. It's not enough to say the highest life-form is the Supreme Being(notice the capitalization, that means something ). Just because something is the higher life form doesn't make it the creator and ruler of the universe.
  
  Logically, I just dis-proved your entire hub.
  report
  51
  paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Please allow me to add.
  
  The Creator God is to be known from the Aboslutes distict from the relative values of the created.
  report
  60
  couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not necessarity agreeing or disagreeing with anyone but I've got to throw LOVE into the mix. We can't see it, only its results, we can't explain it, except by some very weak dictionary definition, and yet we can feel it and we can innately know it. On top of all this, it very often does have authority over us and rightly so, when it is in its truest and most sincere form. So....things not seen only felt...not logical or objective, not even subjective but very very real. I doubt, however, that most of us have ever experienced the real deal.
  report
  69
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, you can do either. It doesn't matter either way.
  And your point?
  Authority? Oh please. Love is no authority. It's a human emotion.
  Yes, emotions are real. They are instinctive/reactionary and can be seen when they happen.
  Love? I guess I can disagree with your statement. It is my understanding of myself(who I am, my life, what my purpose is) which brought me to loving myself, which resulted in my ability to love the rest of humanity as much as I love myself. And, if you doubt that, then I would say that I would happily give up my life for any other human being on this planet.
  
  If that's not love, then I don't know what is.
  report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Obviously if they were we wouldn't have different words. Your point is?
  reply report
  57
  OutWestposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  See above:
  If you use logic you could logically deduce that a Creator exists but there's still no absolute proof.
  reply report
  59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It's not scientific! To be scientific you have to be able to show results through experimentation!
  
  Using just logic, I will prove that the earth is at the center of the universe, scientifically.
  
  I stand outside, not moving. I feel no movement. I watch the sun rise and fall. I see the stars rotated through the sky in circles. Obviously everything revolves around the earth.
  
  And that is why reasoning is not a science.
  reply report
2. 59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I put it here because some people don't seem to understand *why* it's impossible to prove a subjective truth, or disprove it, to someone else.
  
  Saying that everything is subjective, I think, is only reasonable in the sense of throwing our entire existence into possibly being fake(butterfly's dream). If we assume we are real, then objectivity does exist.
  
  Yes, it is possible for the conclusions made after an experiment to be subjective, but the results aren't. They are completely objective. They can be measured and repeated and compared by others.
  
  If people realize that spiritual experiences *are* subjective, then it opens the door to discussion and sharing ideas, rather than argument.
  reply report
59
Jo_Goldsmith11posted 13 years ago
I so agree with you. My subjective opinion agrees that you make sense. My objectivity tells me that you have stated fact! Awesome!
reply report
1. 74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thank You. Sincerely.
  reply report
  69
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Actually Mikel, she wasn't addressing you. She was addressing the OP.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Oh.
  reply report
  59
  Jo_Goldsmith11posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Mikel,
  
  Yes! I was adressing you. and the OP. They are both right in my object and subjective opinion and fact!
  hugs! Cagsil, )
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  ...But ...I disagree with the op... ?
  
  The op in my opinion is an oxymoron...truth isn't subjective. Truth is Truth.
  
  Subjective Truth is an oxymoron.
  
  (but while I thought you were talking to me <for those 4 seconds> it did make me feel good ) so Thanks.
  reply report
60
paradigmsearchposted 13 years ago
This thread is awesome!

If participants are willing to include Boolean Logic in their discussions, it will weed out the inadequate in nothing flat. The dodgers/debaters will become readily apparent and will be ignored. True discussions can then take place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_al … 28logic%29

Of course, that would not be as much fun.
reply report
1. 60
  couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That'll certainly explain the universe in all of its awesome complexities to those who abide by Boolean principles. Let's hope there will always be a Galileo in the crowd.
  reply report
60
paradigmsearchposted 13 years ago
Unable to find responses to my last three inquiries; oh, well.
reply report
1. 60
  couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Some responses just do not compute. As you are of the Boolean crowd, let me put this another way. Many have never heard of Boolean logic and fewer understand it. Not an argument for or against just an observation. As for Galileo, he was thought of as 'inadequate' for his beliefs and findings in his day.
  reply report
2. 60
  couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It's ok, paradigm. I don't expect you to assimilate into my world any more than I can expect myself to assimilate into yours.
  reply report
74
Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years ago
I don't have to prove that a man has blonde hair in a proof that the man is a man. I just have to provide proof that he has the correct chromosome(spelling?). That information alone is enough to prove the man is a man.

Saying that unless I also prove 'it' has blonde hair, a beard, 435 freckles, two dogs, 7 inches of manhood, and the ability to reproduce and anything less than that means the chromosome proof isn't proof, is fallacy. That is what your asking for and what I won't provide.

Being the best by definition makes that entity the supreme being, the supreme being is a definition of the concept God. This is proven, the rest(omnipotence, creator of all, etc.) may or may not be true and we can't prove it either way... that in no way makes the proof less of a proof.

Even if you say it does.
reply report
1. 0
  Emile Rposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  And that is another problem with your'proof'. It's all arguable. God, by definition, would be agreed upon as being God. You say Being the best by definition makes that entity the supreme being, the supreme being is a definition of the concept God.
  
  If you remember correctly, the last time we discussed this; we couldn't reach a consensus on how to determine what was best. I said it was impossible and you refused to explain how you would categorize things. It's a foolish argument. Even if we both decided to work our way up to a 'best of the best' we wouldn't agree, so the thing I labeled god wouldn't be the same thing you did..
  
  All you are proving is that you think you have a way to thin down the possibilities of what might be able to be agreed upon as labeled a supreme being, but only between a couple of people. It doesn't prove god.
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That is because a consensus to what quality makes the best, best is irrelevant.
  
  and just like i said the last 4,764 times... The inability to prove that thing right over there is the best does not disprove the existence of a best.
  
  I have proven that a best exists, that is all that is needed.
  
  Again you are back to your stance of "NO!" unless you can also prove it has blonde hair, a beard, 435 freckles, two dogs, 7 inches of manhood, and the ability to reproduce then you haven't proved it is a man, and anything less than that means the chromosome proof isn't proof. Because I say so! So there!!!
  
  Puh...leeeze...
  reply report
  0
  Emile Rposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Umm, the 'you have to believe because I say so' argument belongs to you. You want to believe you've made a point. You don't need my permission to believe anything. I'll leave you to it.
  reply report
2. 74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  AHHhhhh alone at last...imagowatchtv...
  reply report
  86
  Jean Bakulaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If you follow the Seven Hermetic Laws, according to the one on polarity, every truth is half false, and every falsehood is half true.
  reply report
  69
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  reply report
  74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Really? Can you elaborate?
  reply report
  86
  Jean Bakulaposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It's from the Kybalion and the Emerald Tablet of Hermes. I had a feeling Cagsil would get a laugh from it.
  reply report
0
Wilfionposted 13 years ago
I have always found it easier to believe something which has real evidence to back it up, rather than believing something because it makes me feel better, or something based entirely upon my subjective experience. Because the human mind can get things terribly wrong, and has a habit of making things fit with the reality it has created for itself. However, recent cases, where science has made a U-turn on previous understanding, makes it obvious that science is an evolving process. For instance, after decades of medical scientists telling us that salt should not be added to food, new evidence shows that people who put salt on their food have a lower chance of having a stroke. And it is not uncommon for different scientists using the same methods, to reach opposite conclusions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/ne … 622751.stm
reply report
1. 73
  lone77starposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Good point, @Wilfion. Certainly the human mind can make mistakes.
  
  But faith will never happen if we don't try. Being afraid because it is initially subjective will only act as a barrier. This is the child who never attempts to crawl because they cannot yet run.
  
  Belief is perception (effect), while true faith is creation (cause). And nothing is more objective than pure creation. All of physical reality is based upon it. All of the objective reasoning of science comes after (is subservient to) creation.
  
  As for health, science has become a slave of greed, brainwashed by a machine of greed. The same greed that people are revolting against on Wall Street.
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnaBG177VIw
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK1MOMKZ8BI
  
  And the machine is being challenged.
  reply report
73
lone77starposted 13 years ago
@emrldphx, good ideas, but legislating mature discussion and good manners is an impossibility.

Perhaps all we can hope for is to hold a public forum like this, expect anyone and everyone to crash the intelligent discussion, and for us merely to ignore the really lame and awful noise when it presents itself.

In the meantime, thanks for opening up such a wonderful discussion.
reply report
1. 59
  emrldphxposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, it makes me want to run my own forum for stuff like this... maybe I will, I've got an idea for a large project that would go along with the idea well
  
  It is possible for the mature to continue the conversation among the rest... I just wonder if it doesn't drive a lot of the people you and I would like to talk to away.
  reply report
  51
  paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Whenever you start a forum of your own; please do inform me. I will happily become a member to write and learn.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I, for one, wholeheartedly would promote and encourage this move. Please do all you can to action paarsurrey's request at your earliest convenience. Thank you.
  reply report
59
emrldphxposted 13 years ago
Dictionary.com

GOD - the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

Since you don't seem eager to answer my question, I'll answer it for you. You stated that dictionary.com is the only place to get the correct definition for a term. You have God defined erroneously.
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Subjective Truth vs Objective Truth

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Subjective Truth vs Objective Truth

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies