So you are saying you get into heaven by reducing your skepticism about god to a weak willed acceptance?
Is that it?

I think you might be confused by the use of "subject" in this instance.

Personally I’m a universalist and I think everyone’s going to heaven. I think you spend really time with people of other faiths you’ll realize that God isn’t a monopoly of only one tradition. — MysticMonist

What you think in this regard bears little regard for the truth. You can believe what you want to believe. And your own personal delusion is a case in my point.
If there is a God, heaven and the rest of it, its anyone's guess how to play the wager. But if you need do nothing to get to heaven then there is no wager to play.
If Hitler, and Gandhi are both equal candidates for the after life, then Pascal's idea is meaningless.

You are not making any sense.

You seem to be saying nothing, as "Things" not properties of the observed objects is exactly what I mean = Values.
Values are inherent to the observer, not the object.

I don't know, and neither do you, but reality relies on it. The ideal prededes everything.

Are you asking a rhetorical question?
I do not really understand what you are saying.
Tell me this, for clarity: What would you have to do to get into heaven, according to Pascal? How would you know he was right, as against, say, what an Imam would tell you you had to do?

what are you on about?
Let me ask you this. If someone is invited to play Pascal's wager in medieval China, do you think "jesus" whatever the hell that is, is part of the equation?
Of if a person from a Muslim family who has doubts about god, is presented with Pascal's wager what do you think "jesus" is going to have to do with it.
Now ask yourself where the bloody hell do you learn about Jesus, if not from a priest?

Pascal is asking you to throw away your personal autonomy for the rest of your life in the hopeless belief that whatever is the local religion might be true.

Yes, what is clear is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder to use a well worn phrase.
Such has to be the case with all value judgements.

As i understand it yes.

I not saying that.
I'm saying that you can only know X as an ideal. Existence is an ideal too. Everything is partially understood through the ground of our understanding and experience.; a mental construct.
Realism is a mental construct too; a theory about the world.
That is how it exists. You don't have to like it, but its unavoidable.

Yes, Pascal's wager is bullshit.
He suggests giving up the only thing you have; your own autonomy on the absurd idea that what some crackpot priest says might be true.

PLONK!!

No, religion does not do this at all.
Without religion I am free to determine with honesty my own telos.

And so have nothing to do with consciousness "surviving the body"
QED the thread is empty.

Both Marchesk and creative soul are data streams in my brain, as is the sensation from my fingers as I type.

I'll explain. If 'beauty' is subjective, then the statement "This painting is beautiful" says nothing about the object which is the painting, and says everything about the subject, namely that he feels beauty when observing the painting. But then saying "I feel beauty when observing the painting" is now an objective statement, because the property 'feeling beauty' is about the object which is 'I' in that statement. — Samuel Lacrampe

I think this is wholly nonsensical.

Then how would you test if a property is objective or not? Otherwise, do you agree with the following example? Some people may not find snow to be that cold, and some others may not find a hot tub to be that hot; but everyone finds a hot tub to be more hot than snow. — Samuel Lacrampe

You are mistaking the idea that "objective" is the same as truth.
Your example is RELATIVE, and as such it is not about objectiveness. The objective truth about snow is that it is colder than 0 centigrade, and that a hot tub is colder than 100degrees centigrade. All the rest is a value judgement and more relevant to us for that.

Basically, scientific evidence is "taken on faith" for the average citizen in the West, in the same way that theological conundrums were taken on faith by the average person for centuries. Rather than having ditched religion, the West has transferred the religious need to another sphere of inquiry; or more accurately, to another perspective from which to view "reality". — Noble Dust

So what? Since the findings of science are gathered with a strict method they are deserving of that faith. Mythical stories written by goat farmers 2000 years ago are not deserving of the same degree of faith.

So your are a time-waster?

My question is - why post if you don't have anything of value to say — Sam26

I have plenty of value to say.
One person talks bollocks, so it is my duty to call you up on that.
Near-death, is NOT death.

Yes, that is all correct. So subjective means a feeling in the subject when observing the object. And the feeling is itself objective to the subject. — Samuel Lacrampe

yes... then absolutely NO.
How can it be objective and subjective.This is an abuse of language.

Regarding your example on sharpness, you may be right that it is not possible to objectively find if a lemon is sharp in the absolute sense, because it is may be a relative term. — Samuel Lacrampe

Sorry this is unavoidable. Sharpness is a value judgement, and even if measured objectively is it still subjectively understood.

Your contention that "most would find...." is totally humancentric. Even if you could test every human, this would not be objective in the way people want it to mean; regardless of human interest or opinion.

Actually existence is ideal - you have no other reference but yourself. Idealism is thus true as the substrate of all understanding, even materialism and realism are ideal inventions.

No, thankfully it doesn’t.
So either:
1) There is a god and therefore God is the source of meaning.
2) there is no god but some other source of meaning or even a sourceless meaning. Then philosophy is the science of finding or creating this meaning. Mystics participate in philosophy
3) no god, no meaning. They even a quixotic quest for meaning is better than dispair. — MysticMonist

1) No. Not necessarily the only source of meaning.
2) There is no sourceless meaning. Meaning can only relate to a conceiver. Meaning is in the subject, not in the object.
3) We know this one is not the case, since it would entail you failing to grasp my intent in this post, and you would be struck dumb to respond.

I really would agree with you. God is the source of all goodness, meaning, and true joy. If God doesn’t exist there is no unified source of meaning and the only thing we have is philosophy which is our collective and individual search to find or create meaning. If nihilism is right and this philosophy is pointless, giving up is also pointless and I say it’s better to dream and hope than to dispair. — MysticMonist

But this is nonsense.
The absence of god does not entail nihilism.

that does not help you since the beach, the footprints and the person can only be objects of your perception, and can only be known through the concepts and impressions that they give you.

Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body

Since testimony can only be given by a surviving body, not testimonial can be offered in evidence.
This is therefore an empty thread.

The poll result shows the naiveté, of those voting. You cannot know existence except through the senses and this is an ideal reality. It is unavoidable.

Perhaps.. I think is outside the scope of this argument. Obviously if God doesn’t exist there isn’t hell either.

If you both want to discuss the existence of God we could in a new thread. There are always tons of those though and I’ve akready made a defense of it before. — MysticMonist

I have to tell you that you are arguing against the existence of god whether you like it or not. You seem to want to insist that god is an omnipresent thing. Since the concept is inherently incoherent, as you so ably point out, you have taken god out of the game with hell.

What is 'objective' and 'subjective'?
A property is objective if it is linked to the object, that is, the thing observed, thought about, spoken about.
Objectivity is only that which is agreeable to a community of humans. Objective properties are conceptual and are thought to reflect inherent properties in the object itself. However, since all thoughts, ideas and concept exist only in the minds of subjects, it is to those subjects that agreement is required to determine the quality of the objective statement.
If ten people taste a sample of lemon juice, 5 say its sharpness is average, 3 say it is weak and the other 2 say it is strong.
A scientist uses a machine which tells them that the sharpness value of the lemon is 23.7.
All ten people agree that the lemon has a sharpness of 23.7, but two think this number is average, 3 say it is low, and the other 2 say it is a high number.
What is the ACTUAL and meaningful sharpness of that lemon? Is the objective value meaningful?
The fact is that lemons don't care about sharpness. Sharpness is a quality that has a human interest and therefore, although it might be clothed in a veneer of objectivity, it is nonetheless deeply subjective.
The vast majority of things that we wish to determine the objectivity of, are in essence all subjectively interested and partial qualities.

you said "This cannot be, so eternal hell doesn’t exist."

Same argument exists on a number of issues that conclude that god does not exist in the first place and for the very same reason.
Omnipotence is incompatible with reason.

Simply, relatively, and absolutely.
What's the problem?

You asked "relative" or "simply`'
What do you mean?

"A Materialist (aka metaphysical Physicalist, "Naturalist", or Nominalist) will say that there just is the physical world, and that it's just a brute-fact. We observe it, measure it, and it's there, and there's no explanation. Some people don't find that satisfactory.

But there's no such problem, nothing to explain, if, metaphysically, there isn't anything "concrete" and objectively-existent. ...if there's nothing but abstract facts.
And you have to admit that, if you believe that, metaphysically, at the metaphysical level, there's something "concrete", solid, objectively-existent, then you've got something to explain. Why is there something instead of Nothing?"

If the case were that there was nothing rather than something, then it would not even be possible to ask such a question - there being nothing is ask, and nothing to answer. Symmetrically, then, there is no burden to have to answer why there is something rather than nothing. The condition of nothing rather than something is not even a condition or state of affairs. Nothing is also no state of affairs at all.

Things being concrete or objective is just a detail. If the world were purely conceptual and subjective, there still would have to BE a conceiver and subject to conceive. Object/subject divisions are not questions about existence, but about perceptions of existence - as existence is a substrate of the ground of possibility of asking.

absolutely

Things are. Nothing is not. "what is nothing" is a meaningless question like what is the colour of F-sharp, Or what does blue sound like.
Things have properties. Nothing has no properties, as having is a property of existing. Things exist; nothing does not exist and has no properties. Not having a property is not a property.

Words are not concepts. True. But a one concept is not another concept.
When I think "bird", it carries a unique set of bird experiences and observations and cannot be the same as yours. Such concepts have to the unique to the matter which comprises them in the neural tissues. Whilst we can agree upon what is and is not a "bird", our concepts can never be directly compared and can only be approximately similar, never the same.

I do not think there is anything wrong with the idea that every thing is physical. But you cannot necessarily understand it by examining its physical structures. As you cannot understand the story in a book with an analysis of the paper and ink, you cannot examine the knowledge and capabilities of a person with a brain scan.
Yet burn the book and the information is lost, kill the brain and the knowledge goes too. This being the case - a concept is constituted by neural matter, and you can prove it easily enough.

Since there is no widely agreed theistic morality, nor coherence about the definition of god, it begs the question WTF grounds morality if you are a theist?
What's your source?