[QUOTE=flouran;199069]Awesome death metal![/QUOTE]

The emoticons here are so '90s.

:man hug:
:fist bump:

[quote=Zeta-Flux;198528]Any other questions?[/quote]Where were we just before post #260? Hmmm... I had just asked
[quote=cheesehead;197867]What are the few more that make you still a little squeamish?[/quote]... which led to the excursion (no wonder you were a little squeamish!). Before that was your post #258:
[quote=Zeta-Flux;197750]But there are a few more that make me still a little squeamish about the use of the word "all." How about "potentially perceptible to observers"?[/quote]So it seems that the current status is that your proposal is "potentially perceptible to observers", but I'm reluctant to omit "all".

"potentially perceptible to all observers" is acceptable to me, but perhaps still squeam-provoking to you. Hmmm ...

I'm satisfied with "potentially perceptible to observers", while simply being on the lookout for cases where "all" would have made a significant difference. We can proceed from there with settled stomachs on both sides, it seems.

With that settlement, what do you see as the current status of the "objective" definition?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;199140]
With that settlement, what do you see as the current status of the "objective" definition?[/QUOTE]

No offense intended to either you or Zeta-Flux, but you guys are honestly considering to continue this inane discussion/debate/argument/whatever-you-may-call-it? :smile:

[quote=flouran;199142]No offense intended to either you or Zeta-Flux, but you guys are honestly considering to continue this inane discussion/debate/argument/whatever-you-may-call-it? :smile:[/quote]No offense intended to you, but are you honestly intending to continue following, and caring about, it? (Sometimes audience numbers matter.) :smile:

[quote=flouran;199159]Yes.
I would much rather witness an interesting debate that other forum members (not just two) find interesting as well....[/quote]
Then find/start another thread and try to say something
interesting/witty. There's no harm done by holding a
ono-to-one conversation here, provided you don't mind
others listening/interjecting occasionally.

[QUOTE=__HRB__;199070][...]
:man hug:
:fist bump:[/QUOTE]

One-to-zero conversations are even better. I define myself to be God, ewmayer shall be my prophet and cheeshead the virgin in who's brain has been replaced by an alien embryo.

:man hug self:
:fist bump self:

Flouran doesn't like beer, so he'll be [I]Bilious, the "Oh God" of Hangovers.[/I] Orgasmic troll gets a purple tricycle and will join the riders of the Apocalypse. He will ride out after [I]Pollution[/I] and [I]War[/I] but before [I]Geography Teachers[/I] as [I]Broccoli Stuck Between Your Teeth[/I].

[quote=davieddy;199160]There's no harm done by holding a ono-to-one conversation here, provided you don't mind others listening/interjecting occasionally.[/quote]Actually, it's quite feasible to hold simultaneous separate conversations in a thread if participants are careful to lead each post with the quote to which it responds.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;199140]I'm satisfied with "potentially perceptible to observers", while simply being on the lookout for cases where "all" would have made a significant difference. We can proceed from there with settled stomachs on both sides, it seems.

With that settlement, what do you see as the current status of the "objective" definition?[/QUOTE]It seems agreed upon. If you could respond to my two requests now, that would be great.

Best,
Zeta-Flux

[quote=Zeta-Flux;199250]It seems agreed upon. If you could respond to my two requests now, that would be great.[/quote]From your post #264:
[quote=Zeta-Flux;198010]1. I would like you to reword the last sentence you wrote, in your first post on Dec. 1, for clarity. (Post # 241.) (The sentence is: "...there's plenty of evidence that Man created God, but none for the other way. .")[/quote]From my post #241:
[quote=cheesehead;197450]there's plenty of evidence that Man created God, but none for the other way.[/quote]My restatement, current draft:

There is plenty of objective evidence that God exists as an idea in human minds. The latter phrase ("God exists ... minds") can be summarized as "Man created God" in a consciously sincere twist on the well-known phrase "God created Man".

I am aware of no objective evidence that God exists outside of human minds. For years I have requested that believers in God point me to such objective evidence; no one has done so. Often I have been directed to testimony by people who have had an experience they interpret as being some manifestation of God, but no such testimony I've ever seen contradicts the hypothesis that God exists only as an idea in human minds -- all such testimony I've ever seen can be interpreted as being the result of ordinary nonsupernatural experience plus ideas in human minds, and thus fails to contradict the hypothesis that God exists only as an idea in human minds.

- - -

(The expansion of words in my restatement above will probably lead to [I]much[/I] further discussion of meanings and intent.)

- - -

Again from post #264:
[quote=Zeta-Flux;198010] 2. I would like to know what you think about whether consistency implies evidence, now that I've given you that (counter-)example from 1st order logic. (See my posts #249 and #254.)[/quote]I'll tackle this later.

[QUOTE]
There is plenty of objective evidence that God exists as an idea in human minds.[/QUOTE]Can you make a succinct list of some of these objective evidences?

Season's Greetings God Botherers
 

"Peter Cook was the funniest man ever to draw breath" - Stephen Fry
[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AgJgQYPXyk[/URL]

***King David