Below-copied by ap first published at comments, https://bellofchurch.blogspot.com/2016/11/is-god-responsible-for-original-sin.html#comment-form
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Objectivity: Independent Existence In Accord W. Identity, A = A
(Apollonian, 29 Nov 16)
As I understand Aristotle, primary def. of "objective" is existing independently, regardless one's own mentality (subjectivism) or perception, but perception otherwise being necessary, axiomatic means ("consciousness" necessary accompaniment of identity and objectivity) of apprehending such objective reality.
So if there's objective reality, including of particulars, then they have necessary natures for potential and actual, etc., all in accord w. cause-effect, the scientific, verified reality of all observations--DETERMINISM.
Satanism (extreme subjectivism by way of pretending to Godliness) then attempts to pretending there's exception to determinism--by means of fallacious, delusionary, hereticalist (Pelagianist) "free" will, key to their satanic criminal conspiracies by which satanists take advantage of rest of (childish) humanity, typically, historically beginning w. delusionary, child's "good-evil" delusion, as pretext for further delusions, esp. and ultimately in way of "central-banking," etc., by which they seek total ownership/control of everything and everyone, so often seeming to coming soooo close to actually succeeding in this (dictatorship), but ALWAYS failing, ho ho oho ho.
-----------------------above by ap in response to below-copied----------------------------------
Liberty Bell November 29, 2016 at 7:22 PM
But what does "objective" mean? When I turn to my trusty dictionary and look under "O," I find that "objective" means "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."
I take that as my starting point. It's a neutral definition in the sense that I didn't just formulate it in order to buttress my position or to attack yours.
You, however, appear to want to simply "define" "objective" as "determined" in order to "win" the debate by ipse dixit. Well, that's quite a trick. You just continue:
5. If reality is objective, then it's determined.
6. Reality is objective.
7. Therefore, reality is determined.
But why should I go along with this? What reason can you provide in support of premise 5? Why should I think that for x to be "independent of human opinion" (which is the definition that I am using for "objective") entails that x is "determined"? Certainly, you haven't provided *any* reason for me to think this. And I can see none.
"Reality is objective but not determined" is only a contradiction is "objective" entails, means, or is synonymous with "determined." Let me be clear: Presently, I deny that "objective" entails, means, or is synonymous with "determined." Therefore, I see no contradiction. I am open to the possibility that you could help me to see a contradiction. But you have to do better than to simply demand, insist, or other suggest that I just accept the identification of "objectivity" and "determination." Why should I do that? (And if you really think that everything is determined, then why try to argue with me? Are you determined to argue? Are we both not determined to hold our differing views? What's the point of arguing?)
Well, that's all the time I have for now. As always, thanks for the attention.
I take that as my starting point. It's a neutral definition in the sense that I didn't just formulate it in order to buttress my position or to attack yours.
You, however, appear to want to simply "define" "objective" as "determined" in order to "win" the debate by ipse dixit. Well, that's quite a trick. You just continue:
5. If reality is objective, then it's determined.
6. Reality is objective.
7. Therefore, reality is determined.
But why should I go along with this? What reason can you provide in support of premise 5? Why should I think that for x to be "independent of human opinion" (which is the definition that I am using for "objective") entails that x is "determined"? Certainly, you haven't provided *any* reason for me to think this. And I can see none.
"Reality is objective but not determined" is only a contradiction is "objective" entails, means, or is synonymous with "determined." Let me be clear: Presently, I deny that "objective" entails, means, or is synonymous with "determined." Therefore, I see no contradiction. I am open to the possibility that you could help me to see a contradiction. But you have to do better than to simply demand, insist, or other suggest that I just accept the identification of "objectivity" and "determination." Why should I do that? (And if you really think that everything is determined, then why try to argue with me? Are you determined to argue? Are we both not determined to hold our differing views? What's the point of arguing?)
Well, that's all the time I have for now. As always, thanks for the attention.
