most things are subjective, yes indeed

**we can logically derive our course of action from our goals and have them be objectively true for said set of goals**

that's not objective though, it's specific to each individual's goals

It's an objective way of attaining ones goals..

Logic is a way of constructing truth conserving statements

but it's not, because someone else may achieve the same goal in a different way

Then there are multiple solutions, yet the contrary cannot be the case

We can map solutions to efficiency, limit it down

we can map solutions dialectically to environment and people and limit it down

There are 'true' methods of reaching goals that ensure those goals are met given the assumptions hold.

valid

things can be valid but not objective

So what does objective mean to you?

Based on A priori?

in this context, `Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.`

Then I suppose I've been conflating: Valid, Absolute and Objective.

language is a shithead sometimes lol

So objective - not dependant on mind for existence; actual.

Absolute - based on the mind and yet cannot be showcased to not be the way it is without the mind

there are multiple uses of the word, to be fair

Valid - given a objective or mental assumption, a statement that holds validity

in any case, I believe everyone is entitled to their own thought process, so long as you're not harming others :P

Sure, but I'd wish people to not hold ideas as absolutes. I suppose that means people that do so are misguided to me, but that may be my opinion. I wouldn't know unless there is objective evidence that can be gathered through studies, but then even the 'progress' of those studies depend on my goals and values of which are opinions.

the mind is a fickle thing 😂

Yup xD

good convo though 👍

Yh great talk 👍

@Phobia "evidence and facts aren't relevant here"

Phobes, if the relevant question is "Is there any god?", then that IS a scientific question about reality, and not merely an opinion.

If you have no evidence and facts to support your belief in a god, then that belief is irrational.

It's like me believing in a magical invisible dragon that protects me from all harm... but when I get harmed it was because the dragon knew it was best for me in the long run to get harmed that one time.

That's a pretty inoffensive belief that doesn't affect anyone, but it's still fully irrational.

in a discussion where neither side can prove or disprove their point, nothing is relevant 😉

that's why I say spiritual debates are a waste of time

Why are scientific debates of value?

let people believe what they will, so long as they're not hurting others

Why should they not hurt others?

because science is the study of the physical world

we're talking about issues entirely contained in the mind

So god is an issue of the mind and not the physical world?

correct

So god has no impact in the physical world?

he's not here, he's not tangible

No, and he says as much 😉

if he had an impact free will would be tainted