Objective Claims = Deity Status

[CallSignRomeo]

Any claim made in an objective manner immediately poses that the claimant is a ultimately deity who created that concept (in a literal/physical sense). The fundamental nature of the universe conveys that no being existing within it had a hand in its creation (to the best of our knowledge) as they must be outside their own creation. A clunky example of this would be that at many points in our lives we have said things that have been misinterpreted by others. If a god were to be the original speaker in this exact instance how could we trust the claims of others without the god's explicit word? Can an ant perfectly interpret/understand a human's commands and wills even while only seeing them to as infinitely more powerful? At least the ant is aware that those beings exist and are physically occupying the same space in contrast to humans and gods. Any objective claim made by a person demands they are the direct creator of that thing. The artist has the final word in what motivated the creation, but the viewer is perfectly capable of interpreting it at their behest. Believing there is any "right" way of doing or understanding something is a fallacy based on the simple principle that they did not create said thing. Your interpretation of how something "is done" is based off your observations and ability to generate ideas through both education and personal disposition. The most ridiculous thought one could have is that there is a singular way of doing something in literal terms. That person's opinion is the objective choice that is "right" based solely on egotism and the desire for creating a deity out of themselves. This is almost entirely done without awareness, so it is understandable in most instances (zealots in comparison to self-serving self-aware individuals). Eating up this dribble is the root of a great deal of suffering on the planet with the power of the fear imposed by death (ironically being a fate that is ultimately faced and the only true relief from suffering) being what keeps the masses at bay and driving much of this selfish egotism onward.

This is very clunky and off the cuff as I see points for argument across the board. I mainly wanted to see the response and if there was a proper direction to take this using ulterior/prior works to develop it more thoroughly (or if it was even worth doing). Thanks!

[Terrapin Station]

What in the world are you even talking about?

"Any claim made in an objective manner"--such as? What would be an example of such a claim? Per the definitions I use of "subjective" and "objective," the very notion of "a claim made in an objective manner" doesn't make much sense. So that needs to be explained.

"immediately poses that the claimant is . . . ultimately [a] deity who created that concept" Huh?? What are you talking about there?

When you write a post. Realize that we're not in your head, we probably don't have the same views that you have, and we very likely won't assume that the same things follow that you assume follow. So, for example, you shouldn't just say that "a claim made in an objective manner 'poses' that the claimant is a diety . . . " you need to explain how you're arriving at the conclusion you're arriving at.

[h_k_s]

Any claim made in an objective manner immediately poses that the claimant is a ultimately deity who created that concept (in a literal/physical sense). The fundamental nature of the universe conveys that no being existing within it had a hand in its creation (to the best of our knowledge) as they must be outside their own creation. A clunky example of this would be that at many points in our lives we have said things that have been misinterpreted by others. If a god were to be the original speaker in this exact instance how could we trust the claims of others without the god's explicit word? Can an ant perfectly interpret/understand a human's commands and wills even while only seeing them to as infinitely more powerful? At least the ant is aware that those beings exist and are physically occupying the same space in contrast to humans and gods. Any objective claim made by a person demands they are the direct creator of that thing. The artist has the final word in what motivated the creation, but the viewer is perfectly capable of interpreting it at their behest. Believing there is any "right" way of doing or understanding something is a fallacy based on the simple principle that they did not create said thing. Your interpretation of how something "is done" is based off your observations and ability to generate ideas through both education and personal disposition. The most ridiculous thought one could have is that there is a singular way of doing something in literal terms. That person's opinion is the objective choice that is "right" based solely on egotism and the desire for creating a deity out of themselves. This is almost entirely done without awareness, so it is understandable in most instances (zealots in comparison to self-serving self-aware individuals). Eating up this dribble is the root of a great deal of suffering on the planet with the power of the fear imposed by death (ironically being a fate that is ultimately faced and the only true relief from suffering) being what keeps the masses at bay and driving much of this selfish egotism onward.

This is very clunky and off the cuff as I see points for argument across the board. I mainly wanted to see the response and if there was a proper direction to take this using ulterior/prior works to develop it more thoroughly (or if it was even worth doing). Thanks!

You're using the term "deity" very loosely.

"Author" would be a more appropriate word for your intended usage.

[Sculptor1]

Any claim made in an objective manner immediately poses that the claimant is a ultimately deity who created that concept (in a literal/physical sense). The fundamental nature of the universe conveys that no being existing within it had a hand in its creation (to the best of our knowledge) as they must be outside their own creation. A clunky example of this would be that at many points in our lives we have said things that have been misinterpreted by others. If a god were to be the original speaker in this exact instance how could we trust the claims of others without the god's explicit word? Can an ant perfectly interpret/understand a human's commands and wills even while only seeing them to as infinitely more powerful? At least the ant is aware that those beings exist and are physically occupying the same space in contrast to humans and gods. Any objective claim made by a person demands they are the direct creator of that thing. The artist has the final word in what motivated the creation, but the viewer is perfectly capable of interpreting it at their behest. Believing there is any "right" way of doing or understanding something is a fallacy based on the simple principle that they did not create said thing. Your interpretation of how something "is done" is based off your observations and ability to generate ideas through both education and personal disposition. The most ridiculous thought one could have is that there is a singular way of doing something in literal terms. That person's opinion is the objective choice that is "right" based solely on egotism and the desire for creating a deity out of themselves. This is almost entirely done without awareness, so it is understandable in most instances (zealots in comparison to self-serving self-aware individuals). Eating up this dribble is the root of a great deal of suffering on the planet with the power of the fear imposed by death (ironically being a fate that is ultimately faced and the only true relief from suffering) being what keeps the masses at bay and driving much of this selfish egotism onward.

This is very clunky and off the cuff as I see points for argument across the board. I mainly wanted to see the response and if there was a proper direction to take this using ulterior/prior works to develop it more thoroughly (or if it was even worth doing). Thanks!

Nah.
Whilst moral objectivists are making arses of themselves by effectively, virtually and even literally claiming to know the mind of god, it is perfectly possible to make objective statements within clearly defined parameters to eliminate the problems of subjective observational bias. This is not possible in the socially and psychologically defined value laden world of morality, but can be useful in science and the practical arts.

Of course this relegates objectivity to relativity, but whilst distinct and predefined premises and observational limits are well defined such as experimental relations of know quantities are observed these objective results can be meaningful without having to invoke a god like perception.

[GregRogers]

Uh, no; false choice.

I think it is accurate in some ultimate ontological sense that I would need to have the position and faculties of God to know things ultimately truly. However, I am limited to my 5 senses (or 6 or 7, let's not squabble... you get my point). So, I can say what corresponds to reality (i.e. what is true) for our species. It is a middle way between a belief that we can have a pure understanding one hand or only relativistic subjectivity on the other.