Kharakov

Curiosity killed the Cat, the Catholic followed the Cat to appear mysterious (in other words to arouse your curiosity).

Incidentally a bird just swooped around outside, made a loop, then ran into my open screen door (other door is closed, it's fall now, slightly cool here). Must be going south for the winter.... it and its buddy just left. In all the years I've sat at this computer (desk- switched comps 10 months ago), a bird has never flown so close to the windows/door (due to the location). Interesting. I wonder....

Antiplastic

Even simpler, just say you believe the cosmos behaves in lawlike ways, instead of there being some other "thing" called a law that the universe interacts with?

And if you believe in miracles, then by definition you don't believe in laws.

You haven't addressed my question: what observation could a person make that would let them believe that someone did or did not cause "everything in the cosmos" to behave in a lawlike fashion? On its face, it's conceptually incoherent to say that someone A caused B to start Xing unless there's already a lawlike connection in place between what A does and its consequences for B.

I'm truly sorry, but this is just coming through as white noise to me.

What does it even mean to say "we could attribute objective meaning to the cosmos per that which the creator-subject bestows on it"? I know what observations could tend to verify or falsify what such an alleged person likes or dislikes about things. What conceivable observation could lead a person to conclude that "objective meaning has (or has not) been bestowed"? How would the universe be different as a matter of experience if Yahweh did everything he was alleged to have done but did not ever get around to "bestowing objective meaning"?

hypocrite_in_rehab

I can do that, but I'm not sure how it solves the problem

We'd have to clarify what makes something miraculous. I don't really think I believe in miracles, but you might think I do depending on the criteria.

I hear you asking me the same questions again here. So I'm thinking I probably don't get what you're driving at. I'm a bit unread in philosophical issues and terminology (i.e. expressivism - I tend to stay more in the theological), so I'm not sure if my terminology is inaccurate and/or confusing on philosophical grounds.

Or it could simply be you don't see the Bible as valid experience whereas I do...which is why I tend to keep coming back to the notion of a God who reveals Himself as my only possible access to objective meaning. Take that off the table, and I grant you I have no such access.

Well if He had a reason for creating, as I see it, objective meaning is bestowed. But if for the sake of argument, we assumed He didn't, I might say then everything becomes self-referential instead of God-referential. For instance, I might consider everyone (and everything) not bowing down to my every desire the greatest of evils, whereas presently I usually don't or least try not to think that way.

Kharakov

You won't if you go to hell.

Elfman

I think some confusion here is arising from the idea, and please correct me if I am wrong Antiplastic, that you would argue that God provided meaning/purpose to the universe is, because it comes from a being, necessarily subjective, not objective. I doubt this is a point that Rehab would have an issue with. But I also think that Rehab would say that because there is no context for anything apart from God (ex nihilo creation) that the purposes, and laws that God makes to achieve His ends, would appear objective to us because some of them would apply in such a broad way (to all of creation).

Antiplastic

Then what on earth has he (and you) been arguing about?

This simply does not answer my question. I have been asking over and over again what it even means to say that "the purposes would appear objective to us". I am running out of ways to ask "what does a purpose look like when it looks objective"? And now I'm even more baffled, because it seems like you're backtracking from the original claim, and conceding that divine morality really isn't objective, it just "appears that way".

What would count as an observation of an objective purpose, as opposed to some other kind of purpose?

hypocrite_in_rehab

Again, I may be missing the point entirely and not at all getting to the observable objectivity you're after (AP). I'll give one last shot at explaining my perspective here and see if it comes close.

If I purchase a piece of poster board and write on it, "Go Eagles!" and then take that down to the pep rally at city hall in Philadelphia, could we not say that sign has an objective meaning to it? Granted I (a subject) made it, but I've put meaning and purpose to it and am using it for its intended purpose.

Now perhaps a foreign immigrant (with no knowledge of the English language) happens to walk by and see me waving this sign outside city hall, jumping up and down, shouting something or other rather loudly and excitedly. He sees my actions, sees the sign, and assumes I'm protesting the corruption that is so common among Philadelphia's city politicians. He determines in his mind the sign expresses my anger at the local leaders.

Has the sign now lost its objective meaning because of the immigrant's interpretation? If the immigrant have no way of observing or experiencing the true meaning to the sign, is all objective meaning lost?

If I wanted, I could get a translator's dictionary and write out the meaning of the sign in the language of the immigrant and hand that to him so he would know the intended meaning of the sign.

Essentially this is what I'm suggesting is the Biblical perspective on the world. God creates all that is for a specific purpose (His own glory, etc). We are not God, don't have the mind of God, and so God must condescend to reveal His intended meaning to us in ways that are clearly observable and understandable if we are to have access to it. The Bible would say it is the comprehensive collection of such revelation.

Just as the letter I write in the language of the immigrant can be clearly observed and thus clearly communicate the meaning of my sign, so the Bible would suggest it is the clear, observable, experience of God's intended meaning in creation.

I suppose you could ask what observations do I have that confirm such is the true meaning of this thing called the Bible I'm holding. But that's a whole other discussion.

Not sure if I'm any closer to what you're asking or am just leaving you all the more frustrated. So I promise this is my last stab.

Prof

No, we couldn't. That's right were you go off-track. Meaning and/or value are inherently subjective. What you imagine to be "objective" about "Go Eagles" is beyond me.

"Objective meaning" was never there to be lost in the first place.
All your sign expresses, whether the immigrant understands the sign or not, is merely a subjective desire - that the Eagles play well - on your part. Whether the Eagles win the game or not may be an objective fact, but your desire for that particular team to win is a subjective one on your part. Why this isn't blazingly obvious to you, I don't know. (Well, actually, I guess I do: Religion tends to encourage mistaken notions of value, especially the incorrect notion that if an All Powerful Being values something it is made objectively valuable).

Objective value is incoherent. Value comes from minds that value things - it is not an objective, intrinsic characteristic. Just imagine there were no minds at all. If no minds existed, can you coherently explain how anything would have "meaning" or "value?" (I'll save you the time: no). That should settle for you that value is something a mind attaches to a thing, it's not something residing objectively in the thing.

Now, whether moral statements are making objective statements is another argument. Even some secular moral theories hold that moral statements are statements about objective states of affairs or objective relationships. But they do so without making the mistake that value is intrinsic or objective in of itself, which you are making here.

Prof.

Elfman

I'll try as well.....objectivity is something that is outside any single individuals opinion, that applies to all. To frame it in terms of something similar....objective truth. Let's define truth as what "is." I may claim that I just saw a bus go by, but maybe I just imagined it (not truth), or maybe I thought I saw a bus, but was mistaken. The reality is the bus either did go past or didn't. That would be objective reality.
Purpose is the same way. I can make my own purpose for things. I can try to construct meaning where there is none (why must people suffer) - but that is subjective purpose. I could say that rain is God crying and it shows us we ought to sin less. That would be a subjective purpose or reason for rain. But maybe rain just happens and it is part of a natural cycle with no higher purpose. Maybe it just is the way it is for no reason. Objective purpose would be why things are actually the way they are.... so lets say you were made by God in order to do a certain thing...lets say sharpen the minds of Christians. You are fulfilling a purpose outside of your perspective. It is an objective purpose for you. It is real whether you know it or not. It is there whether you participate actively or not. It comes from outside yourself and accurately describes why you ought to keep doing what you do.
Since God has made the world for some reason (maybe to love a free willed people?) and is working out some plan (maybe the redemption of the world and the establishment of a kingdom of believers) - there might be purposes that are wrapped up in the very reason we exist. That's pretty objective to us, even though it would be subjective to God. Because we exist inside His creation, than our perspective would be to think it more objective.
Its no big deal. If that just confuses the issue more, I'll drop it. Its not central anyway.

connick

If you feel you are being misunderstood, or if you feel you are misunderstanding, please keep trying!

To say that something is objective is to say that it is mind-independent. Let's say there is really an iron ball floating in space. Regardless of what anyone says or thinks, it is still an iron ball floating in space. Now, you may think iron is a stuck-up, snooty metal, whereas I may find it a classy, respectable metal. Neither of our opinions describe the ball itself, they are only our opinions as subjects observing the ball. A litmus test for whether something is subjective or objective is to ask, "Does it depend upon who you ask?"

In the case of your sign, we will differentiate between objective and subjective. The message and the sign are what they are. Is the sign itself different depending on who you ask? No. There are objective properties about the sign that don't change because someone disagrees.

Now, you say:
and
Does the message expressed by the sign differ, depending on who you ask? Yes. To you, it is a promotional slogan for your favorite team, for a foreigner, it may appear to be an angry protest. The sign is what it is, regardless of what you or anyone else understands it to be. The message is something that requires interperetation and is thus mind-dependent or subjective.

Antiplastic wants to know:
I think that he is struggling to understand, what appears to me to be unanswerable nonsense. Another way of asking the above question might be, "How does a purpose subjectively appear when it subjectively appears objective?" Word salad.

To say that God's purposes appear objective is firstly subjective and secondarily nonsense. It's a personal judgment about how his purposes appear and to call a purpose objective doesn't even make sense. It implies that there are objective purposes which simply are that are different from subjective purposes that everyone generates in their mind.