its funny how they call this christian fiction... Showing 601-650 of 1,587

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "I haven't read the books, I just found the resultant debate interesting :P

Sell them to me, make me want to read them"

Hazel, make you want to read them? i can't do that! Wanting to read them is your choice, not mine. I've known some people who have read them simply out of curiosity.

[Molly]

Kendra wrote: "Here is a question for anyone who wishes to answer - that has to do with the series -> have youi read all of the books in the series? Which was your favorite/least favorite and why?"

The first one was ok. It would have been better, but like I said, I don't think the authors focused on the right things. The conversions were fine and good, but I felt like the destruction and the various reactions of the people would been more interesting.

[[deleted user]]

Molly wrote: "Kendra wrote: "Here is a question for anyone who wishes to answer - that has to do with the series -> have youi read all of the books in the series? Which was your favorite/least favorite and why?..."

Interesting view. Anyone else?

[Shaun]

Kendra wrote: "Hazel wrote: "I haven't read the books, I just found the resultant debate interesting :P

Sell them to me, make me want to read them"

Hazel, make you want to read them? i can't do that! Want..."

However, there is such a thing as persausion, in which you explain all the good things about these books that you think would make other people likel them. Isn't that the raison d'etre (sp?) of this website after all?

[Hazel]

Molly wrote: "There are some objective truths, but when it comes to the existence of god, I don't think it's possible to prove or disprove the existence of god for everyone. The idea of god is big, complicated, and varies a lot from person to person. Besides, people's beliefs, ideas, and wants, shape the way they see reality, and the way they see the truth. "

No, the idea that you can't disprove gods existence is a non sequiter, we don't need to. It is simply cultural conditioning that makes us think that way. If you were a completely objective outsider, say an alien from another planet, and you saw this worship going on, and found no evidence for the existence of god, you woudl conclude that the entitiy does not exist, it is only because we have been trained for generations to accept the idea that there might be a god that we get this requirement from people to disprove his existence. Objectively, if there is no evidence for something, then we reject it. Asking for evidence for the non-existence of god is the same as my telling you that there is a dragon in your garage, but that it dissapears when you go look, and then demanding that you prove it doesn't exist. Thats rediculous, its insanity. You wouldn't start to think that there may be a dragon in your garage based on that. What would be even more outrageous would be my demanding that you utterly accept the existence of said dragon without my providing evidence for it, and just on my say so. However, if the idea of dragons in garages had been around for hundreds of years, and there was an ancient book saying that all garages have dragons in, and it was taught to every child, and it was made into part of the culture then you would be considered odd for thinking that there wasn't a dragon in your garage. But in the end, its the same thing, asking for evidence of non-existence of god is no different to asking for evidence of non-existence of garage dragons. By being objective, and taking a step back, we recognise this cultural bias, and realise that such thinking is basically a prejudice that has been trained into us.

I agree with the last bit though, we know that because of the way our visual cortex and eyes work, that what we see isn't actually the world, it is our brains model of the world, as such, if you believe enough, then you can incorporate things that aren't real into your model of the world, and so your brain will construct images that are not there, even though you see them. Our brains are easily fooled, and it easily fools us all the time.

[Hazel]

Kendra wrote: "Hazel wrote: "I haven't read the books, I just found the resultant debate interesting :P

Sell them to me, make me want to read them"

Hazel, make you want to read them? i can't do that! Want..."

what I meant was tell me why the book is good. Why it is something I should want to read.

[[deleted user]]

Shaun wrote: "Kendra wrote: "Hazel wrote: "I haven't read the books, I just found the resultant debate interesting :P

Sell them to me, make me want to read them"

Hazel, make you want to read them? i can't do ..."

>grin< you spelled that French correctly. nice usage.
I can honestly tell you that in my opinion they are very good books. But that's just my opinion. If you want to read them, then I would strongly recommend them; however, keeping an open mind from beginning to end is a great idea.

Keeping an open mind means reading all 12 books from beginning to end, without skipping any of them. They all hold particular portions that are mentioned later on. You need to read them all in order, so that you can have a decent idea of what is happening in each one.

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "Kendra wrote: "Hazel wrote: "I haven't read the books, I just found the resultant debate interesting :P

Sell them to me, make me want to read them"

Hazel, make you want to read them? i can't do ..."

Well, I'm not going to "sell them to you". I'll just tell you what I know about them. I know that they are based on the Bible. They have different aspects/genres written into them. Action, and even romance. There is also what I myself would term "horror" in it, because of the torturesome things done to some people. But, in the end, it all finishes with WONDERFUL HAPPENINGS

[Hazel]

There are 12 of these books? Wow, that would be a commitment. I have this OCD thing that when I read the first book in a series I have to read the rest of them as well.

[[deleted user]]

OH MY! And they are pretty thick, too! Not huge from top to bottom, but about an incha nd a half, thick. Thankfully, though, the print isn't tiny.

[Will]

Kendra wrote: " It's like when the terrorists of Iraq attacked the WTC on 9/11."

[Hazel]

shit, I didn't spot that will. How did I miss that?!!

[Mary]

Kendra wrote: "OK. I can see that you all want me to stop my defence of my beliefs, even if you won't stop trying to justify your own. Fine then. Good bye."

There is a difference between defending your beliefs and imposing your beliefs on others. For instance, you do not agree with homosexuality. So...YOU should not be a homosexual. But telling other people they should not be homosexual or to live a life of loneliness and celibacy is overstepping the boundaries. Also, every time you ask someone to point out where it says something in the bible (for example Hazel pointed out inconsistencies), you accuse people of attacking your beliefs instead of responding to the inconsistencies. What you are in effect doing is saying "I do not like how I am losing this debate, so I will just take my ball and go home." You cannot defend a religion that you do not know much about.

[[deleted user]]

Each book is roughly 300 pages - probably closer to 350, actually. But they are so worth reading! At least in my opinion.

[Hazel]

300 pages? Thats not much at all. If I find a copy of them, I may give them a bash.

[Will]

They actually are really entertaining, they just have nothing of substance to them. They are the literary equivalent of a Michael Bay summer blockbuster flick.

[Mary]

Kendra wrote: "However, Hazel, you've stated it as fact. You have accused me of believing something wrong; of being misled; of being wrongfully informed. How, may I ask, is that not an accusation?"

As you have also accused people who do not believe the way you do of being sinners and going into a lake of fire when they die. That is using fear to try and sway others to your point of view. I prefer logic myself.

[Mary]

Hazel wrote: "I agree with the last bit though, we know that because of the way our visual cortex and eyes work, that what we see isn't actually the world, it is our brains model of the world, as such, if you believe enough, then you can incorporate things that aren't real into your model of the world, and so your brain will construct images that are not there, even though you see them. Our brains are easily fooled, and it easily fools us all the time. "

Also, frame of reference and background knowledge is also important. Are the leaves on a tree really green to a color blind person? Our eyes tell us what they see, but it is through a lens of prior knowledge and understanding. If the knowledge changes, then vision may as well.

[Mary]

Will wrote: "Kendra wrote: " It's like when the terrorists of Iraq attacked the WTC on 9/11."

"

LOL!

[Hazel]

Mary wrote: "Will wrote: "Kendra wrote: " It's like when the terrorists of Iraq attacked the WTC on 9/11."

"

LOL!"

I know, I can't believe that one slipped by me. That really is a face palm moment of Picard proportions

[Will]

Mary wrote: "Are the leaves on a tree really green to a color blind person?"

Most likely, yes, since "color blind" is just a general statement for "color impairment." Most people who are "color blind" can see colors fine, just not when they are subtle, like a bit of red surrounded by a bunch of green, they won't be able to see the red. Like so:

[Mary]

Will wrote: "Mary wrote: "Are the leaves on a tree really green to a color blind person?"

Most likely, yes, since "color blind" is just a general statement for "color impairment." Most people who are "color bl..."

OK Will...how about just blind then? My point is that perception can change with the individual. Idiot savants often can perceive patterns that the average person cannot (think Rain Man). Some brains can process information better than others...kind of like an old computer made back in the 80s versus a current one. When my kids were little I did quite a bit of research into how we learn to read. Some people process words as individual letters and others process words as pictures. Fast readers read in chunks of words processing them almost simultaneously. The divergence in brain processing capacity can lead to difference in reality perceptions.

[Xdyj]

Mary wrote: "Are the leaves on a tree really green to a color blind person?"

Yes, they can measure its reflective spectrum.

[Hazel]

I'd be interested at looking at some of that reading stuff, if you still have any citations Mary. My daughter will be learning to read soon, so it would be good to know whats what. And it would also be nice to know why it is some people I know have to read a sentence to themselves before reading it out loud, whereas I just read it out loud straight off without having to work it out beforehand.

[Xdyj]

Mary wrote: "Will wrote: "Kendra wrote: " It's like when the terrorists of Iraq attacked the WTC on 9/11."

"

LOL!"

Yeah.

Molly wrote: "Hazel wrote: "I have only stated as fact the things that have enough supporting evidence to be considered as fact. There is enough evidence about, for example, evolution to state that evolution is ..."

I'm not sure the concept of god is well defined without the context of a specific religion, so saying "god exists" might be "not even wrong". However, a religion or a belief system is not just about the existence of god, and usually can be falsified.

[Mary]

Hazel wrote: "I'd be interested at looking at some of that reading stuff, if you still have any citations Mary. My daughter will be learning to read soon, so it would be good to know whats what. And it would als..."

I will have to look back and find some of the better books, but people who read out loud are typically auditory learners. They need to imprint the words through sound. They also tend to read better with background music/noise. Visual learners imprint visually and typically see words they have already learned as a complete picture. I am a visual learner and I see words in chunks. I typically read about a half line of text at a time (depending on the width of the page). So I read very quickly. My husband reads individual letters, so he reads more slowly (but still comprehends very well). Visual learners have to be careful with spelling though, because if they "imprint" a word incorrectly the first time, they will continually misspell that word unless it is re-imprinted. Some kids are part-to-whole learners (they need phonics) and some are whole-to-part learners (intensive phonics inhibits their reading ability and they do better learning sight words and "get" the phonics by association). It really is quite fascinating .

[Mary]

More on reading: Marie Clay was one author who was great. She studied reading in New Zealand with native Maori children. Reggie Routman is another. Kenneth & Yvonne Goodman are two more. One book I remember that was very practical if you have visual learners is: "Right Brain Children in a Left Brain World."

I don't own that many of those books anymore because I donated them all to an elementary school for a parent library. If more occur to me, I will let you know.

[Will]

Mary wrote: "OK Will..."

I have no argument with any of that, but it doesn't take away from there being an objective reality.

[Mary]

Will wrote: "Mary wrote: "OK Will..."

I have no argument with any of that, but it doesn't take away from there being an objective reality."

It depends on whose reality . Is the reality normative? Humans and the world are still evolving. As that evolutionary process continues, reality can change. Not exactly a perfect example as to reality here, but it is the first one I can think of...in subsistence level/hunter gatherer times, it was a favorable survival trait to be what we now term ADD. Hunters had to be on the lookout for any change in the scenery so they did not get eaten by animals with big teeth. So their eyes were continually scanning the scenery to watch out for danger. As humans and animals became more "domesticated" this need became less necessary for survival and whereas a majority of humans might have needed the trait a long time ago, the trait is diminishing through the evolutionary process. If we lived in a dark world, then vision would not be as necessary as hearing and objective observation would not be a primary method for discerning our reality. So while we may be able to come up with objective criteria, the method we use to discern could change. Therefore, objective evidence is only as good as the method for discerning that evidence.

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "I haven't read the books, I just found the resultant debate interesting :P

Sell them to me, make me want to read them"

This is my last comment in this discussion, I think. Hazel, I'm wondering if you would read them simply to see how different they are from your way of believing. I actually didn't read the first one because I wanted to, but simply because of what it was about. You might find them interesting.

[Hazel]

Mary wrote: "Will wrote: "Mary wrote: "OK Will..."

I have no argument with any of that, but it doesn't take away from there being an objective reality."

It depends on whose reality . Is the reality normative..."

Mary, the term is HADD (Hyperactive Agency Detection Device ), not ADD (Attention deficit disorder), Basically, its better to see something that isn't there, and not get eaten when there is something there, than to not see something that is there, and get eaten. So our minds see things that aren't there all the time.

Objective evidence is the best way of discerning reality, once we become subjective, we start biasing the evidence. To ensure its as reliable as possible, we use repetition. If several researchers discover the same thing, no matter of their individual and subjective biases, then its more reliable.

On a seperate note, thanks for the stuff about reading :)

[Hazel]

Kendra wrote: "Hazel wrote: "I haven't read the books, I just found the resultant debate interesting :P

Sell them to me, make me want to read them"

This is my last comment in this discussion, I think. Haze..."

They are classified as fiction, thus I would read them as a story thats fictional, and purely for entertainment. If there is interesting stuff to think about along the way, all the better, but any philosophy within it is still within a fictional work.

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "Kendra wrote: "Hazel wrote: "I haven't read the books, I just found the resultant debate interesting :P

Sell them to me, make me want to read them"

This is my last comment in this discussion, I t..."

Really? Fictional, in my opinion and to my understanding, means it's based on reality, but not a true story.

Are you telling me that you don't read non-fiction? I don't read it too much, either, to be honest, but there are some very real facts that are in fictional books. I think that all stories portraying 9/11 speak of an actual happening, and actual feelings/emotions based on that day. I mean, the story itself isn't true - that we know of - but it has very real and factual events occuring in it.

Take any movie that has to do with 9/11. Wouldn't you sayu they are fictional, but they ahve real events in them?

[Hazel]

I read plenty of non fiction, I enjoy non-fiction, youn know, books on science, and psychology, and history. But these Left Behind books are christian FICTION, as such, they are not based on reality. Fiction means that its made up, even if they weave real events in, its not a piece of work that you should take to tell us anything about the real world. I mean, Harry Potter is fiction, but its obviously not based on reality, even though it has real places described in it. The film Forest Gump has Forest involved in almost every major event in American History from the 50s to the 80s, but thats blatently not true, and its fictional, we certanly would not infer from it that there was actually a real person named Forest Gump, and that he really did have a direct effect on all these events, its simply a narrative tool.

I've not seen any movie made about the events of 9/11, but I suspect that if there was one, it would say "based on true events" at the start of the film. However, that still doesn't make it a factual work, it makes it a work of fiction based on events that really happened, and probably only very loosely based, at that. Its generally accepted that films that are "based on true events" are in fact nothing like what really happened, and that the only link to the real life events is that they may use the same names and dates, but that beyond that the film makers are making it up from whole cloth.

Basically, if its in a work of fiction, it cannot be taken as true or fact. You would need to check a non-fictional source or ten first before giving anything in a work of fiction any credence.

I have to ask though, if you read stories relating to 9/11, why is it that you think it was done by the Iraqis?

[Mary]

Hazel wrote: "Objective evidence is the best way of discerning reality, once we become subjective, we start biasing the evidence. To ensure its as reliable as possible, we use repetition. If several researchers discover the same thing, no matter of their individual and subjective biases, then its more reliable.

On a seperate note, thanks for the stuff about reading :) "

You are welcome about the reading stuff. I understand about repetition and the scientific method. I am going to take a wild leap here and guess you are very left brained in your learning style. Lefties are very linear and structured in their learning style. Everything is sequential and they are very analytical. While I have some left brain traits, I am mostly right brained (when I am analyzing legal issues, I actually turn my head to the left). Righties are extremely visual and they are holistic and intuitive in their learning. They also approach concepts from the whole to the part. Most people are a combination of both, but lean more in one direction. Science is full of lefties. Righties migrate toward the creative. So while a left brained person will take a methodical, step-by-step approach with an experiment, a right brained person might question the original set-up of the same experiment. An objective conclusion would predicate itself on every observer seeing (or touching, hearing, etc.) the same thing. My take would be, the conclusion is only objective if ALL people see the same thing and since that is impossible for most experiments, there still exists the possibility of subjective observation (as all of the observers are in the same type class of observers and the ones who might see it differently are not included as observers. For example: an experiment calls for the weight of an object. 10 times out of 10 the object weighs the same amount. On the 11th try, a different scale is used and there is a slight variation in the weight. Objectivity is only as good as the tools we use to measure it. So objectivity is "subject to" the tools we have available which does indeed make it subjective in a sense.

[Hazel]

Ob jectivity doesn't require all people to see the same thing, just enough people to be able to consider it a reasonable cross section.

And nothing that you say, though its very eloquent, and true in that it shows that we are not perfect in our data collection, observation, understanding etc, it does not mean that there isn't an objective truth or an objective reality. We may only be able to see so much of it, but that doesn't mean its not there. There is an objective truth, any subjective truth is nothing more than something that people believe.

For your example of weighing something, indeed, a different measuring device may measure the weight as slightly different, but objectively we know that the object didn't change weight between the 10th and 11th weigh in, at least not at ore than a molecular level which wouldn't register on a weighing device anyway, instead it shows us that the measuring device is not the same as the other one used. The object itself still has the same objective weight. This is why our tools and technology are just getting better and better, because we are fixing the dissonance between them. If I try weighing myself on one set of scales, and then use a second set of scales straight after, and find a 6oz difference in weight between the two, I know that one, or both are incorrect devices, but that my weight has not changed in the few seconds that I stepped from one to the other. Instead, I would try other weighing devices until they start agreeing... or as I would like to lose weight, I might just stick with the one that shows the lowest weight ;P

[[deleted user]]

Hazel said: I have to ask though, if you read stories relating to 9/11, why is it that you think it was done by the Iraqis?

Well, what gives me that impression? All of the news reports going on? And I rarely watch anything having to do with 9/11 - make sme so sad and depresses me. i have watched some, and read books some, but it's not my preferred subject.

I wasn't accusing anyone, really. I've just heard that it was the Iraq people. Haven't you?

[Mary]

Hazel wrote: "Ob jectivity doesn't require all people to see the same thing, just enough people to be able to consider it a reasonable cross section.

And nothing that you say, though its very eloquent, and tru..."

There may BE "One objective truth." But whatever it may be might not be measurable with the tools we have OR objective truth may be fleeting and one objective truth might be traded for another. Everything changes. Right now I am 5'2 1/2" tall. In ten years as osteoporosis sets in, I may lose an inch in height. Currently, an objective observation is I am 5 feet, 2 and a half inches tall. In ten years, another objective measurement will probably change that. Subjectivity only means that objective data is subject to the parameters we set for it. As parameters are not perfect, there is always an element of subjectivity.

[Hazel]

Kendra wrote: "Hazel said: I have to ask though, if you read stories relating to 9/11, why is it that you think it was done by the Iraqis?

Well, what gives me that impression? All of the news reports going on..."

No, I heard the truth. The 9/11 attacks were carried out by Al Qaeda, which is a stateless Islamic terrorist organisation, which was, until recently, headed by Osama bin Laden, who was not an Iraqi, but from Saudi Arabia, and was actually trained by the american military.

[Mary]

Hazel wrote: "If I try weighing myself on one set of scales, and then use a second set of scales straight after, and find a 6oz difference in weight between the two, I know that one, or both are incorrect devices, but that my weight has not changed in the few seconds that I stepped from one to the other. Instead, I would try other weighing devices until they start agreeing... or as I would like to lose weight, I might just stick with the one that shows the lowest weight ;P
"

But you do not know that your weight has not changed in a few seconds. If you are sweating and a miniscule amount of water weight has left your body and been absorbed into the atmosphere, then a tiny weight change might have occurred in those few seconds.

[Mary]

Kendra wrote: "Well, what gives me that impression? All of the news reports going on? And I rarely watch anything having to do with 9/11 - make sme so sad and depresses me. i have watched some, and read books some, but it's not my preferred subject.

I wasn't accusing anyone, really. I've just heard that it was the Iraq people. Haven't you? "

No. The terrorists who flew into the Twin Towers were primarily from Saudi Arabia.

[Hazel]

I know that those bits of sweat aren;t enough to change my weight by 6lbs.

If I were to use a weighing device that were that sensitive, then yes, i would expect to see some variation in my weight, as dead skin cells fell away, or I sweated, or I digested food. But frankly, I don't need that level of accuracy to track my weight. However, if we take an inanimate object, say a block of iron, then even using delicate measuring devices we can ascertain the blocks weight, the decay weight of iron is low enough for it not to cause fluctuations in its weight. If there are differences shown, it is the fault of the device doing the measuring, not hte thing being measured. The thing being measured still has an objective weight.

And further, at any given point in time, that object has an objective weight (or any other characteristic you care to name), and even if 5 minutes down the line that has changed, the object still has an objective weight (or whatever) at that point in time too. And each element has a set molecular weight, that is a constant, as well as many having a half life, which is a constant. We may not be able to weigh something and get the same result every time, but that is neither here nor there, each time we weighed it, it had a specific objective weight, whether we could measure it accurately or not. They do not acquire weight through the act of being weighed, they have it anyway.

Objective truth can change over time in relation to mass and ratios and such, and at each point in time, it is an objective amount, or quality, and then if you only consider one object (and thus be subjective about that object, as I suddenly realised that your example was still subjective), if instead of looking at the weight of one object made of iron, we simply look at the weight of iron, then the molecular weight is not going to change, it will remain the same no matter how much iron we;re actually talking about. It is a constant. But when it comes to the existence of things, they either exist, or they don't, there is no partial existence, it can't half exist. People can believe something exists, but that doesn't mean that it does, and the objective truth is what really is, whereas subjective truth can be something that is in fact false.

I agree with you that there will always be an element of subjectivity, but that does not detract from there being an objective truth, nor does it mean that we shouldn't try our best to find that objective truth. We may never find it, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Our instruments are getting better and better, so you never know, one day they may be good enough to be objective in a way that we cannot be. Our inability to be completely objective does not preclude nor remove there being an objective truth.

[Hazel]

Mary wrote: " I am going to take a wild leap here and guess you are very left brained in your learning style. Lefties are very linear and structured in their learning style. Everything is sequential and they are very analytical. While I have some left brain traits, I am mostly right brained (when I am analyzing legal issues, I actually turn my head to the left). Righties are extremely visual and they are holistic and intuitive in their learning."

Indeed, I am right handed, which suggests that my left brain is the more dominant, but then I also love art, and am creative too, and am capable of leaps of intuition, and all the things associated with being right brained. I paint, I draw, I knit, on very rare occasions I work in 3D (clay etc). I run roleplays, so I have to come up with story lines and intrigues and that sort of thing to keep other people entertained. I'm a very creative person, and generally quite intuitive, but in debates such as this, I turn to the left side of the force...But yeah, I also can sit for hours playing hidden object games, or untying a knot (which is a useful trait in a knitter ;p)

[Will]

The point is that objective truth doesn't care about human thinking (i.e. subjective truth) as humans are hardly relevant to the universe; however, subjective truth relies heavily on there being an objective truth.

[Hazel]

And will says in one sentence what it took me paragraphs to say :P

[Will]

Lol, but you explained and fleshed it out so well!

[Mary]

Hazel wrote: "I agree with you that there will always be an element of subjectivity, but that does not detract from there being an objective truth, nor does it mean that we shouldn't try our best to find that objective truth. We may never find it, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Our instruments are getting better and better, so you never know, one day they may be good enough to be objective in a way that we cannot be. Our inability to be completely objective does not preclude nor remove there being an objective truth. "

In this we are in total agreement. There are too many variable that we cannot control for imperfect humans to measure/observe, etc. with complete accuracy. For example your statement about the molecular weight of iron. We would have to specify if that iron was weighed at sea level or in an airplane the height of Mt. Everest (or in a vacuum). The gravitational pull would be less the farther we get from earth. So the weight is subjective, while we would approach objectivity for each specific instance of measurement. Since time is the ultimate variable it is impossible for us to measure anything completely objectively without stopping time. There is a reason that science is comprised of theories. The current theory in vogue is just a theory waiting to be disproved or expounded upon.

In terms of the metaphysical, does the possibility exist that at one point in time energy was sentient or if it still is? Is it possible to measure sentience without a common language? Is there a mathematical model for sentience? The more science explains, the more questions arise.

[Molly]

Hazel wrote: "Molly wrote: "There are some objective truths, but when it comes to the existence of god, I don't think it's possible to prove or disprove the existence of god for everyone. The idea of god is big,..."

I see what you mean about proving and disproving something, and you're right. It's impossible to prove something doesn't exist, you have to prove it exists.

[Mary]

Hazel wrote: "Mary wrote: " I am going to take a wild leap here and guess you are very left brained in your learning style. Lefties are very linear and structured in their learning style. Everything is sequentia..."

I am also right handed, but every test of my learning style measures right brain (so maybe my hemispheres are screwed up ). I really do understand your viewpoint Hazel. If every single variable can be accounted for there probably is ONE objective truth. However the variables are so numerous and our methods so imperfect that as humans we may never be able to ascertain just what that ONE objective truth is. As soon as we think we have an answer, then we must begin the process of questioning that answer. Therefore nothing is impossible; improbable perhaps, but not impossible.

[Mary]

Will wrote: "The point is that objective truth doesn't care about human thinking (i.e. subjective truth) as humans are hardly relevant to the universe; however, subjective truth relies heavily on there being an..."

True and the search for objective truth will always be subjective as humans are the ones (that we know of ) doing the searching.