On Hell and Forgiveness

[RoadRunner79]

If I owed you a dollar, and gave you three quarters, I’m guessing that the objective nature of the number 4 would be cleared up pretty quickly.   Maybe you wouldn’t be too concerned about a quarter but, but we can always increase the value.

No, it wouldn't. But by all means, further underscore my opinion of you as an idiot.

Cool... can you lend me a thousand dollars. When I pay you back one dollar and call it the same, it’s good to know you won’t dispute it?

Actually I suspect that this is just another case of an atheist not understanding what is meant by objective in the ontological sense. However I don’t see how a number in the other sense can be subjective either.

Edit: or in other words, we’re not talking about the same thing.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Fine.  Show me an example of the number four existing in the universe.

LOL, so in a debate about the existence of non-physical objects, of which the number 4 is an example, you'll only be satisfied if someone produces the number 4 as a physical object. Yeah...that sounds reasonable.

[Angrboda]

Fine.  Show me an example of the number four existing in the universe.

LOL, so in a debate about the existence of non-physical objects, of which the number 4 is an example, you'll only be satisfied if someone produces the number 4 as a physical object. Yeah...that sounds reasonable.

Produce an abstract concept independent of mind then. I'll wait.

[RoadRunner79]

Fine.  Show me an example of the number four existing in the universe.

LOL, so in a debate about the existence of non-physical objects, of which the number 4 is an example, you'll only be satisfied if someone produces the number 4 as a physical object. Yeah...that sounds reasonable.

It seems to me, that the number or quantity of something is the same, no matter if you call it four or quatro. Whether you are talking about dollars, pesos or euros; apples or oranges. Unless you are talking bolivars in which case four is essentially equal to zero.

[Crossless2.0]

LOL, so in a debate about the existence of non-physical objects, of which the number 4 is an example, you'll only be satisfied if someone produces the number 4 as a physical object. Yeah...that sounds reasonable.

Produce an abstract concept independent of mind then.  I'll wait.

That's easy.

"4" will be an abstract concept in the 'mind' of another abstract concept (i.e., Yahweh). 

Right, Neo? 

[Angrboda]

No, it wouldn't.  But by all means, further underscore my opinion of you as an idiot.

Cool... can you lend me a thousand dollars. When I pay you back one dollar and call it the same, it’s good to know you won’t dispute it?  

Actually I suspect that this is just another case of an atheist not understanding what is meant by objective in the ontological sense.  However I don’t see how a number in the other sense can be subjective either.

Feel free to enlighten me about what objective means in the ontological sense.

[SteveII]

I will re-phrase. The concept of 4 objects is, well...objective. It is what we mean in every day language, but put more precisely.

[RoadRunner79]

Cool... can you lend me a thousand dollars. When I pay you back one dollar and call it the same, it’s good to know you won’t dispute it?  

Actually I suspect that this is just another case of an atheist not understanding what is meant by objective in the ontological sense.  However I don’t see how a number in the other sense can be subjective either.

Feel free to enlighten me about what objective means in the ontological sense.

It means that it’s nature is based on something outside of and independent of the subject. Whereas subjective would be based on and dependent of the subject such as tastes or feelings. It’s like the sci-fi shows, where they always use numbers to communicate with ET, because numbers are a universal and not dependent on us.

[Neo-Scholastic]

LOL, so in a debate about the existence of non-physical objects, of which the number 4 is an example, you'll only be satisfied if someone produces the number 4 as a physical object. Yeah...that sounds reasonable.

Produce an abstract concept independent of mind then.  I'll wait.

First define what you mean by mind.

[Silver]

First define what you mean by mind.

That thing you lack?