Reece

I agree that they're collective, I don't agree that they're independent and I can prove it.  If it's independent that means my opinion can't change it. 

lets say we got 3 people who believe something and then 2 change their mind.  That was just a case of their opinions changing it.  Therefore, it's not independent. 

I agree they're not mutually exclusive.  That doesn't speak to what you're trying to prove.  It's not mutually exclusive in any model that I know of. So this is just the same as all other models. 

Okay and when you explain yourself and your opponent disagrees with your definition, then what happens?  Do you give up and use the popular terms or do you waste time defining? 

Well don't scald me too hard.  You're the one that lumped them into a category.  I'm justified to think you had a reason for doing this.  So prey tell what do they have in common such that they fall into the same group?  I'll let you answer so I'm not putting words in your mouth. 

Sure.  If you say 2 or more people equals objective, then any two people agreeing on something is objective right?   So if me and you agree that unicorns exist that makes it so right? 

All opinions are personal.  That's just a word trick.  If I have 3 people with the same opinion then those are 3 personal opinions. Just because you arbitrarily categorized them as being something bigger doesn't change what they are at the fundamental level.  A particle doesn't stop being a particle just because it's inside an atom. The very fact that you have to argue simple definitions like this only goes to further prove my point that your confusing language is impractical. 

Lemme ask you this.  Would you rather spend your debate arguments defining things every two lines or debating?

What specifically about science makes it on the same level as religion?  What are religions standards for testing the truth of something?  Because science has a very strict process.  Religions give you a rulebook and tell you to follow it.  How is that reliable. 

 Furthermore, you missed the point of my contention.  Your standard can make anything true by opinion.  Your standard could literally have people arguing over the color of the sky and by your standard, all of them would be right.  Rape would be right and wrong at the same time.  Gravity would be true and false at the same time. How do you not see a problem with this?

...1} what is being processed ex photon of specific frequency, and,

....2} how it is being processed  by biologic animal, plant fungus, bacteria etc.

Both are objectively true irrespective if the resultant after processing is the same for each biologic.

Cool so we're in agreement on the concept of it at least.  That's the important part. 

1) Your definition was "2 or more people"  That means I can get two people together and now I have objectivity.  That doesn't follow because 

      A) Objectivity is suppose to be apart from opinion

B) Objectivity is suppose to be consistent in all time and all places and this system could produce contradictory truths. which is bad.

2)  Once I can get two or more people together to prove a truth.  I can prove anything, including pseudo science.  So now every god exist, so does the tooth fairy, Santa, Unicorns, Realicorns, Supercorns (Made that one up but all I need is two people).  Yeah.  I would say that door is pretty wide open. 

I wasn't using it as an argument against you.  I was trying to help you with the definitions so you can communicate with people better in debates.  I'm all for personal definitions and I use them often, but What I've learned in a debate is that if you want to actually get points across, you need to speak a language that people can understand or you'll get blown out of the water every time because nobody is going to follow what you say and that will make them not believe you.  This is all my opinion so take it how you like. 

Objective means that we all experience it the same way apart from our opinions or distortions. 

Your definition is overly simplistic and opens the door for pseudo science.  

So subjective is feelings. 

Objective is experience

and Absolute is actual.  

This is the way people use this terms.  Since words are defined ad populum, that makes you the one who is wrong. 

Like I said.  I don't subscribe to this.  To me, objective and metaphysical are one and the same. But I have So subjective is feelings. 

Bob believes X.  Bob's Church believes X.  X is objectively true.  X could be gravity in this case, or some similar thing. 

Objective, by definition, means that it's true apart from human opinion.

How so?

I suppose I should "choose" my words carefully then.

Choice =/= free will

Choice is merely an act of choosing between multiple possibilities.

The act says nothing about whether free will is occurring.