3RU7AL

The more reliable experiences are not 100% reliable (Hume), but they don't need to be.

What is "more"? If you don't know what 100% truth is, then how can you claim that something is not 100%?

Only NOW can we say it is TRUE that the Sun emits invisible rays of light, and has, as far as we reasonably can tell, (retroactively) ALWAYS emitted invisible rays of light.

But it was always true.

The only difference is that the information was disseminated through a standard you accept. But both the opinion and the verification could reach the same conclusion.

You rely on verification because its reproducible while the opinion, not so much.

And, in reference to your excellent example, just like Schrodinger's wonderful-wonderful cat, the "photographs" are in a "quantum-super-state" up to and until the box is opened.

And is this quantum superstate empirically verifiable?

What is an axiom? It's an accepted self-evident truth [NOUMENON, COGITO]. It precedes logic. Logic doesn't create the axiom [ALTHOUGH LOGIC CAN VERIFY AN AXIOM]. Logic as you stated uses it to discover "real-true-facts." But logic isn't the axiom or even the system of axioms. It's a system of reasoning which depends on axioms [AND MUST BE COHERENT AND EFFICACIOUS].

When did you "choose" to love them?

When I chose to put their wants and needs before my own. When I sacrificed myself on their behalf, willingly, not begrudgingly or out of obligation or duty.  

When did you "choose" to love them?

Love is an action if you are speaking of biblical love.

These are practical, scalable guidelines that apply equally to individuals, families, companies and nations.

You treat "others" as either allies or enemies.  The more allies you have, the better you are able to protect yourself.

Conversely, some may argue that the more enemies you get rid of the better you are to protect yourself.

No, it orchestrates punishment during this life too, not only justly but unjustly punishment.

Please be slightly more specific.

We face punishment in this lifetime too by our choices, not only imposed by human laws, justices and injustices, but under the surface imposed by God.

Is the Qur'an it's own interpreter?

Is the Book of Mormon it's own interpreter?

Is the Bhagavad Gita it's own interpreter?

To an extent. To find out the meaning you have to understand the author's meaning. Does it have the cross-references to authenticate and reinforce its meaning that does not contradict its own writings or the experiential test?

(1) PROTECT YOURSELF

(2) PROTECT YOUR CLOSE FRIENDS AND FAMILY

(3) PROTECT YOUR LAND

The keyword and common denominator is 'your.' What about others? 

Please describe to me the very first time you "chose" to LOVE another person?

First, what is love? What are you speaking of when you say "love?"

Which, in your opinion, only specifies punishment AFTER you die (and can be circumvented completely by repentance rendering it MOOT).

No, it orchestrates punishment during this life too, not only justly but unjustly punishment.

Please describe to me the very first time you "chose" to like eating food?

Please describe to me the very first time you "chose" each of your favorite foods?

IMO, you confuse ethical choices with biological needs and personal tastes. Eating food is a biological need. Liking a particular food is a personal taste.

What it means is that it explains itself.

Correct.  An omniscient omnipotent god created all human desires and instincts and knew exactly what I would do at the dawn of time.

He created us with the ability to desire. He did not choose those desires for us, we do/did.

The Word of God.

Now, where is yours?

Try changing that nature and you will realize you are under bondage.

Why is what you do good unless there is a standard of best that is our appeal?

God's word is its own interpreter.

...provided I interpret it correctly.

There is a correct way to interpret any text.

You must understand the author's meaning to correctly intepret. 

Today, in modern times the lesson is,

1) To obey the laws of the land,

2) To not hold a grudge personally but to love not only our neighbours but our enemies, 

3) To not seek an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth,

4) That these Ten Commandments are still binding but mercy is also at play.

Jesus even elaborates on two of them, adultery and what that means, and hatred and anger in relation to murders.

5) Jesus has met the letter of the law for the believer. He has satisfied its righteousness on behalf of those who have faith and trust in Him. 

This is another RED-HERRING.

No, it is not. Whatever I say you will have another objection.

How can you see a glass of water if you can't see ALL water?

It has to do with your use of proportions like 100%. If you're claiming that we cannot conclude it to be 100% true, that would mean that you have some conception of its being 100% true especially if you're going to relate our "current state." I'm essentially asking you how can you conceive a notion of 100% while simultaneously being unable to make a conclusion 100%?

For example, Plato's Parable of the MMORPG. [LINK]

What is the significance in creating a distinction between a subjective judgement and an intersubjective judgement?

I do not dispute that it's an opinion. My dispute is that this opinion is excluded from the truth, even when determined after the fact, that it was always true.

Your suggestion makes it so that "truth" is subordinate to verification and logic, when it's not.

For example, logic does not create truth. It merely communicates truths using a consistent metric (if this is true, and this is true, then this is true; this is true, so this true and vice versa.)

It stands to reason that logic must conform to the truths, not the other way around.

I cannot add a false statement to an otherwise true syllogism and argue that it's "true" because of logic.

The same goes with verification. Using the example above, you cannot correctly characterize a statement as "inaccurate" if its truth has been determined (even post facto.)

Only that it contains some inescapable, undeniable truth(s).

We cannot conclude that it is 100% true.

How can you conceive a proportion when your claim is that you cannot perceive the whole?

You still have not substantiated how "Real, Fact, and/or True" is necessarily scientifically verifiable (and/or logically necessary) and how "Real, Fact, and/or True necessarily excludes opinion.

You've argued that opinion is indistinguishable from Gnosis (private information/subjective experience) and you've argued before that objectivity is logically incoherent. So where does "Real, Fact, and/or True" lie?

Was it inaccurate to state that family photos were the content of that chest?

No. Because before "verification," old family photos being the content of that chest was true.

So making the opinion that there were old family photos in the chest was "true" or accurate independent of verification. 

So once again, I ask: is scientifically verifiable the same as truth?

That does not mean they get out of jail free for their earthly crimes. They still need to serve the sentence.  

It's "free" because they merely need to repent (regret) and believe.

So you don't believe in second chances. You don't believe in extending mercy to those who have truly changed their behaviour. 

Objective morality must be a set of clear, non-context-sensitive, Quantifiable LOGICALLY COHERENT principles and or specific rules that each have specific, prescribed consequences that have NO EXCEPTIONS.

All you've provided are SUBJECTIVE guidelines (no death penalty for cursing a parent) with zero detectable consequences (eternal hellfire + whatever your local government says).

The death penalty was a Mosaic law. Prove otherwise?

You're conflating moral instinct and our personal agreement with "objective morality".

You can read it that way. What I am doing is expressing a biblical truth. How you take it is up to you.

I want to know which (real-world) laws and punishments should be changed based on specific, non-opinion-based, "objective" "Bible" verses.

Then you need to answer some questions. 

What would be equal justice for a murderer? Do you have a reply or can anything be equally just?

I want hard-and-fast rules (and specific real-world punishments) that apply equally to all people in all situations.

Okay, you want justice, not mercy. 

It's even worse if I do believe in Jesus Christ because that belief (and repentance) turns into an infinite GET OUT OF HELL FREE CARD!!

The New Testament's over - all message appears, on the surface to be about loving your neighbor and turning the other cheek, give away your possessions etc, yet there are clear verses in these scripture that indicate quite the opposite.

I'm guessing by that standard, I'm already doomed to maximum punishment, so throwing in a few more violations here and there won't make any difference.

That depends on whether you believe in Jesus Christ...

Isn't this a Boolean function?  Any sin no matter how slight and you burn in (unverifiable) hell forever and ever?

The Bible expresses that sin separates us from a holy God.

So, no "objective" punishments (before death).

When the punishment complies with God's righteous standard, yes.

Are you talking about immediate, real-life, scientifically verifiable death, or some metaphysical or spiritual sort of "death"?

Spiritual death.

Are you suggesting that god endorses all governments and their actions are de facto acts of god's will?

Not always endorses but allows.

These cultures adopt a lot of the Ten Commandments. 

So, god alone, without human assistance, enforces the Ten Commandments?

Ultimately yet sometimes the appearance is that someone gets away with murder (I.e., O. J. Simpson or Hitler).

How is this "objective"?

You know that it is wrong to murder, lie, steal, commit adultery, yet you break these commandments. Thus, you know what is wrong. You have an innate sense that these things are objective, not merely your subjective opinion or feelings yet you still do them. You see the principles included and stated in most societal laws throughout history.