(January 15, 2010 at 6:00 pm)rjh4 Wrote: .

On the other hand, a world view starting with God as the creator of the universe who has revealed to us who He is through His creation and His Word, the Bible, we can know the truth objectively. In this world view, God is truth and if He says He created the universe and it was done in six days and in such an order, and the whole world was flooded, it must be the truth. If it is not, we have no hope for knowing anything. Furthermore, since we are His creatures created to be able to perceive God in His creation and His Word, we can understand all of this as objective truth and recognize the physical results in the world for what it is.

An objective truth is one that has physical evidence to support it.

And the Bible has none.

(January 15, 2010 at 8:18 pm)Zen Badger Wrote: An objective truth is one that has physical evidence to support it.

Really? Then it seems to me that from your own point of view your statement cannot be objectively true unless there is physical evidence to support it. Please tell me what the physical evidence is to support the objective truth of the statement "An objective truth is one that has physical evidence to support it." If there is none, then your statement is self-defeating. In that case, I would ask why even you would believe it.

(January 16, 2010 at 11:22 am)rjh4 Wrote:

(January 15, 2010 at 8:18 pm)Zen Badger Wrote: An objective truth is one that has physical evidence to support it.

Really? Then it seems to me that from your own point of view your statement cannot be objectively true unless there is physical evidence to support it. Please tell me what the physical evidence is to support the objective truth of the statement "An objective truth is one that has physical evidence to support it." If there is none, then your statement is self-defeating. In that case, I would ask why even you would believe it.

The logic reminds me of "Can God create a rock so heavy even he can't lift it?"

How does pointing out the fallacies behind stating subjective things about an objective truth remind you of a loaded question fallacy???

(January 16, 2010 at 11:22 am)rjh4 Wrote: Really? Then it seems to me that from your own point of view your statement cannot be objectively true unless there is physical evidence to support it. Please tell me what the physical evidence is to support the objective truth of the statement "An objective truth is one that has physical evidence to support it." If there is none, then your statement is self-defeating. In that case, I would ask why even you would believe it.

Interesting, a whole bunch of words that sound impressive but actually say nothing.

And an attempt to divert me from my original point that the Bible has no supporting evidence

and therefore cannot be regarded as an "objective truth"

Erm...actually they say quite a lot, and rjh4's point is a valid one. If you claim that objective truths are ones that have physical evidence to support them, then that claim needs to have physical evidence to support it in order for it to be an objective truth (by your own argument).

If it does, present the physical evidence.

If it doesn't, then your assertion that objective truths need physical evidence isn't an objective truth (at least not by your definition), and is therefore subjective, and is therefore subject to your opinion.

You do know the difference between subjective and objective truths don't you?, because from where I'm standing it doesn't seem like it.

(January 16, 2010 at 9:05 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Erm...actually they say quite a lot, and rjh4's point is a valid one. If you claim that objective truths are ones that have physical evidence to support them, then that claim needs to have physical evidence to support it in order for it to be an objective truth (by your own argument).

If it does, present the physical evidence.

If it doesn't, then your assertion that objective truths need physical evidence isn't an objective truth (at least not by your definition), and is therefore subjective, and is therefore subject to your opinion.

You do know the difference between subjective and objective truths don't you?, because from where I'm standing it doesn't seem like it.

I disagree, and it still doesn't adress the issue of the bible being an "objective truth"

when it has no suppoerting evidence except itself.

And yes AH, I am aware of the difference between objective and subjective.

Thank you.

Well then do you care to explain why you disagree? If you actually understood rjh's point, you'd understand the further point about the Bible being a possible objective truth.

The only way i can think to deal with this is to consider the opposite.

An objective truth requires no physical evidence to support it.

The two statements are mutually exclusive, so which would you pick as true.

And rjh4 is still to defend his assertation of the bible being an objective proof.

2 statements that are mutually exclusive doesn't mean there aren't other options. If you claim objective truth needs physical evidence, then who evaluates that evidence? Surely only us, and our methods, all of which are subjective? So you have subjective methods for evaluating physical evidence for possible objective truths? Doesn't this logically lead us only to subjective truths, even if the truths themselves are objective?

On the other hand, if objective truths require no evidence, then anything could be thought up as an objective truth, but all of these cannot be objective truths since things could contradict.

Hence my position, that objective truths, whilst existing at some level, are not knowable to us as objective truths, only subjective. That is to say:

Claim X is an objective (or absolute) truth.
Person Y believes claim X to be true.
Person Y cannot evaluate claim X on any objective level, so his/her belief in claim X is purely subjective.

So even though person Y believes in an objective truth, they do not know it to be an objective truth, only a subjective one.

I should note at this point that my entire claim is of course, subjective, and so could be completely wrong. I do not claim my position on any objective or absolute level, and I accept this.