Here is an example of a truth.

"I have a computer."

Since I can produce said computer and the fact that I am posting on this forum is further evidence to

the existence of that computer would you call it an objective or subjective truth?

I am demonstrating the truth of my statement by example, which the only evidence

i can produce in this case.

P.s what would you consider as a "subjective truth"

You can produce said computer, but said computer could easily be a mass delusion that we are all suffering from. Various scientific measurements obtained confirming the existence of the computer could also be in error, or our use of the scientific measurements could also be part of a mass delusion.

I believe the only way humans can obtain knowledge is through subjective means (since at some point, our brains are used in interpretation), thus all current knowledge we have is subjective in nature. Physical evidence certainly helps us confirm a subjective truth, but it doesn't make it objective, since physical evidence itself has to be observed by us in the same way the truth is observed.

What would I consider a subjective truth? Every piece of knowledge we have gained so far in human history. Some of them may be objective knowledge as well, but we have no way of telling subjective knowledge from objective knowledge, and certainly no way of confirming something as objective knowledge.

Who's been watching the Matrix again???

Hmmmm

"The Matrix" contained philosophical ideas on knowledge, how you can know what is real, etc. Not the other way around. The philosophical ideas defined the film; the film didn't define the ideas.

I suggest you have a read up on objective/subjective truths. The question of how we can know what we know is one that has stuck with philosophers for years. If you think you've solved it by saying that "objective truths require physical evidence" then you are very sadly mistaken...

(January 12, 2010 at 9:24 am)scientist Wrote: Thanks for all the great responses, sorry for delays in replying.

It's really simple guys. Your claim that "order can exist w/o an intellgent being guiding it" is radical, subjective and the burden of proof falls on you atheists.

It's because this cannot be:

1) seen in a controlled laboratory for objectivity. Your observations of order are entirely subjective.

2) The claim is contradictory to basic logic, even common sense. Inorganic objects do not fall into order by themselves.

ok then so simply put somthing left to its own devices that starts in chaos can not become orderly? And well as far as "basic logic" your missing the word flawed inbetween your C and L... here little exspiriment you can do ..... put a bunch of sugar or salt into water stir it up real good so its all nice and chaotic... then let it sit... you get these crystal things..... looks like order to me....

(January 12, 2010 at 9:24 am)scientist Wrote: Thanks for all the great responses, sorry for delays in replying.

It's really simple guys. Your claim that "order can exist w/o an intellgent being guiding it" is radical, subjective and the burden of proof falls on you atheists.

I'm sorry mate but you were the one who started the thread with the claim "Scientific method proves order cannot exist w/o intelligence" and thus you are the one with the burden of proof. Any attempt on your part to shift the burden of proof will be called as a failure to support your position.

Not only that but you are yet to show any methodology what so ever, thus far you have done nothing more than demonstrate your utter ignorance of the scientific method.

Quote:It's because this cannot be:

1) seen in a controlled laboratory for objectivity. Your observations of order are entirely subjective.

Actually no, the order is never defined subjectively, they are mathematically ordered forms, often something that is mathematically ordered appears to us subjectively as something entirely chaotic, so your point falls flat in both instances.

Quote:2) The claim is contradictory to basic logic, even common sense. Inorganic objects do not fall into order by themselves.

Mindless natural forces acting on object(s) ≠ Falling info order by themselves.

I must ask, did you actually think that a single person here would believe you are a Scientist? And here i was thinking you lot considered bearing false witness a sin...

(January 17, 2010 at 12:02 am)Tiberius Wrote: You can produce said computer, but said computer could easily be a mass delusion that we are all suffering from. Various scientific measurements obtained confirming the existence of the computer could also be in error, or our use of the scientific measurements could also be part of a mass delusion.

I believe the only way humans can obtain knowledge is through subjective means (since at some point, our brains are used in interpretation), thus all current knowledge we have is subjective in nature. Physical evidence certainly helps us confirm a subjective truth, but it doesn't make it objective, since physical evidence itself has to be observed by us in the same way the truth is observed.

What would I consider a subjective truth? Every piece of knowledge we have gained so far in human history. Some of them may be objective knowledge as well, but we have no way of telling subjective knowledge from objective knowledge, and certainly no way of confirming something as objective knowledge.

This is just like the old argument,

"how can you provethat we are not all brains kept in jars"

Well we can't, Science can only go on the evidence it has,

If that evidence has been fabricated there is not a lot we can do about it.

We have to work on the basis that the world we live in is real,

at least on on our level of existence.(But that is a whole 'nother discussion)

Yes, and so you cannot make the statement that objective truths require physical evidence. That is an argument being made on the assumption that the world we live in is real, or at least the observations we make are real. Since this is an assumption, it can be false.

(January 17, 2010 at 9:17 am)Tiberius Wrote: Yes, and so you cannot make the statement that objective truths require physical evidence. That is an argument being made on the assumption that the world we live in is real, or at least the observations we make are real. Since this is an assumption, it can be false.

Yes,this is true, it could be falsified.

And that is the basis of all science.

But until it is..............

Sorry, but logic doesn't work like that. If an argument is based on an assumption you can't just say "well, until the assumption is proven, we'll assume it is true".

What you have to admit, is that science assumes materialism in order to work, and on that assumption the entirety of science stands. Assumptions aren't good places to stand upon...