I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Edwardo Piet]

But you are only proving my point. The transcendence of conceptual realities beyond our minds and beyond subjective construction is an intuition and idea which is based on the fundamental knowledge we have through our sense experience of the world and the objects in it.

We know what we know through our own experience of life, we can only - in any given moment - know what we know, yes. It's subjective, yes. So what?

You have not shown that an 'objective mind' exists.

Objective truth exists in the real world. X either does or doesn't exist. We do our best subjectivily to reach this. There's no reason to believe that objective truth in the real world has to be an objective 'mind'.

Objective truth can exist whether we can necessarily correctly reach it or not. There doesn't have to be any transcendence.

The problem is that you are positing truth to be merely a matter of convention and construction.

Something is either objectivly true or it isn't. That's logically obvious by definition. Something does or doesn't exist. Something has colour or it doesn't. It makes a sound or it does, etc, etc. Duh.

Objective truth exists in the real world. Our subjective minds can be right or wrong about that. There's no reason to believe in any transcendence.

Whereas, I don't advocate the position of us having or being the absolute truth as subjective individuals. I advocate the position that it exactly exists independently of us

As do I. But we cannot absolutely know it because we all have our own subjective minds. This is fine. There's no reason for absolute knowlege to be needed, no reason for any 'objective mind' to be needed. And no reason for any 'transcendence' that you speak of.

There is a possibility we are right or wrong. The possibility of being right about what is objectivly out there is all that is needed. We do not need absolute knowledge or transcendece, there doesn't have to be an 'objective mind'. Objective truth can exist in the real world anyway.

You are only really proving my point, by positing the truth of the logical absolute known as the law of contradiction, as something which is fundamentally warranted by our sense experience of the world and the objects in it. In other words, our subjective minds have grasped a conceptual reality which exists indepedependently of us grasping it, which is a viewpoint you are unable to take because your epistemic structure reduces it to a subjective convention which is only true because it is thought to be true[...]

The fact this world in our experiences appears to have evidence backing it up, that shows that hthis world is rational and logical, that follows laws, shows us that things logically do or don't exist etc. We could be wrong, this isn't absoultely proven, objective proof might not exist out there, but there is evidence.

You say that logic has to be established before we can evidence anything. But the thing is, we are born and grow up with some rationality and logic anyway, it's just the way we think as humans, and we learn through education. And our experience is evidence for the logic and rationality of the world. So I do not agree that evidence doesn't start before logic.

Evidence is what beliefs are based on. If you believe the universe is logical and you believe in logical rules and have logical thoughts, that is because you have evidence for such things. If the evidence is correct then that's knowlege, it can also be incorrect and it turns out that it 'wasn't evidence', but the point is that all beliefs are in some sense related to evidence. Because they're either based on evidence or lacking in evidence, so it's basically all evidence focused, either evidence or a lack of it.

Exactly. We don't "transcend our minds" in and of ourselves. We understand and experience subjectively. Which is why, if there is not an objective conceptual reality of logical absolutes, exisiting independently of subjective minds,

This makes sense...

in an objective intelligence that can conceive

This doesn't follow -

IF objective truth exists then we don't need to absolutely know it. There's no reason that it has to be shown to us by an 'objective mind/intelligence'/'God'. There's no reason to believe in transcendence.

The issue is that you construct the truth to be the consensus of some people; not because it's just simply the truth regardless of what anyone thinks about it; not because it's a conceptual reality which we confirm through our experience. Not because we, as subjects, are approaching something greater than a subjective consensus, through our intelligent understanding of reality: namely an objective truth which is a conceptual reality wholly independent of what we think about it, or to which extent our consensus affirms it; but exactly only because of your construction.

No. Objective truth can exist without an objective mind. We don't need to know of it for it to exist, there doesn't have to be transcendence.

Truth doesn't exist because of my belief. It exists independent of that. Because of the evidence of all the logic and rationality in this universe independent of my own personal beliefs (stuff happens that I disagree with and don't accept, etc, etc, etc, etc).

There is evidence that this world has logical laws, I believe this through my experience. I do not believe that I create logic itself and that it's 'only because of construction'.

You believe truth is objective and so do I. You believe there is an 'objective mind' too, I do not - and there's no reason to believe that.

There's no reason for transcendence to exist. As you say - objective truth exists independently of us. So we don't have to be transcended by an objective mind. It exists independent of us, and independent of whether we believe in it or not.

I believe objective truth exists. I don't have to absolutely know that for it to exist. There doesn't have to be any transcendence.

That means that, you might construct the truth to be atheism, under this subjectivism, but I might construct it to be Christianity. In either case, we are equally right,

No, because there's no actual logical indication for God existing. In other words - no evidence. This is indepedent of whether stuff is subjective or not. The logic we are brought up in matters, it is not all equal. Because all the logic any of us have ever known is understood subjectively...all the logic in the known universe is understood subjectively!!.

It continues to be a complete total and utter failure on your part when you continue to assert that evidence cannot exist rationally without an objective mind, and that the fact we have subjective minds, without an objective mind means 'anything is just as true as anything else'. This is nonsense.

How is this nonsense? No, not because we absolutely know it. Once again - evidence through experience without any need for an objective mind.

No objective mind doesn't mean that 'anything goes' regards to truth. People can believe what they like - that doesn't make it so. There's no evidence for that.


Important bit:
All beliefs are established on evidence or related to it - a lack of it (faith), and our beliefs are what we understand about the world. So evidence has to be established before logic, because we can only understand logic through our beliefs, and beliefs are to be based on evidence (or bad evidence, a lack of it - 'faith').

If the world was chaotic and worked completely different to how it logically does, then our experience of that would be evidence of that. Since all our beliefs are based on our evidence, right or wrong - even logic itself is.

Logic exists independent of us. But we only have a reason to believe in it because there's evidence of it - if the world was chaotic and insane and a lot less logical, we'd have a reason to believe it was like that instead. Whether we'd be capable considering how irrational, chaotic and illogical the universe would be

So JP, I will end this post by saying that you can't be asserting objective or subjecive truth as a choice before evidence. Because if objective truth exists on the outside (as I believe it does) - this exists independent of our beliefs.

On the question of choosing to believe in an objecitve mind or not, we absolutely do need to demand evidence first. As we do to believe anything. Beliefs are a matter of evidence or lack of it, they are a matter of evidence or faith. And evidence is the rational way.

You even can't assert logic at me before evidence. Because whether I believe in your 'logic' or not, shall be based on evidence. Your logic could be wrong. I'll let my evidence decide.

EvF