I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Jon Paul]

Ok JP,

What I meant by validate was that it makes people who already believe in god feel they have an intelligent reason for their belief. I would refute your beliefs by saying that morality, theology, psychology, religion, law, politics, science, economics, democracy, socialism, in fact all things relating to ways of measuring reality are in fact subjective constructs of the human mind. Yes, even science, which really only considers any conclusion as a subjective approximation of understanding reality.

But this doesn't address in any meaningful way either the orthodox TAG or the "a posteriori" version of TAG I formulated some pages ago in this thread.

Neither of those arguments deny that humans are subjective, nor do they claim humans can reach an absolute and total objective understanding of reality. What the theistic side claims, is to the contrary, that the reality of things such as truth and logic, exist and apply to the natural world as conceptual realities independently of the human recognition of it, wheras the atheistic side is led to the conclusion that they only apply to the natural world insofar as humans recognise they do (absurd).

1) Humans can't comprehend things objectively

If that is true, then that statement is not objective, and it therefore varies subjectively whether humans can comprehend objective things.

---

Concepts physically reside in the brain.

That is not what I mean with conceptual. Maybe I should say "ideal" instead, as in pertaining to idea, or maybe "epistemic", as pertaining to a knowledge, or maybe something else. I don't know. But in any case - with conceptual, I mean simply that it is not material, spatial or temporal. You cannot weigh logic, measure it, photograph it. Logic means the rules and laws of reality that apply to matter and energy, and in time and space, but logic is not itself matter, energy or time and space; it is itself conceptual, because it is that which applies to matter, and energy, and in time and space, e.g. the rules and patterns of their behaviour, but is not it self any of them, but yet it is real because it applies to them.

Give evidence for that please.

Read the argument as I formulated it below.

What it means? It means you have failed to substantiate your claim that "objective truth exists independently of us (..) independent of us, and independent of whether we believe in it or not", because to substantiate the claim that logic and truth exists independently of the intellectual realm, you are forced to appeal to the intellectual realm, by exactly appealing to your (as an intellect/nous/mind) own conceptual realisation of logic and truth. You have demonstrated the opposite of your claim (that logic and truth exist somehow apart from mind): namely that logic and truth are conceptual realities, that only exist insofar as intellect exists.

Does that mean that logic and truth are not real? No. It means that conceptual realisation that they do, is exactly a realisation of an actually existing reality which is conceptual, and that a conceptual reality thus applies to the natural world, is true of objects that exist in the natural world (object X exists, X is not not X, and X does not not exist). It has no implications for whether logic and truth are real or not; but for what kind of reality they are. They are known realities, thought realities, conceptual realities.

And in reality, we already knew this, by way of knowing logics fundamental transcendence of all non-intellectual parts of reality. For truth and logic cannot be weighed, cannot be measured, cannot be photographed, and are therefore not a material; and the truth and logic apply both before and now, here and there, that is, don't change based on distance in space or time, and are therefore not spatial or temporal. It is not a physical reality, in other words, it is a transcendent conceptual reality that applies to the physical reality but is not itself equal to it.

But what is the implication of this? Let's consider it. I am starting with analysing atheism, the non-affirmation of Gods existence. The realisation of the intellectually confined nature of the conceptual reality of logic and truth, leads to the nonsense conclusion, given atheism, that the truth is not true and is not a reality, and logic is not a reality, unless it is conceptually defined to be reality by a human being, for that is the only kind of intellect and mind that we actually know exists, given atheism.

The absurdity is striking: the conceptual reality of logic does not apply to the physical world unless a human mind agrees with it, has thought up logic, which would mean that it didn't apply unless and before temporal human minds existed, which would mean that the physical world necessary to produce human minds would have never pre-existed human minds in such a manner of obeying the conceptual realities necessary to produce human minds.

But we know, after the effect that this is not so; we know that the natural world did exist in such a manner of obeying the conceptual realities necessary to produce human minds, because human minds were produced, and we are obviously here to attest to it. This knowledge, after the effect, leads to the conclusion of a intellectual reality transcendent to temporal human existence; an eternal and subsistent intellect (mind) independent of temporal human minds (God), sufficient to produce the conceptual reality necessary to produce human minds in the natural world, by transcending the subjective conceptual realisation of any temporal intellect of the transcendent conceptual realities.

I know of no evidence for 'free will' outside the 'compatibilist' sense, (..)

All I meant was will; call it free will, call it unfree will.