Scientific method proves order cannot exist w/o intelligence

[Tiberius]

As you have demonstrated (and I agree with you), observation / science is no way of knowing objective truths. Everything we observe or experience is subjective, since it requires us to interpret at some point.

I don't think I would go so far as to say that. I think one can know some objective truths via observation/science. I just think it has its limits in determining objective truths. I think science/observation/logic are tools God has given us to interact with creation but they are not the ultimate standard/determiner of objective truth.

How can a subjective method such as science determine any objective truths? We designed it, we implement it, we evaluate the results. Everything to do with science depends on our interpretation at every stage. I agree that you can know some objective truths through science, but you can't know you know them (i.e. you have no way of verifying that the truths given by science are objective). So how could you possibly argue that you can determine objective truths through science? Are you saying that you can obtain them without knowing that they are objective, or are you really saying that you can determine in some objective way that the truths are also objective?

Let's face it, even those who argue that objective truths are not knowable, generally live their lives and use language to the contrary.

I live my live according to what I believe, and what I claim to know relatively. Whenever I say "I know X" I mean relatively (unless it is some form of logical proof). The fact that some people may live their lives like this doesn't have anything to do with the point raised though.

My whole point in the questioning was that I do not think atheism can account for objective truth, only relative truth, and, therefore, self-destructs as a worldview.

How so? Why should objective truth require a God? Truth is simple what is, what happens. Our view on truth is subjective because we have to evaluate it using fallible minds, but this doesn't mean truths don't exist. A particle X is at position Y at time Z. Truth is what is at any instance you choose.

For me, the whole God idea confuses the issue. It puts that some being created knowledge, but that the knowledge this being had wasn't created, it always "was". The only answers I've had to these common objections are of the form "God is eternal", "God can't be understood by us", and "man's thinking is far inferior to God's". None of these are reasons or explanations, but petty excuses. If atheism cannot account for objective truth, neither can theism since it cannot account for God, who in turn is accountable for objective truth. You only move the goalposts back and then say the goal can't be understood, as if that means your argument is sound...

Reading the Bible to obtain truth is a subjective action for the reasons you cited, especially for the unbeliever but even to some degree for the believer. The believer, however, has the promise of the Holy Spirit to guide him into all truth (John 16:13). So to the degree that a believer lives a Spirit controlled life and studies the Word of God, the believer can know objective truths beyond the common objective truths we know from observation/science, i.e., those found in the Word of God.

So by subjectively reading John 16:13 and interpreting that as a promise that the book is objectively true, the believer knows objective truths contained within the book?

How is that not a fancy way of saying "The Bible is true because The Bible says it is"? Reading John 16:13 as a promise that objective truth is revealed through God's word (John 16:13 ironically being...God's word) can only be held as an assumption, since it cannot be verified as true. You cannot hope to use the Bible to prove the Bible as some kind of truth and still maintain intellectual honesty. As an assumption, it has the ability to be wrong, and if it is wrong, the Bible cannot be held as objective truth.

As to the second part of your question, from within my worldview I can objectively state that the Bible is the Word of God because of the above noted promise of the Holy Spirit. In Romans 8:13 it also says that the Holy Spirit bears witness without our (believer's) spirit that we are the children of God. So from the witness of the Holy Spirit, I can know I am a child of God and that the Bible is God's Word and I can state this as confidently as I could state that I have a hand (I do, by the way...I have two of them).

That's not an objective statement. You are saying "The Bible is the Word of God because The Holy Spirit made a promise in the Bible that this was true." It is circular reasoning.

Not only are God and the Holy Spirit the same being (trinity), but even by separating them you have an argument from authority in the form of "the Holy Spirit promised, therefore it must be true". This only works if you make the assumption that the Holy Spirit exists, and that whatever it says is truth. An objective truth cannot simply be asserted without evidence or reasoning, and your assertion has neither!

However, from outside my worldview, I realize all of that would seem to imply assumptions and subjectivity, especially since I cannot prove to you what goes on inside me. But, the fact remains that any worldview begins with some unprovable premises, things that we take as self-evident or self-attesting, and from which our worldview flows. The unprovable premises that provide the basis for an atheistic worldview seem always to lead to relativism which self-destructs or cannot otherwise account for any intelligibility of the universe.

Here you go on about unprovable premises again, which isn't true. Logic isn't built on unprovable premises.

Even if it was true, the unprovable premise that the universe is natural and knowledge exists because matter does (matter having a steady state at a specific moment in time) is a far less complicated premise than "God exists, he wrote a book, and the book asserts he exists". Heck, at least my worldview doesn't involve circular logic...