Sorry, I mistyped "without" as "with", thus changing the entire meaning of my response.
My question is how you can claim objective knowledge of things without any proof. Claiming subjective knowledge is hard enough, and to get the kind of subjective knowledge that comes with everyday observation you need to test many different things in order to find out what works.
Objective proof is an absolute. I don't see how you can simply say "it's my point of view, therefore it's true" when such a statement is subjective (the "point of view" bit highlights that). You've previously asked others on this forum how science can make an absolute truth claim on the claim "Science is a method for establishing truth". It's a good example of logical thinking and shows you somewhat understand the problems of subjective and objective truths, and our position in them.
What you fail to do, however, is to use the same logical thinking on your own beliefs! How can you make the absolute truth claim "the Bible is the word of God because the Bible promises that it is" and not see the bad logic there??? How can you objectively show that this view is the truth, without resorting to "excuses" that believers like you regularly use? It really is infuriating when you rightly observe our assumptions (and when I freely admit to them) and then act like a hypocrite and claim your view makes perfect sense of knowledge when you are making assumptions too!
Ca you at least admit that your view is logically flawed since it involves circular logic? Or else please explain how your Bible is objectively true based on a promise made in the same book!
As for your question:
-Is the universe natural?
I have no knowledge about the universe being natural or not. It certainly appears to be natural, and none of our observations have yet found something supernatural or "other-natural" about it. I don't claim any truth position on it though. I can't.
My question is how you can claim objective knowledge of things without any proof. Claiming subjective knowledge is hard enough, and to get the kind of subjective knowledge that comes with everyday observation you need to test many different things in order to find out what works.
Objective proof is an absolute. I don't see how you can simply say "it's my point of view, therefore it's true" when such a statement is subjective (the "point of view" bit highlights that). You've previously asked others on this forum how science can make an absolute truth claim on the claim "Science is a method for establishing truth". It's a good example of logical thinking and shows you somewhat understand the problems of subjective and objective truths, and our position in them.
What you fail to do, however, is to use the same logical thinking on your own beliefs! How can you make the absolute truth claim "the Bible is the word of God because the Bible promises that it is" and not see the bad logic there??? How can you objectively show that this view is the truth, without resorting to "excuses" that believers like you regularly use? It really is infuriating when you rightly observe our assumptions (and when I freely admit to them) and then act like a hypocrite and claim your view makes perfect sense of knowledge when you are making assumptions too!
Ca you at least admit that your view is logically flawed since it involves circular logic? Or else please explain how your Bible is objectively true based on a promise made in the same book!
As for your question:
-Is the universe natural?
I have no knowledge about the universe being natural or not. It certainly appears to be natural, and none of our observations have yet found something supernatural or "other-natural" about it. I don't claim any truth position on it though. I can't.
