(January 21, 2010 at 2:25 pm)Tiberius Wrote: 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!
Sorry, Adrian, I am not trying to be infuriating.
I do not think I ever said "the Bible is the word of God because the Bible promises that it is", at least not when the whole context of what I said was considered. And I admit that I should not have said that "I can objectively state..." if that is to be taken as a statement of something that can be proven absolutely. My statement would then be inaccurate. I was trying to convey the conviction of my position in view of the Holy Spirit's witness to me. I do realize that is not proof of the objective truth of the statement. In other words, it was not my intent to show a double standard, although I do see how you took it that way.
Over all, I think I have been pretty consistent in saying that God existing and His revelation through creation and His Word, the Bible, were first principles (presuppositions) in my worldview. So I guess you could reasonably say that these first principles are foundational assumptions that are not deduced from any other proposition or assumption. All other things are subordinate to these in my worldview, hence my previous statement that logic and science are useful tools for discovery within the created universe but it would be inappropriate within my worldview to use these tools to try to prove my first principles.
In comparison, any other worldview must also begin with a set of first principles (set X) and everything else subordinate to these.
So if one begins with a set of first principles and from them demonstrates something and says that this confirms the first principles, it is not a proof of the first principles. But if the conclusion of confirming the first principles is taken as or meant as proof of the first principles, the argument would be seen as or be circular.
Does this make my position any more clear?
I don't know where we are on any other issues/questions in this thread as things are getting so long. So if you would like me to address something previously mentioned, you might want to ask again. Thanks.
