Scientific method proves order cannot exist w/o intelligence

[Tiberius]

All of your add ons in parenthesis except for the last one are all in the most mundane way impossibilities in our world as is evidenced by our everyday observation of throwing a ball up in the air. A ball with weight and mass (for instance a baseball) will not remain suspended or rising indefinitely, and no matter how hard you throw a ball it will not break free from Earths gravitational force. It is in this context that I would consider my example an absolute truth that anyone in the same ballpark as I could confirm by conducting the same experiment.

Everyday observation isn't absolute. Science advances by everyday observation doing something it's never done before (at least not in front of us before). Physics equations will show you that if you throw a ball fast enough, it will escape the Earth. We do it every month with rockets and space shuttles. The only difference between the two is that a ball is smaller and requires less energy to move it the same distance, but it also needs an excess of energy because unlike the rocket, it doesn't generate it's own thrust, and so needs to compensate for the pull of gravity and air resistance.

To piss all over your "absolute truth" nonsense again, you have no way of determining whether a ball will come back down when you throw it up based on previous observations. Our previous observations give us laws that describe how we think the universe works, but they are not absolute (they are subject to change as new data comes in). You could argue that your ball has a high chance of coming down based on previous occurrences, but I would argue this is bullshit as well, since you are working on an assumption that the universe is ordered and that it is material. Truthfully, there are an infinite amount of things that could happen to the ball when it reaches the peak. It could just be wild coincidence that so far, every time we've thrown a ball up, it has come down. The next time we do so, it could do anything.

This is the problem when applying mathematical probability to real world scenarios. In maths, you define the probabilities based on your rules. In reality, the probabilities cannot be defined, since we have no way of knowing all of them are.

[tackattack]

Fascinating discussion. I will have to study some and get back when I have time.

[rjh4 is back]

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.

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

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.

However, you also have stated previously that the Bible is an objective truth, as it is God's word. My question is how reading the Bible to obtain truth isn't a subjective action (since reading the words requires both interpretation of the language as well as of the meaning), and how you can objectively state that the Bible is the word of God, and therefore objective, without resorting to assumptions and subjectivity?

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.

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).

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.

I hope this answers your questions and doesn't sound too preachy (I was trying to just answer the question without preaching.)

[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...

[chatpilot]

rjh4 said: "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."

I am utterly shocked that you reverted to this argument FvF I personally thought that this was beneath you. Aside from the fact that this is a very bold statement it presents several problems. The first and most obvious problem is that you would have to prove that the bible is in fact the word of god so good luck with that one. The bible self advertises that it is the word of god and most people take that view at face value. But as I always say a revelation is only a revelation to the one claiming to have experienced it, to the rest of us it's just hearsay. In fact you would have to prove several things:
1. That the biblical god exist
2. That he inspired some men to write his word in some mystical way
3. That t holy spirit being god exist
4. That somehow that spirit communicates with us and confirms and guides it's followers
5. That there are truths "beyond common objective truths" found in the bible.

By the way anything you do to try to prove any of the above are subjective.

[rjh4 is back]

FvF said: "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."

I am utterly shocked that you reverted to this argument FvF I personally thought that this was beneath you. Aside from the fact that this is a very bold statement it presents several problems. The first and most obvious problem is that you would have to prove that the bible is in fact the word of god so good luck with that one. The bible self advertises that it is the word of god and most people take that view at face value. But as I always say a revelation is only a revelation to the one claiming to have experienced it, to the rest of us it's just hearsay. In fact you would have to prove several things:
1. That the biblical god exist
2. That he inspired some men to write his word in some mystical way
3. That t holy spirit being god exist
4. That somehow that spirit communicates with us and confirms and guides it's followers
5. That there are truths "beyond common objective truths" found in the bible.

By the way anything you do to try to prove any of the above are subjective.

I will answer Adrian later as I don't have time now...but:

First, I'm Rjh4, not FvF.

Second, I think you need to distinguish between proving something and answering a question. I was not trying to prove anything to Adrian. I even said I could not prove to anyone what goes on inside me. I can merely tell you it does. I was merely answering his question from my point of view and my point of view takes God and His Word as a given. Not every answer to a question is intended to provide a formal proof of something.

[Tiberius]

So you hold something as objective truth without proof??? How does that even work???

[chatpilot]

rjh4 sorry about the confusion I have some other conversations along the same lines going on but I have edited the name and attributed the quote to you. I did not say you were trying to prove anything I merely stated that you needed to prove those so called statements of fact that you so boldly made based on "what goes on inside you".

I was once were you are rjh4 I too felt the presence of the lord around me, read the scriptures and had eureka moments where I thought the spirit was revealing something to me that I was previously unaware of, believed that every single word in the bible was the living word of god manifested through his spirit, and that living a spiritual life allowed for the holy spirit to communicate freely with my spirit at the time. But in the end I have come to realize that all those feelings and emotions I once felt were completely subjective and that emotions and feelings could not be trusted. Emotions and feelings are heavily influenced by outside forces such as education or lack thereof, in the case of religion indoctrination, etc.

[rjh4 is back]

So you hold something as objective truth with proof??? How does that even work???

Hmmm...You previously implied that you thought the universe is natural.

So let's take the statement "The universe is natural."

My questions to you are:

Is the statement true?

If "yes", does the statement constitute relative truth or objective truth?

If your answer is "relative truth", please explain what you mean.

If you answer "objective truth", explain how you have come to prove this.

[Tiberius]

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.