Thread: "Objective Truth"

What is "objective truth?" Give examples, if applicable.

Is 'God' one?

Originally posted by Romans922
Is 'God' one?

What about 'God'?

God is truth. God is living. God speaks. God is God.

David was a king of Israel.
Jesus wept.
Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

"Subjective" and "objective" are relational terms.

I am the subject and you, since you are not me, are an object of my knowledge. But to you, I am the object. But what if I introspect myself? Does the subject become its own object?

Is God's knowlege objective or subjective? (Jonathan Edwards thought it was subjective.)

Objective truths are true propositions regardless of who believes them.

So you would say that Jonathan Edwards is wrong, and anything in Scripture (in its original language) is objective truth?

Originally posted by Romans922
So you would say that Jonathan Edwards is wrong, and anything in Scripture (in its original language) is objective truth?

If something is subjectively true for me, does that imply that it is objectively false?

Or is the definition of objective truth that, If for all subjects S, there is a proposition A such that A is subjectively true for S, than A is objectively true?

If something is subjectively true for God, can it be objectively false for anybody?

Is there much use for knower relative terms such as subjective and objective?

Originally posted by Civbert
Objective truths are true propositions regardless of who believes them.

Well that's the question, isn't it? If no one believes in or has apprehension of a Thing, is it objectively true? Does it matter, if no one apprehends it? All objective Truth that we can come up with is still subject to our interpretation and mediation (through the various faculties, senses and so forth), so Things for-us are not objective. Ever. To apprehend or "know" something objectively is to have an otherness which no human can possess. Only a higher being, with such an "otherness" could look from the outside in and apprehend objective Truth, imo.

Originally posted by Romans922
So you would say that Jonathan Edwards is wrong, and anything in Scripture (in its original language) is objective truth?

I think Edwards is maybe using the terms differently than current usage. I'm not sure. Does anyone have the reference where Edwards is speaking about objective/subjective truth?

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
If no one believes in or has apprehension of a Thing, is it objectively true? Does it matter, if no one apprehends it? All objective Truth that we can come up with is still subject to our interpretation and mediation (through the various faculties, senses and so forth), so Things for-us are not objective. Ever. To apprehend or "know" something objectively is to have an otherness which no human can possess. Only a higher being, with such an "otherness" could look from the outside in and apprehend objective Truth, imo.

Yes. 1+1=2. If there were no humans to comprehend or even realize 1+1=2, it would still be objectively true. Anything that we can ‘know’ is through our cognitive faculties, but that doesn’t mean that our “interpretation” of objective truths makes them subjective. All it means is that we interpret objective truths through our cognitive faculties. Now, if you want to make a case that our cognitive faculties are subjective then I am all ears.

edit: I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "thing". If it is a concept or entity then my "argument" applies.

[Edited on 10-11-2006 by caleb_woodrow]

Originally posted by caleb_woodrow

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
If no one believes in or has apprehension of a Thing, is it objectively true? Does it matter, if no one apprehends it? All objective Truth that we can come up with is still subject to our interpretation and mediation (through the various faculties, senses and so forth), so Things for-us are not objective. Ever. To apprehend or "know" something objectively is to have an otherness which no human can possess. Only a higher being, with such an "otherness" could look from the outside in and apprehend objective Truth, imo.

Yes. 1+1=2. If there were no humans to comprehend or even realize 1+1=2, it would still be objectively true. Anything that we can ‘know’ is through our cognitive faculties, but that doesn’t mean that our “interpretation” of objective truths makes them subjective. All it means is that we interpret objective truths through our cognitive faculties. Now, if you want to make a case that our cognitive faculties are subjective then I am all ears.

edit: I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "thing". If it is a concept or entity then my "argument" applies.

[Edited on 10-11-2006 by caleb_woodrow]

But if no one is "around" to "know" that "1+1=2", does it really "matter?"

The answer is no, it would not matter. What are we trying to get at here Gabe?

Just discussion.

So what is objective truth?

Objective truth exists however we are only able to apprehend it subjectively. Objective truth exists where and when the scripture defines Truth. When we argue from a scriptural premise to form a secondary truth we have entered the subjective because our reasoning is subjective. Logic is objective, reason is subjective. Apart from scripture we can only determine truth as a probability.

If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a noise. Scripture is silent so I can't be sure, but it 'probably' does.

[Edited on 10-12-2006 by BobVigneault]

What kind of logic is objective?

Objective logic.

http://www.gospelpedlar.com/articles/God/logic.html

Gordon Clark's piece on "God and Logic". That's the springboard for the propositions I've made.

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
But if no one is "around" to "know" that "1+1=2", does it really "matter?"

Notice I said humans. If no humans existed God would still exist. Now if God did not exist, then no there wouldn't be objective truth. See, I am perfectly fine with saying that we interpret objective truth through our cognitive faculties (which are fallible), but it doesn't necessarily follow that we cannot *know* objective truths such as 1+1=2.

[Edited on 10-12-2006 by caleb_woodrow]

Originally posted by BobVigneault
Apart from scripture we can only determine truth as a probability.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. We can have knowledge of objective truths such as mathematical propositions without the use of scripture. Of course reasoning is fallible, but we cannot infer from that that we cannot *know* something with certainty. In fact if you do argue that we can only know scripture with certainty, then I am going to ask how you know that? From scripture? Can you point out where?

[Edited on 10-12-2006 by caleb_woodrow]

I don't think the question is how do we come to objective truth, but rather what is objective truth. It seems like many are focused on the how we obtain aspect.

In fact if you do argue that we can only know scripture with certainty, then I am going to ask how you know that? From scripture? Can you point out where?

Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God....

Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

There is a God and he's revealed himself in His Word, the Bible. This is established by scripture and scripture is and must be self-validating.

From our subjective point of view this is an unprovable principle but the most consistent principle for apprehending true Truth. We use reason as our tool and reason is validated by God's use of reason in scripture.

[Edited on 10-12-2006 by BobVigneault]

Why does every other translation use 'word' instead of 'logic'?

Originally posted by caleb_woodrow
Why does every other translation use 'word' instead of 'logic'?

It started with the Latin translation.

1:1 in principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum

1:2 hoc erat in principio apud Deum

[Edited on 10-12-2006 by BobVigneault]

Originally posted by Romans922
So what is objective truth?

Usually when people say "objective truth" they mean "true truth". The word "objective" is there to confuse the simple man who does not undertand the game being played.

Objectivity and subjective are properties of knowlege, not of truth as such. Knowledge belongs to a knower, a "subject".

So, objective truth is God's Word and that is pretty much it. Everything else is subjective.

Logic is based on God's Word.

Subjective truth: I think, therefore I am.

Objective truth: God created man is His image, therefore I think.

Is logic extrinsically or intrinsically "truth"?

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Is logic extrinsically or intrinsically "truth"?

Logic is the science of truth relations between propositions.

Originally posted by Romans922
So, objective truth is God's Word and that is pretty much it. Everything else is subjective.

Logic is based on God's Word.

No, I am not going to grant that, mainly because I don't agree with that translation. I am skeptical of it because I don't know greek and most of the people who do translate it as 'word' and not 'logic'.

If everything besides the bible is subjective then so is your process of coming to a knowledge that the bible is objective truth and nothing else is. In that case you shouldn't trust that the bible is objective because you came to that knowledge based on your subjective interpretation.

Edit, I believe that logic is a part of God's nature. I don't believe that logic is just based on the bible.

[Edited on 10-12-2006 by caleb_woodrow]

If everything besides the bible is subjective then so is your process of coming to a knowledge that the bible is objective truth and nothing else is. In that case you shouldn't trust that the bible is objective because you came to that knowledge based on your subjective interpretation.

Given that we are stuck in our subjective nature we shouldn't trust anything. How do we know that a demon has not created this illusion? How do we know we are not in The Matrix? We don't.

So we are left with discovering our first naked raw principle on which we base all other knowledge. This is how the presuppositionalist justifies knowlege anyway. The evidentialist will start diferently.

We cannot prove God. We cannot prove that scripture is true. They are self authenticating.

Ah, self-authentication. Great stuff. God's Word is true and all logic must proceed from God's Word, and it based absolutely on nothing to do with human beings. It is because God's Word and God are self-authenticating.

Originally posted by paul manata

Originally posted by BobVigneault
Apart from scripture we can only determine truth as a probability.

[Edited on 10-12-2006 by BobVigneault]

Since Scripture doesn't say this, it's therefore only "probably" true.

Since Scripture doesn't say that it's only probably true, then it's only probably true that it's probably true.

...ad infinitum

:P

I'm perfectly happy to say it is probably true that "apart from scripture we can only determine truth as a probability".

For example, it is probably true that propositions which are base solely on sensory perceptions are only probably true. And "scientific" conclusions that can not be confirmed by Scripture are certainly only probabilities (really by definition of the "scientific process"). And most certainly, "scientific" conclusions that contradict Scripture are false.

Originally posted by BobVigneault

If everything besides the bible is subjective then so is your process of coming to a knowledge that the bible is objective truth and nothing else is. In that case you shouldn't trust that the bible is objective because you came to that knowledge based on your subjective interpretation.

Given that we are stuck in our subjective nature we shouldn't trust anything. How do we know that a demon has not created this illusion? How do we know we are not in The Matrix? We don't.

So we are left with discovering our first naked raw principle on which we base all other knowledge. This is how the presuppositionalist justifies knowlege anyway. The evidentialist will start diferently.

We cannot prove God. We cannot prove that scripture is true. They are self authenticating.

So, Rene Descartes was the first Presuppositionalist? Or was Kant?

Objective knowledge is knowledge of objects outside of the mind. For example, knowledge of astronomy is outside the mind such as the elliptical orbits of the planets around the sun. Subjective knowledge is knowledge of the mind. For example, knowledge of the pain that I get when I put my hand on the stove is subjective. It is analogous to the difference between what is private and what is public.

Originally posted by Vytautas
Objective knowledge is knowledge of objects outside of the mind. For example, knowledge of astronomy is outside the mind such as the elliptical orbits of the planets around the sun. Subjective knowledge is knowledge of the mind. For example, knowledge of the pain that I get when I put my hand on the stove is subjective. It is analogous to the difference between what is private and what is public.

That is true Richard, however, the puzzle comes about because everything that we perceive comes through the mind. Therefore it makes sense to ask the question, is there such a thing as objective truth? If it does exist then we can perceive it with our minds. However, once we perceive it, it is no longer objective. It's one of those puzzles that can leave a charlie horse in you brain.

I guess we could say that 'objective truth' is unfiltered truth - truth that stands apart from our worldview. Can truth stand apart from our worldview?

I see it as a mathematical problem. Two dimensional space can only be understood against a three dimensional back drop. Likewise, three dimensional space can only be fully described against a four dimensional space-time continuum.

Objective truth exists in God however because we are not God but only 'in' God, we can only understand objective truth in it's shadow form. We can describe how it interacts with our dimension but we cannot fully apprehend it.

[Edited on 10-12-2006 by BobVigneault]

Originally posted by BobVigneaultWe cannot prove God. We cannot prove that scripture is true. They are self authenticating.

How do you *know* that. Where do you deduce from scripture that we cannot prove that God exist, or that the Christian worldview is true?

[Edited on 10-12-2006 by caleb_woodrow]

Originally posted by Civbert
I'm perfectly happy to say it is probably true that "apart from scripture we can only determine truth as a probability".

Where did you deduce this from scripture? Besides that, I would like you to explain to me how mathematical truths are only probable and not certain. And if you say that they are only certain because you deduce them from scipture, I would like you to deduce the pythagorean theorem from scipture, thanks. Explain away, I'm all ears.

[Edited on 10-12-2006 by caleb_woodrow]