Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Is logic extrinsically or intrinsically "truth"?
Logic is the science of truth relations between propositions.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Is logic extrinsically or intrinsically "truth"?
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'.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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?Originally posted by BobVigneaultWe cannot prove God. We cannot prove that scripture is true. They are self authenticating.
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".
Originally posted by BobVigneault
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.
Originally posted by BobVigneault
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?
Originally posted by BobVigneault
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.
Originally posted by BobVigneault
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.
I can't deduce empirical theorems from Scripture. That is why I said "probably".Originally posted 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?
Basic arithmetic is deducible from scripture. And geometry is tautological. Same for calculus.Originally posted by caleb_woodrow
Besides that, I would like you to explain to me how mathematical truths are only probable and not certain.
Originally posted by caleb_woodrowAnd if you say that they are only certain because you deduce them from Scripture, I would like you to deduce the pythagorean theorem from scipture, thanks. Explain away, I'm all ears.
Originally posted by JohnV
We make fun of the world for such statements as, "It is (absolutely) true that there is no such thing as absolute truth." Or, "I am certain of only one thing, that I am certain of nothing."
So how can we then say, "It is (objectively) true that there is no such thing as objective truth." or "We can (truly and objectively) know that we cannot know objective truth." and not think that the world will not make fun of us in return?
"1. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation."
"Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth,"
"and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing: which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased."
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Originally posted by JohnV
We make fun of the world for such statements as, "It is (absolutely) true that there is no such thing as absolute truth." Or, "I am certain of only one thing, that I am certain of nothing."
So how can we then say, "It is (objectively) true that there is no such thing as objective truth." or "We can (truly and objectively) know that we cannot know objective truth." and not think that the world will not make fun of us in return?
Just as a Pyrrhonist would say... "It appears to me at this time that there is no objective truth, but I'm not fully committed to that."
And in response to your previous comment, Descartes borrowed most of his premises from Augustine, so I'd say Augustine would have to be considered before him (and then others before Augustine, such as Plato, Plotinus, Socrates, etc...).
Descartes did this. He deliberately broke down his skepticism, to be left with his bare and raw principle of certainty, namely I think, therefore I am.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.
Originally posted by caleb_woodrow
I’m fine with saying that we interpret everything through our minds, but I am not going to submit that we cannot have knowledge of objective truth because of this. Namely because I don’t think the bible is the only objective truth we can have knowledge from. I had a priori knowledge of mathematical concepts and logical laws before I ever read the bible. Besides, you only know that the word of God is objective truth because you interpreted it through your mind that it is objective. Furthermore, the canons of the church were just a combination of minds, so the process of interpretation itself remains the same. Thus, your problem remains the same.
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
The Word of God is objective truth, but that doesn't mean we receive it as such. We must interpret the Word of God. As a result, it is no longer objective. Interpretation is mediation and mediation is distortion, in some way (not necessarily a BAD thing, either, and I don't mean interpret in a BAD way, also). That is why we must rely on the Canon of the Church as the Pillar of Truth; the Holy Scriptures, and our Creeds and Confessions as our interpretation of the Scriptures. Otherwise, we are left with Biblicism and the nonsense of anti-creedal evangelicalism -- which has spawned 10,000 different denominations because they forgot the Reformation ever happened, forgot what Sola Scriptura REALLY means, and decided that man is the center of the universe, not a providential God who has orchestrated all things, INCLUDING the development of the Church and her doctrine.
WCF, I, iv. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.[9]
9. II Peter 1:19-20; II Tim. 3:16; I John 5:9; I Thess. 2:13; Rev. 1:1-2
v. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.[10] And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.[11]
10. I Tim 3:15
11. I Cor. 2:4-5, 9-10; Heb. 4:12; John 10:35; Isa. 55:11, 59:21; Rom. 11:36: Psa. 19:7-11; II Tim. 3:15; I Thess. 1:5; I John 2:20, 27
vi. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.[12] Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13] and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[14]
12. II Tim. 3:16-17; Gal. 1:8-9; II Thess. 2:2
13. John 6:45; I Cor. 2:12, 14-15; Eph. 1:18; II Cor. 4:6
14. I Cor. 11:13-14; 14:26, 40
Originally posted by JohnV
I don't see the WCF ever citing Church authority, but only the Bible. It seems to me the fathers in the Church thought that the Bible's authority was sufficient and perspicuous.
I know the Word of God is objective truth by Faith, which is given to me by God, not from anything material or temporal that is part of my natural experience. The knowledge that the Word of God is objective truth is a supernatural experience, not an experience grounded in our finite reality.
Our “window” to the world is through our minds. I don’t know how it can be explained any simpler than that.Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopiaI don't know what you mean by "we interpret everything through our minds" so I can't comment on that.
Then in what sense are you using the term? How do they not apply to objective truth?Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Abstract, invariant universals such as mathematics are also much different than knowing an "objective truth" in the sense I would be using the term, in my opinion. So, I don't really think that applies here. I could be wrong.
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia We know that what they have authored is true because it is in harmony with the Word of God, but not by such a standard alone. I also believe we know what they have said is true because we believe that Christ is building His Church and would not leave it in the hands of arbitrariness and guess-work.
Do you have knowledge that God exists before any sense experience Gabe? Or do you have to have experience in order to have knowledge that God exist?
Besides, you only know that the word of God is objective truth because you interpreted it through your mind that it is objective.
Bingo, that was my argument. That it would just resort back to subjectivism. I completely agree with you that men cannot come to the faith by mere mental assent to some proposition. Men are totally depraved and can only come to the knowledge of the truth through the working of the Holy Spirit.Originally posted by Larry Hughes
Caleb,
Besides, you only know that the word of God is objective truth because you interpreted it through your mind that it is objective.
This is not true. That would make it subjective again.