Objective Truth

[Time2BCounted]

Is there objective truth?

[GreenMunchkin]

I don't know how to answer that, bro, cos imo, Truth is Absolute, period :scratch:

[Time2BCounted]

I don't know how to answer that, bro, cos imo, Truth is Absolute, period :scratch:
I know whatcha mean GM, i was kinda stuck between one and 2 but had to go with one.

i believe in absolute truth, and since God is perfect, any truly objective look would seemingly have to conform to that truth. Just my humble opinion

[Hentenza]

There are absolute truths and there are interpreted truths. I am not going to elaborate much because the examples from both are many and varied.

[Simon_Templar]

I don't know how to answer that, bro, cos imo, Truth is Absolute, period :scratch:
"absolute" truth by definition is objective.

Basically objective means that it exists independantly of people and their observations or perceptions of it.

Subjective, on the other hand, means it is dependant upon how people percieve it.

Another way of thinking of it may be objective is "external" to individual people and subjective is "internal" to individual people.

[Simon_Templar]

From the Christian perspective there is no question that objective truth exists.

The question is how do we know it objectively. The truth is there whether we know it or not, whether we see it or not.
The problem is that our perceptions and thoughts are subjective. How does a person know an objective truth, when they can only perceive it subjectively?

One argument is that we can, through discipline and logic, etc, make ourselves less subjective. Included in that, of course is taking in ideas from other people (which is the basis of science.. that consensus builds objectivity).

[Joykins]

Yes, there is objective truth.

I share Paul's understanding that we cannot perceive it clearly because of our human limitations but will only know fully when we are with the Lord:

1 Corinthians 13:8-13

[Athene]

What Joykins said.

[Father Rick]

Truth is objective... people aren't

[PastorDiane]

:pink:
there is only one truth and that is the word of GOD being with out error and does not contradict itself. Although facts maybe evidence of a truth they may also be deceiving against truth. an example was I asked a friend of mine to interrupt our bible study in the conference room 3x. My group were appalled by the rudeness, until the TRUth came into being that I asked him to do so. So the facts while they looked like a truth were not they were just facts. Now this is something to think about, are your facts a truth or are they a set up to fail? There has to be a gold standard and I claim the word of God as that standard! ps> this is my first post and a good thing I found the spell check!
</IMG>

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

:pink:
there is only one truth and that is the word of GOD being with out error and does not contradict itself.

I disagree. In fact, I think that's a bit of a contradictory statement.

[Speculative]

Both objective truth and absolute truths exist. The problem is that humans are, to put it kindly, not perfectly able to always discern these truths.

The problem arises when human beings consider their own opinions to be objective and absolute truths, and then try to impose those opinions on others.

[Athene]

:pink:
there is only one truth and that is the word of GOD being with out error and does not contradict itself. Although facts maybe evidence of a truth they may also be deceiving against truth. an example was I asked a friend of mine to interrupt our bible study in the conference room 3x. My group were appalled by the rudeness, until the TRUth came into being that I asked him to do so. So the facts while they looked like a truth were not they were just facts. Now this is something to think about, are your facts a truth or are they a set up to fail? There has to be a gold standard and I claim the word of God as that standard! ps> this is my first post and a good thing I found the spell check!
</IMG>

So you don't think God is truth? If there is only one truth and that is merely the Bible is without error then that means God is not truth . . . . strange belief coming from a conservative.

[JimfromOhio]

God's Word is truth (Psalm 119:160; John 17:17). An authentic Christianity places Scripture as the objective revelation of God's truth.

God's Word is objectively true whether He speaks subjectively to any given individual or not.

God's Word is true regardless of how anyone feels about it; it is true in an absolute sense.

[PastorDiane]

So you don't think God is truth? If there is only one truth and that is merely the Bible is without error then that means God is not truth . . . . strange belief coming from a conservative.


in the beggining was the word, and the word was with GOD and was God.......and the word was made flesh and dwelt among us full of grace and truth.....john chapter 1............and yes there is a big difference bewtween facts and truth

[Athene]

in the beggining was the word, and the word was with GOD and was God.......and the word was made flesh and dwelt among us full of grace and truth.....john chapter 1............and yes there is a big difference bewtween facts and truth

This verse refers to Jesus who is the Word of God.

[IamRedeemed]

Jesus IS God.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God". John 1:1

"Before Abraham was I AM." John 8:58

"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." Revelation 22:13

Jesus IS also the Bread of Life, which is the same as the Word of God. We know that Jesus is the Word of God come in the flesh as is established in John 1:14

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth". John 1:14

"And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that comes to me shall never hunger; and he that believes on me shall never thirst." John 6:35

"My son, attend to my words; incline thine ear unto my sayings.Let them not depart from thine eyes; keep them in the midst of thine heart. For they are life unto those that find them, and health to all their flesh." Proverbs 4:20-22



"It is written, Man shall not live on bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4

God bless

This verse refers to Jesus who is the Word of God.

[Athene]

Jesus IS God.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God". John 1:1

"Before Abraham was I AM." John 8:58

"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." Revelation 22:13

Jesus IS also the Bread of Life, which is the same as the Word of God. We know that Jesus is the Word of God come in the flesh as is established in John 1:14

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth". John 1:14

"And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that comes to me shall never hunger; and he that believes on me shall never thirst." John 6:35

"My son, attend to my words; incline thine ear unto my sayings.Let them not depart from thine eyes; keep them in the midst of thine heart. For they are life unto those that find them, and health to all their flesh." Proverbs 4:20-22



"It is written, Man shall not live on bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4

God bless

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? I honestly can't tell.

[IamRedeemed]

LOL...^_^

Well......that depends.
Do you believe the Scriptures I posted and the meaning of same are True?
If so we are agreed! :thumbsup:


Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? I honestly can't tell.

[PastorDiane]

LOL...^_^

Well......that depends.
Do you believe the Scriptures I posted and the meaning of same are True?
If so we are agreed! :thumbsup:

That is the point, we agree, the bottom line as christians we need to find the things that we agree on! the blessings come in peace!:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Simon_Templar]

Truth is a standard, the truth of one thing, or another, is dependant on how it compares to the ultimate standard.

God, revealed in the person of Jesus Christ, is the standard of Truth.

He is revealed to us through the written word, the scripture, and through the Church, and he can be revealed to us through experiential knowledge as well (ie as we learn to know him in relationship).

However, the Holy Scriptures are unchanging. They are certain. The Holy Church, may be protected by the Holy Spirit, and may always be 'self-righting', but at any given time, the Church can be in error on an issue, as we have seen in the past when the Church on large scale has gone astray, (Arianism just to name the most obvious example). Our personal experiential knowledge, is the most subjective and the most subject to error.

What this means, in my opinion, is that the scriptures must be the primary standard because they are sure and unchanging. The Church (meaning the whole history of the Church, not just the Church in the here and now) must be next, and should be the primary source for understanding and interpeting scripture. Each person, is subject to their own conscience and since they bear the responsability for their beliefs, they ultimately must decide what they believe. However, the individual is the least reliable source for knowing truth.

[DerSchweik]

Truth is consistency and conformity with facts and / or reality.

God IS. That is a fact. He IS real and DOES exist. God IS truth, by virtue of the fact that He IS and that He IS real. This is objective truth, the object being God.

Objective truth cannot be relative, that is, it cannot be true for one set of facts and false for another - for the simple reason that such "facts" would be contradictory. Contradictions do not, cannot exist. For a contradiction to exist, one or both premises for either position must be wrong; in other words, the facts of either are incorrect.

Subjective truth - truth that is based on facts that apply to one subject, but do not apply to another subject, can and does exist.

"Not everyone is a believer in God" - this is an example of subjective truth, the subject being the person who does or does not believe, the facts being whether they believe or not.

That God exists is an objective truth - it is a truth that is NOT DEPENDENT on whether we believe in Him or not. He exists independently of our belief.

Absolute truth merely means "pure" or "perfect" or "un-flawed" truth. When you hear someone claim "there are no absolutes" they are attempting to deny the existence of unvarnished facts or incomplete facts. Facts are facts, by definition. We may not have all the facts to determine if something is true or not, but that exercise is purely for our own benefit, independent of the truth in question.

We do not need to be in possession of the fact of His existence for His existence to be true. He exists whether we possess that fact or not. Moreover, He exists whether we accept that fact or not. His existence (the truth thereof) is independent of our possession of that fact and/or our acceptance of that fact.

[Athene]

LOL...^_^

Well......that depends.
Do you believe the Scriptures I posted and the meaning of same are True?
If so we are agreed! :thumbsup:


I believe that Jesus is the Word of God and the bread of life, I don't consider the Bible to be either.

[Simon_Templar]

I believe that Jesus is the Word of God and the bread of life, I don't consider the Bible to be either.
Jesus is the Word (or the Logos.. the greek Logos means alot of things that "Word" doesn't cover)

the bible is the word of God.

I know where people are coming from when they say Jesus is the Word and the bible isn't.. and there are some valid considerations there.. however, Whenever God sent prophets to his people, they made no bones about the fact that they were delivering "the word of the Lord".
Thus the bible IS the word of the Lord. The bible is not, however, God. It is the revelation OF God.

[Athene]

Jesus is the Word (or the Logos.. the greek Logos means alot of things that "Word" doesn't cover)

the bible is the word of God.

I know where people are coming from when they say Jesus is the Word and the bible isn't.. and there are some valid considerations there.. however, Whenever God sent prophets to his people, they made no bones about the fact that they were delivering "the word of the Lord".
Thus the bible IS the word of the Lord. The bible is not, however, God. It is the revelation OF God.

I'm leery of referring to the Bible as the word of God even in that secondary sense because I think it can lead to a lot of confusion.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I feel this poll lacked an option:

There are truths that are absolute, but we don't have total access to them, and there are truths that are objective, to which we do have access.

Since I believe there are absolute and objective truths, I voted the first option.

But since my epistemology is grounded in the discipline of phenomenology, I'm quite keen on the idea that truths can be objective (there are public perceptions to which others are equally aware), but the metaphysical reality of these is obscured- especially God, who rarely shows up within the realm of appearances (thus making him absolute, though not objective).

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Truth is consistency and conformity with facts and / or reality.

God IS. That is a fact. He IS real and DOES exist. God IS truth, by virtue of the fact that He IS and that He IS real. This is objective truth, the object being God.

Objective truth cannot be relative, that is, it cannot be true for one set of facts and false for another - for the simple reason that such "facts" would be contradictory. Contradictions do not, cannot exist. For a contradiction to exist, one or both premises for either position must be wrong; in other words, the facts of either are incorrect.

Subjective truth - truth that is based on facts that apply to one subject, but do not apply to another subject, can and does exist.

"Not everyone is a believer in God" - this is an example of subjective truth, the subject being the person who does or does not believe, the facts being whether they believe or not.

That God exists is an objective truth - it is a truth that is NOT DEPENDENT on whether we believe in Him or not. He exists independently of our belief.

Absolute truth merely means "pure" or "perfect" or "un-flawed" truth. When you hear someone claim "there are no absolutes" they are attempting to deny the existence of unvarnished facts or incomplete facts. Facts are facts, by definition. We may not have all the facts to determine if something is true or not, but that exercise is purely for our own benefit, independent of the truth in question.

We do not need to be in possession of the fact of His existence for His existence to be true. He exists whether we possess that fact or not. Moreover, He exists whether we accept that fact or not. His existence (the truth thereof) is independent of our possession of that fact and/or our acceptance of that fact.
That's a rather Baconian way of looking at it.

I think there's a realm problem when we conflate facts and truth.

I also think it's a problem to define God by his 'is-ness,' his existence. God is utterly transcendent; he is not a being among other beings, tables and chairs and animals. He transcendents categories of existence. To say that God 'is' or 'exists' is to place him into a box- the box of ontological categories.

Indeed, it is very much the same problem as making an image of God, against the commands of the Torah- doing so places God in a category (appearance) of which he is transcendent.

[DerSchweik]

That's a rather Baconian way of looking at it.

Well, I rather like bacon. ...and eggs too for that matter.

;)

I think there's a realm problem when we conflate facts and truth.

Just citing Webster (Truth = conformity to facts), whose conflamation it is in defining truth. However, if you believe we should not conflame (great word, btw) facts and truth - then there is indeed a problem, a very serious problem. I cannot accept a notion of truth apart from facts.

I also think it's a problem to define God by his 'is-ness,' his existence. God is utterly transcendent; he is not a being among other beings, tables and chairs and animals. He transcendents categories of existence. To say that God 'is' or 'exists' is to place him into a box- the box of ontological categories.

Just citing God (Ex 3:14, "I AM...") who, well according to Him... IS! When God claims "I AM" He is using the grammatically correct form of the verb "to be" - not saying "I ARE" or "I IS" (thank goodness). When I say HE IS, I am merely repeating what God said, but in a grammatically correct way for me to say it. God says "I AM," I say "HE IS" (and a certain past president says "Huh?" - "IS???" :confused: ).

Indeed, it is very much the same problem as making an image of God, against the commands of the Torah- doing so places God in a category (appearance) of which he is transcendent.
.

Brother - completely clueless how you conflame (I really like that word!) God's commands, creating images of Him, and categorizing Him into some sort of transcendental crime. :scratch:

Ok, so - being Baconian is somehow a problem, as is conflation of truth and facts a problem, as is God's "Is-ness" a problem, as is disallowing God to transcend existential ontological categorization - a problem. :scratch:

The "problem" then seems to be with:

Bacon (His authorship of Shakespeare's plays???)
Webster (truth and facts)
God (that He IS)
< unknown > (existential ontological categorization of transcendent beings)Brother, I appreciate your zeal for matters philosophical, and I am sure that being recently in such study, you had a point. I apologize if my previous post begged the sort of response you provided - I certainly didn't mean to stump for Bacon, mis-quote Webster, mis-quote God, or even falsely categorize God into some sort of existential ontological box. :doh:

All I was trying to do was clarify the differences between objective, subjective, and absolute truths. Apparently, I failed - my bad. :sigh:

[Simon_Templar]

I'm leery of referring to the Bible as the word of God even in that secondary sense because I think it can lead to a lot of confusion.
This is taken strait from J.I. Packer (in knowing God) but one of the most basic things that Christians should keep in mind when reading the bible is that all scripture is predicated upon the idea that God is an absolute King, and that, in the bible, he is speaking.

When he speaks it takes on three basic characteristics. He commands, he promises, and he informs. He speaks in commandment to us, and to our very environment. He determines the rise and fall of nations, the climate, storms etc, but he also gives us commands to obey. The promises are both negative and positive statements of things that will happen, sometimes they are conditional upon our obedience or disobedience, other times they are unconditional. Lastly he speaks to inform us about himself. This informational speech also functions as an invitiation to know him.

However, it is crucial that people understand the bible contains all of that. What the King has spoken, is.


We know that Jesus, the Son, is the Logos of God. Logos is an interesting greek word because it has possibly the widest range of meanings of any word.

Logos means "word" but it also means "story, narrative, reason, meaning, reckoning, a logical argument" and so on. Logos can be used to conotate a deeper sense of the design of reality etc. Thats just a few aspects. If you look it up in a greek dictionary you'll find there are literally entire paragraphs of defeinitions for Logos.

When John made the connection between the Son of God and the Logos, he was actually drawing on a pre-existing idea in both Greek and Jewish thought which viewed the Logos to be the defining principle of reality. That part of God which was the reason, the design, the foundation of reality as we know it.

There are connections between this idea and simply the idea of scripture as God's royal fiat/dictate.
Today we have lost site of some of this in western civ because of our democratic, non-monerchical outlook. However, in pretty much all societies ruled by an absolute monarch the King's decree and the King himself were largely inseperable.
Kind of the concept of, I am my decree, but enhanced by the resepect and awe given to an absolute unquestioned divine King.

So in that sense, we can't lose sight of the fact that the scriptures are God's words to us. They are his absolute monarchical decree, his royal fiat, as well as his invitiation to know him, and the only absolutely sure revelation of him.

An example of this that Packer uses is where God says to Jeremiah, that Jeremiah will raise up Kingdoms and throw Kingdoms down, he will found them, and destroy them etc etc.. all because Jeremiah will speak God's word. God's word is absolute and his decrees never fail.. since Jeremiah delivered them, effectively, Jeremiah (according to God) could speak down kingdoms, or raise them up.

Now, some modern charismatics get carried away with that idea and get the impression that they can do the same thing... but they forget that the precondition is that Jeremiah would be speaking only what God told him. The real authority is because it is actually God's word.. not Jeremiah's.

[Simon_Templar]

Well, I rather like bacon. ...and eggs too for that matter.

Just citing Webster (Truth = conformity to facts), whose conflamation it is in defining truth. However, if you believe we should not conflame (great word, btw) facts and truth - then there is indeed a problem, a very serious problem. I cannot accept a notion of truth apart from facts.

Just citing God (Ex 3:14, "I AM...") who, well according to Him... IS! When God claims "I AM" He is using the grammatically correct form of the verb "to be" - not saying "I ARE" or "I IS" (thank goodness). When I say HE IS, I am merely repeating what God said, but in a grammatically correct way for me to say it. God says "I AM," I say "HE IS" (and a certain past president says "Huh?" - "IS???" ).



Brother - completely clueless how you conflame (I really like that word!) God's commands, creating images of Him, and categorizing Him into some sort of transcendental crime.

Ok, so - being Baconian is somehow a problem, as is conflation of truth and facts a problem, as is God's "Is-ness" a problem, as is disallowing God to transcend existential ontological categorization - a problem. :scratch:

The "problem" then seems to be with:

Bacon (His authorship of Shakespeare's plays???)
Webster (truth and facts)
God (that He IS)
< unknown > (existential ontological categorization of transcendent beings)Brother, I appreciate your zeal for matters philosophical, and I am sure that being recently in such study, you had a point. I apologize if my previous post begged the sort of response you provided - I certainly didn't mean to stump for Bacon, mis-quote Webster, mis-quote God, or even falsely categorize God into some sort of existential ontological box. :doh:

All I was trying to do was clarify the differences between objective, subjective, and absolute truths. Apparently, I failed - my bad.

what webster is getting at is that truth is ultimately a term of comparison.

a "true" inch is an inch that conforms exactly to the factual standard maintained by the Royal society of weights and measures as to what an Inch is.

A true story is one that conforms exactly to the factual events and the way that they occured.

Truth and fact are different. One is a standard and the other is a measure of comparison to that standard.

In this case, the 'fact' is God, his nature, his decrees, etc. Truth is how closely ideas, behaviors, we ourselves, etc match up to the fact of God.

It is not uncommon for people to also use the terms truth and fact in this sense. Fact refers to a physically observable phenomenon. Truth refers to a philosophical, or metaphysical phenomenon.
The confusion there is the result of the modern philosophy of science. Science does not allow for things which can not be observed, controled etc. Science deals only with the natural world.
However, modern philosophy has made science the arbiter of metaphysical truth as well. Which has lead people to try and distinguish two different catagories, of "truths"... those which can be verified in the natural, material world, and those which can not.

I think that this whole philosophical construct is fatally flawed, and I think Bacon recognized that and wrote about it in his book "The New Atlantis". In that book he addressed the question of what happens when Science and Scientists become the judges of metaphysical truth.

Before the "scientific revolution" science had essentially been a branch of philosophy. Sometimes referred to as natural philosophy, as opposed to metaphysical philosophy. In either case, the word science described nothing more than a persuit for knowledge. Further, the end goals of these persuits, these sciences was simply knowledge for its own ends.

The modern age marked a significant shift from idealized philosophy to practical philosophy, or applied philosophy. This was true in political philosophy, and in natural philosophy as well.
The goal ceased to be gaining knowledge for its own sake and became gaining knowledge so that it could be applied to accomplish useful, practical tasks.

this gave science a whole new dimension because all science was essentially applied science. It could be easily verified simply by whether or not it worked. Aristotle's natural philosophy couldn't be verified by testing it because it didn't deal with practical applications, but rather much larger broader understandings of the universe, nature etc.

Bacon is held to be the inventor of the scientific method. This was essentially the codification of the change mindset that had occured in the world of persuing knowledge. Because knowledge was essentially sought primarily for its practical value, it dealt only with natural/material phenomenon, and it needed and could have a basic, simple form to guide the process of research and experimentation to guarentee verifiability.

The popularity, and credability of science as a discipline exploded and literally changed the western world. Science could do all sorts of cool things, it could make life better, clearner, longer, etc. Things that previously had been only the domain of magic.

Bacon, being far ahead of his time, must have at some point considered the idea of what would occur if science's credability, its power to persuade and validate, were used beyond the simple scope of applied, practical, natural science. What if the credability built upon the ability to kill germs, perserve food, make machines, and cure diseases, began to be used to dictate belief in God, or which god, or which church, etc.

He addressed that issue in his book "New Atlantis". We are essentially living in the world he attempted to forcast. We haven't come as far as he imagined, but we're deffinetly on the way.

[DerSchweik]

Truth and fact are different. One is a standard and the other is a measure of comparison to that standard.

In this case, the 'fact' is God, his nature, his decrees, etc. Truth is how closely ideas, behaviors, we ourselves, etc match up to the fact of God.
Excellent point Simon - I appreciate you pointing out the distinction - particularly helpful in the context of this discussion.

It is not uncommon for people to also use the terms truth and fact in this sense. Fact refers to a physically observable phenomenon. Truth refers to a philosophical, or metaphysical phenomenon.
I think I see what you are saying - that some define "Fact" in the sense of the physically observable, and "Truth" in the sense of the interpretable? Not sure you meant to say "philosophical phenomenon" - but see your point re the metaphysical.
The confusion there is the result of the modern philosophy of science. Science does not allow for things which can not be observed, controled etc. Science deals only with the natural world.
However, modern philosophy has made science the arbiter of metaphysical truth as well. Which has lead people to try and distinguish two different catagories, of "truths"... those which can be verified in the natural, material world, and those which can not.

I think that this whole philosophical construct is fatally flawed
Agreed. Truth has taken on a "scientifically subjective" meaning - an almost oxymoronic construct. The "fatality" in the flaw being the subjective interpretation of the metaphysical based on physical criteria. The appeal was/is to science as an authoritative methodology to make subjective conclusions based on personal philosophies.

and I think Bacon recognized that and wrote about it in his book "The New Atlantis". In that book he addressed the question of what happens when Science and Scientists become the judges of metaphysical truth.

Before the "scientific revolution" science had essentially been a branch of philosophy...<edited for brevity>...[the] pursuit for knowledge. Further, the end goals of these persuits, these sciences was simply knowledge for its own ends.

The modern age...<edited for brevity>...[goal] ceased to be gaining knowledge for its own sake and became gaining knowledge so that it could be applied to accomplish useful, practical tasks [giving] science a whole new dimension [applied science].

Bacon is held to be the inventor of the scientific method [knowledge was essentially sought primarily for its practical value] ... and it needed and could have a basic, simple form to guide the process of research and experimentation to guarentee verifiability...

Bacon, being far ahead of his time, must have at some point considered the idea of what would occur if science's credability, its power to persuade and validate, were used beyond the simple scope of applied, practical, natural science. What if the credability built upon the ability to kill germs, perserve food, make machines, and cure diseases, began to be used to dictate belief in God, or which god, or which church, etc.

This is an excellent observation/conclusion, Simon. In general, we all go through a period of "learning for learning's sake," to sort of statically take in as much information as we can until such a point as we have (or feel we have) sufficient information that we can now apply it to some practical purpose. And once we have progressed out of static learning (i.e. "school") the now "mature" student learns with a view to application of that knowledge - something we did not possess early on in our studies.

Thus we leave the realm of pure information acquisition (immaturity) and step into the realm of practical application (maturity).

Your point, I believe, is that we do this both as individuals (e.g. kindergarten to college) and in the broader sense, as humanity (e.g. Aristotle to Bacon, et. al.).

And the problem, as I hear you stating it, is that in our "maturity" we, who seek to apply what we have learned, do so (if we are not careful) on the basis knowledge we have gained through observation, yet with this we also presume knowledge of the unobservable, the metaphysical, through the method of observation (scientific method).

Fallen, modern man tends to worship as truth what he has acquired through observation, but in his fallen state he also (now) seeks to explain what he cannot see (or will not see) and persuade on the basis of what he presumes he can see.

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

A common misunderstanding is that christian religion demands an objective truth. This is not true.

What you wish to describe is an absolutism, not an objective value.

[Simon_Templar]

A common misunderstanding is that christian religion demands an objective truth. This is not true.

What you wish to describe is an absolutism, not an objective value.
I suppose it would depend on how you define objective.

In Christianity truth is a feature of God's being. So from God's perspective, I suppose, you could argue that truth is subjective because it is a part of who he is.

however, from our perspective, God exists independantly of us, and therefore He, and thus truth, are objective.

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

I suppose it would depend on how you define objective.

In Christianity truth is a feature of God's being. So from God's perspective, I suppose, you could argue that truth is subjective because it is a part of who he is.

however, from our perspective, God exists independantly of us, and therefore He, and thus truth, are objective.
Very well.

[Simon_Templar]

Very well.
I suppose it would also depend on whether you require something to be observable in order to be defined as objective.

Personally I don't think that something has to be knowable in order for it to be objective. When I say objective I'm speaking more in terms of dependancy. Something that is subjective depends upon the person who perceives it, or experiences it etc. Something which is objective does not depend on anything but itself.

Objective could be used to mean "verifiable" which would then add the condition that it be knowable.

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

I suppose it would also depend on whether you require something to be observable in order to be defined as objective.

Personally I don't think that something has to be knowable in order for it to be objective. When I say objective I'm speaking more in terms of dependancy. Something that is subjective depends upon the person who perceives it, or experiences it etc. Something which is objective does not depend on anything but itself.

Objective could be used to mean "verifiable" which would then add the condition that it be knowable.
Nothing within existence is non-contingent. In the thought of existence being seperated from being.

[Simon_Templar]

Nothing within existence is non-contingent. In the thought of existence being seperated from being.
what do you mean by "within existence"?

do you mean nothing that exists?

or

nothing in the meaning of "existence"?

or someting else?