For more information, read God’s Crime Scene: A Cold-Case Detective Examines the Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe (http://amzn.to/2kAroVD)
Read: Quick Shot – “There are no objective truths”
Is anything REALLY true? Are all truths simply a matter of perspective, culture or “lived experience”? If transcendent truths exist, how can we “ground” them? In this video from J. Warner’s “Quick Shots: Fast Answers to Hard Questions” series on RightNow Media, J. Warner answers this common question related to the claims of Christianity.
source
Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]
Honestly if truth wasn’t objective how could it be true?
This is the way of my thinking as well, but you can eloquently explain it! What a great talk! God Bless you Brother!
Postmodernism is self-refuting. Marxism is self-refuting. Atheism is self-refuting.
Thank you! This is a helpful illustration
Of the three places in the Bible where the word, Christian(s), was used:
how many ways do they contrast against, and compliment with; what is called Christianity, in our day?
Great video
Vaccines are responsible for the extinction of smallpox. That is objective truth.
Jaw dropping explanation. Your eloquence is too good. Praise God.
It takes few words to tell the truth….and the truth is found in the Bible, and the answers are simple.
There exists objective truth, but…
You cannot "know" (as in being 100% sure) it without divine intervention. (Which is where agnosticism lives in my opinion, cause they don't believe divine interventions are possible)
Therefore what we are left is belief and strengthening it in the direction of 100% but never achieving it. Because belief is not a 0 or 1 thing. It's a value that can take from 0% to 100% and all values in between.
Mark 9
23 And Jesus said to him, “‘If you can’! All things are possible for one who believes.” 24 Immediately the father of the child cried out[a] and said, “I believe; help my unbelief!”
How can you believe and have unbelief at the same time? Because it's not a 0 or 1 value.
In mathematics it would be called a real number between 0% and 100% with all values in between possible.
0% means "I am absolutely sure this is false"
100% means "I am absolutely sure this is true"
50% means "my faith has no preferance for either position cause my evidence doesn't indicate which is 'more likely' "
(0%, 50%) preference for false
(50%,100%) preference for true
It is not a "probability", it is a measure of faith.
And you can have faith of 99.9999999999999999999999999%, but not 100%… without divine intervention into your brain and faith.
Which is why Jesus says "I am the Truth". And the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth. Because only God knows the Truth for 100% because He is Allknowing and controls everything.
People are left with faith and hope or divine interventions into the brain.
1 Corinthians 13
13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
Faith or hope is not being sure.
And love is more important than any of these.
And this is what was in the other video about "reasonable doubt" which might be called a threshold set for every person after which that person considers it is worth living "as though" one "knew" what the truth is, but it's "only" very very strong faith. Eg. "If I feel my faith is above 99.999% then I will treat is as though it is knowledge".
For example if I had sure information that there would be a comet in year 2021, but no information when with equal chance of it showing at every second… and someone asked me "How sure are you that it will not show in the first second of New Year?". Someone could calculate the probability based on His knowledge until this moment in time and say there is only 1 in 31 536 000 chance for it being in the first second of 2021, therefore "I'm sure enough to live as though it was truth", cause it exceeds someone's threshold of sureness which is eg. 1 in 10 000 000 is enough to consider something "not worthy of considering". So someone is treating this "as though" there is 0% chance.
But then if an angel arrived and said "It will happen in the first second" then the subjective (based on present information) probability would jump from "0%" to 100%. Quite a leap. Information modifies faith. Both false and true information.
Which is why there may be people who are "100% sure" there is no God or that a different religion is true. At this point they might not even want to listen anymore cause passing the threshold made them not willing to even consider other arguments. Which is why what can change this is supplying them with new information that is pro-Christian and refuting the anti-Christian basis of their belief that is anti-Christian.
And this belief that you are beyond some threshold and therefore the topic is closed for life is PRIDE in my opinion. A sin. A big one. Happening in Christians too. Therefore if you differentiate between belief and knowledge (which is unattainable without divine intervention [which atheists and people of some religions might not believe exists] ) you will not seem so arrogant to others and they might open up to discussion, without claiming that your faith is "blind" and that you are potentially open for being proven wrong. Cause in the end if you truly deeply believe and are not afraid anything can convince you outside of Christianity then no need to fear considering any arguments whatsoever. And you can say "I didn't know this argument, but I will consider it and we will come back to this". Cause saying you don't know how to refute something doesn't imply that it is true or even unrefutable.
Besides everytime someone questions your beliefs and you find a solution it strenghtens your faith and makes you less fearful to engage in apologetics. Every ready thought through answer is as a verbal weapon in your arsenal.
As Christians we should help people of other world views come to know Jesus. This must be done with love, but also with knowledge and tact. Check out Tactics by Greg Koukl and his website http://www.STR.org, it has been an eye opener for me and how I can engage my students and people of other world views 🙂
That was informative.
Really well explained!!! Thank you!!!!
Isn't this the root of the problem with many of the modern heretical movements in Christianity. It's all about what they think God is like based on their feelings rather than what Scripture actually says.
I never thought of things in that way. Thank you for the video.
My head is spinning and at some point I feel like my brain is not braining….
Doesent the definition of what spirituality means make the difference and also the idea of being saved when speaking of objectivity? How can you say that it doeasnt without coming from a biased opinion that there is a god and that there is saving that needs to happen. So many things are well over my head. This could very well be one of them. Am I not seeing this right. I dont mind being wrong . Can someone explain this to me in a different way so that I can understand please. If indeed a person believes in their doctrine then it is that doctrine that dictates what truth is (to them.)
“There is no objective truth” is a strawman. Here is a better formulation of a skeptical perspective: “I have not seen established without presupposing it in some way that it is always possible to coherently talk about the things that we discern within reality”.
Truth doesn’t exist in the view of wise and cunning people. Truth is a tool to shape the view consensus by wise and cunning people. Truth is usually use by greedy people who want shape your opinion by deception the only one thing that greedy people fear is a fact. Truth without fact is always used by greedy people. Truth vs Fact Truth is this is a man killed people he is evil and many people wanted *Death penalty*for him(Truth) but Fact is this is a man killed people(Fact). This however truth used by greedy but Fact cannot used by greedy people.
Ok but… How and why do we believe that isoniazid being the cure to tuberculosis is an objective fact? I guess we believe it because it's "scientifically proven". But then, why do we believe that scientific evidence is actually objective? Like, your average Joe on the street is not likely going to have the knowledge or the expertise to know that for themselves, so what they do, and what we do, is we simply trust somebody else (i.e. doctors/scientists) because "they studied that stuff" (unless we wanna defend the objectiveness of that claim on the basis of anecdotal data, just because we've seen/read/heard about certain people being cured with it). And if instead we just accept that we should trust them because "they studied it", then I'd ask "why do we believe that what they studied is objective?" And that would bring me back to the earlier statement: "oh, it's scientific data". But why is scientific data "objective"? And so on and so forth.
So, I guess my question here would be: what is actually "objective"? What is the actual idea or "definition" of "objectivity"? And can there even be such a thing as an "objective definition" of "objectivity"? 🤔
Sorry if it's a stupid question, idk 😅🥲 (and BTW, I'm not saying that I don't believe that isoniazid cures tuberculosis, or that what all of those doctors studied is not true… I'm just saying that I recognize that I only believe it because I choose to do so, not because I can actually prove that it is "objectively true")
Thank you for this! You explained perfectly where I can understand.
The fact is there a truth ,if yes there is objective truth.Otherwisw there is no truth just info moving
Either A: there is objective truth
Or B: There is no objective truths, but that would mean that is objectively true and is therefore wrong