Subjective Proof

[Willamena]

I have a philosophical topic for this thread, but it directly impacts revealed religion. The topic is subjective proof, i.e. knowledge that is private, which is to say for one person alone to know.
​

- Evidence that convinces one of the truth is proof.
- Proof is objective, such that anyone who approaches it can know it.
- Proof can be private, in that a person alone has followed the evidence or threads of logic to arrive at the conclusion that is believed.
- Hence, while the truth is available to be revealed to anyone, it is not necessarily the case that anyone can arrive at the truth.

Objections?

 

[`mud]

In the endless Cosmos out there, I feel deeply in my inner most mind,
that there is not a god of any sort watching over us in any form or manner.
Other than that...I don't know what you want to know about religious beliefs.

 

[`mud]

Oh yahhh...maybe beyond infinity...there's Nirvana somewhere,
from where we came and where we will go !

 

[Windwalker]

In the endless Cosmos out there, I feel deeply in my inner most mind,
that there is not a god of any sort watching over us in any form or manner.

This is an expression of faith, of course. Faith leads us to feel the truth, when our reasoning minds fail us. The "innermost mind" is where faith reigns.

 

[allfoak]

The existence of God does not rely on our belief.
Therefore, saying that we don't believe in the existence of God only affects our own life and nothing else.
There is truth in all things.
This means that God both exists and doesn't exist depending upon the person who holds the belief.
Whatever allows us to experience a state which brings us peace is true.
Tomorrow that truth may evolve into something completely contradictory to what was considered truth yesterday , yet it is still the truth.
Truth is stranger than fiction they say.

 

[bobhikes]

I have a philosophical topic for this thread, but it directly impacts revealed religion. The topic is subjective proof, i.e. knowledge that is private, which is to say for one person alone to know.
​

- Evidence that convinces one of the truth is proof.
- Proof is objective, such that anyone who approaches it can know it.
- Proof can be private, in that a person alone has followed the evidence or threads of logic to arrive at the conclusion that is believed.
- Hence, while the truth is available to be revealed to anyone, it is not necessarily the case that anyone can arrive at the truth.

Objections?

I can't see proof as objective ever. The problem with proof and fact is that it is always subjective to the receiver. Something as simple as water boils at 212/100 degrees depends on where you are and quality of the water. You will get a different result with each. Now you need to investigate further as to why? Perhaps you don't want to so for you water always boils at 214/101 degrees. That is your proof. As long as your water supply or atmospheric pressure doesn't change the temperature water boils will always be the same. Not that you really care when your watching the pot.

 

[WalterTrull]

This means that God both exists and doesn't exist depending upon the person who holds the belief

Ol' Erwin (Schroedinger) pops up in the most unexpected places. (Well, not exactly)

 

[WalterTrull]

Proof is seen/felt as objective (whatever works), but we're told the universe is subjective. It would be so cool to be allowed to ride in the cab and maybe play with the controls. (Under supervision of course)

 

[Valjean]

I have a philosophical topic for this thread, but it directly impacts revealed religion. The topic is subjective proof, i.e. knowledge that is private, which is to say for one person alone to know.
​

- Evidence that convinces one of the truth is proof.
- Proof is objective, such that anyone who approaches it can know it.
- Proof can be private, in that a person alone has followed the evidence or threads of logic to arrive at the conclusion that is believed.
- Hence, while the truth is available to be revealed to anyone, it is not necessarily the case that anyone can arrive at the truth.
Objections?

Following evidence and threads of logic isn't private. It's objective. It's out there for anyone to use and arrive at a common conclusion.
Subjective proof, it seems to me, would be a personal revelation or a mystical experience; something that can't be accessed by others.

I can't see proof as objective ever. The problem with proof and fact is that it is always subjective to the receiver. Something as simple as water boils at 212/100 degrees depends on where you are and quality of the water. You will get a different result with each. Now you need to investigate further as to why? Perhaps you don't want to so for you water always boils at 214/101 degrees. That is your proof.

But the fact that water boils at 100 degrees assumes standard pressure and actual water, rather than a mixture of dissolved minerals. As stated scientifically it's an objective fact.

As long as your water supply or atmospheric pressure doesn't change the temperature water boils will always be the same. Not that you really care when your watching the pot.

Now you seem to be contradicting yourself and proffering an objective fact.

 

[Nakosis]

I have a philosophical topic for this thread, but it directly impacts revealed religion. The topic is subjective proof, i.e. knowledge that is private, which is to say for one person alone to know.
​

- Evidence that convinces one of the truth is proof.
- Proof is objective, such that anyone who approaches it can know it.
- Proof can be private, in that a person alone has followed the evidence or threads of logic to arrive at the conclusion that is believed.
- Hence, while the truth is available to be revealed to anyone, it is not necessarily the case that anyone can arrive at the truth.

Objections?

The truth for most people is whatever they happen to accept as true based on whatever evidence they feel is appropriate to rely on.

Objective, you can show evidence to prove something true to someone other than yourself. The more folks you can convince of a truth based on given evidence the more objective that truth is.

The more objective a truth is the more reliable it is. Though all truths are fallible.

 

[bobhikes]

But the fact that water boils at 100 degrees assumes standard pressure and actual water, rather than a mixture of dissolved minerals. As stated scientifically it's an objective fact.

I could argue that it is not objective fact but that expands upon the OP. My argument along the lines of the OP are that the person will have to believe the scientifically objective fact and that unless they have the scientific means to verify they have pure water or verify their atmospheric pressure, the temperature they get will not equal the fact they have. They will then have to further study the subject, buy more equipment or just except the fact that their water does not boil at 212/100 degrees. It is also a fact that their water does not boil at 212/100 and isn't that also an objective fact.

Why is the temperature that water boils only an objective fact at a defined pure water and atmospheric pressure, isn't it an objective fact the water boils at the temperature it boils at where ever you are. Are you stating only scientifically defined measurements are objective facts?

 

[Ponder This]

I have a philosophical topic for this thread, but it directly impacts revealed religion. The topic is subjective proof, i.e. knowledge that is private, which is to say for one person alone to know.

- Evidence that convinces one of the truth is proof.
- Proof is objective, such that anyone who approaches it can know it.
- Proof can be private, in that a person alone has followed the evidence or threads of logic to arrive at the conclusion that is believed.
- Hence, while the truth is available to be revealed to anyone, it is not necessarily the case that anyone can arrive at the truth.

Objections?

I think that evidence can be subjective.
For example, 'my foot hurts' is subjective evidence. It isn't available to anyone to anyone who approaches it; it's only available to me.

 

[Sir Doom]

Truth is a lump of clay waiting to be shaped.

 

[Quintessence]

I have a question about this part here:

- Proof is objective, such that anyone who approaches it can know it.

How does this apply to more ephemeral situations? This seems to assume that the proof that was there will be there in the future for someone else to approach it. Many of our life experiences don't operate that way. They occur at a single point in time, then are done. Someone can't go back and approach our past experiences as we did. Put another way, there are many proofs that seem subjective or cannot be approached by anyone because of their nature. What about those cases?

Does this idea reinforce or derail your later idea about the truth being available to be revealed to anyone?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I have a philosophical topic for this thread, but it directly impacts revealed religion. The topic is subjective proof, i.e. knowledge that is private, which is to say for one person alone to know.
​

- Evidence that convinces one of the truth is proof.
- Proof is objective, such that anyone who approaches it can know it.
- Proof can be private, in that a person alone has followed the evidence or threads of logic to arrive at the conclusion that is believed.
- Hence, while the truth is available to be revealed to anyone, it is not necessarily the case that anyone can arrive at the truth.

Objections?

I feel anyone can have proof and evidence of something for him or herself. Proof and evidence isnt, by definition, objective. It just supports the argument person A makes. So, if someone said I had fun in California, thats fine. But if someone wanted proof that that person had fun, that concluion is subjective. When that person John went to california, he did activities he thought was fun. He can support it with evidence but its only apropriate to support his statement.

The person who asked can continue to bog John with ojective evidence that he had fun, but there is no such thing. Its all Johns experience. He cant speak for others just for himself; completely subjective.

Objective evidence is observable to all. It doesnt need to be scientific. If John said, I went to california and thats it, he can supply concrete evidence to that. But when he said it was fun, that is in the eye of the beholder.

If you are relating this to god, its the same.

I love god because he saved me and now Im a better man because of it.

Love and salvation are highly subjective. It can be proven with evidence but the criteria of evidecne is not scientific but experiential. Which means when Carls life changed for the better, his better lifestyle confirms his statement to himself.

If someone asked him to prove ojectively that he was actually saved and love god that changed his life, they cant comprehend that because love and salvation is by person in many cases and by group in others. The only thing they can see is a better life but they cant attribute it to a god, love, nor salvation since the criteria for that ro proof and evidence exists but only to the person who believes it.

Im pretty simple, thoug. Proof and evidence can be objective (tickets to california or better life) or subjective (had fun or received love from gods existence).


The problem is when they mix. Just because you had fun doent confirm you went to Cali. Just because your life changed doesnt mean its from god.

So, there needs to be further questions to understand how subjective proof is argumentally expressed objectively. Maybe person who states it doesnt know what objective means or could choose to see people in his world rather than stepping back and claiming his own evidence is not proof to someone eles belief and opinion.

 

[`mud]

Objective----Subjective----Proofs
Objects can do actions...subjects receive actions.
Subjects can deliver actions...and objects receive.
Sometimes I get confused, which is which.
And the `proofs` that are represented are a mystery.
Oh well...I guess I will remain confused

 

[Skwim]

I have a philosophical topic for this thread, but it directly impacts revealed religion. The topic is subjective proof, i.e. knowledge that is private, which is to say for one person alone to know.
​

- Evidence that convinces one of the truth is proof.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, strictly speaking, proof is only applicable in math, logic, and liquor. However, outside of math and logic taking proof as those elements that convince one of truth, it is a valid concept, although hardly useful beyond oneself. Don't expect your evidence to convince others.

- Proof is objective, such that anyone who approaches it can know it.

Strictly speaking of proof as I've noted above, Yes it is; however, your use of the concept of proof is not. It's purely subjective.

- Proof can be private, in that a person alone has followed the evidence or threads of logic to arrive at the conclusion that is believed.

If I understand you correctly, subjective proof, yes. Objective proof, no.

Hence, while the truth is available to be revealed to anyone,

If by "revealed" you mean recognized and accepted, certainly not subjective truth.

it is not necessarily the case that anyone can arrive at the truth.

Well, certainly not subjective truth, which is most likely only your "truth."

.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I have a philosophical topic for this thread, but it directly impacts revealed religion. The topic is subjective proof, i.e. knowledge that is private, which is to say for one person alone to know.
​

- Evidence that convinces one of the truth is proof.
- Proof is objective, such that anyone who approaches it can know it.
- Proof can be private, in that a person alone has followed the evidence or threads of logic to arrive at the conclusion that is believed.
- Hence, while the truth is available to be revealed to anyone, it is not necessarily the case that anyone can arrive at the truth.

Objections?

I figure it's sums up, "To thine own self be true".

 

[Twilight Hue]

Ultimately I would take any form of truth is on loan anyways and you must leave behind any truths you happened to discover when you die.

Intellectualism only take you so far.

 

[Valjean]

I could argue that it is not objective fact but that expands upon the OP. My argument along the lines of the OP are that the person will have to believe the scientifically objective fact and that unless they have the scientific means to verify they have pure water or verify their atmospheric pressure, the temperature they get will not equal the fact they have. They will then have to further study the subject, buy more equipment or just except the fact that their water does not boil at 212/100 degrees. It is also a fact that their water does not boil at 212/100 and isn't that also an objective fact.

The objective fact is that a given liquid at a given pressure will boil at a specific temperature. Whether an individual has the capacity to determine that temperature doesn't matter, it doesn't affect the objective fact.
The boiling point has always been an objective fact, even before there were any people around to appreciate it.

Why is the temperature that water boils only an objective fact at a defined pure water and atmospheric pressure, isn't it an objective fact the water boils at the temperature it boils at where ever you are. Are you stating only scientifically defined measurements are objective facts?

The objective facts are the objective facts, whether scientists can measure them or not.

How does this apply to more ephemeral situations? This seems to assume that the proof that was there will be there in the future for someone else to approach it. Many of our life experiences don't operate that way. They occur at a single point in time, then are done. Someone can't go back and approach our past experiences as we did. Put another way, there are many proofs that seem subjective or cannot be approached by anyone because of their nature. What about those cases?

But we're not talking about qualia. Qualia are subjective.
Objective facts are things like the Pythagorean theorem or inverse square law; unchanged by time or our experience of them.

I feel anyone can have proof and evidence of something for him or herself. Proof and evidence isnt, by definition, objective. It just supports the argument person A makes.

Anyone can have evidence, which may be either objective or subjective, but proof is objective, it exists whether an individual is aware of it or not.

So, if someone said I had fun in California, thats fine. But if someone wanted proof that that person had fun, that concluion is subjective. When that person John went to california, he did activities he thought was fun. He can support it with evidence but its only apropriate to support his statement.

John's "fun" is subjective, it's a personal feeling that can't be demonstrated with empirical evidence. His trip to California, though, is an objective fact.

Love and salvation are highly subjective. It can be proven with evidence but the criteria of evidecne is not scientific but experiential.

But isn't experiential evidence subjective, by definition?