You said:
"It is only in subjectivity that our truth actually exists."
Is this true? Is it true for everyone?
See, for anything we say, or any position that we take, ....and I mean ANY position that we hold to be "correct".... we're maintaining that it is a correct viewpoint that applies to everyone. We all hold our view to be actually correct, not just an opinion, and the opposite of it to be actually false.
I agree, when we take a position, any position, we hold that position to be the true and correct position, but it is here that the similarity in our position ends, so to speak. Although, I hold my position to be true, it is not binding on others.
To clarify further, we are rational beings, which hold autonomous sets of values and absolutes. These value systems are based on own unique set of experiences, and are qualified by our own changing situations. What I hold to be true, today, is not binding on you, nor is it binding on me in the future. The fact is we exist outside of the metaphysical realm. We are not static. We are constantly changing and learning; therefore, our value systems are forever changing. Hence, the statement, "it is only in subjectivity that our truth actually exists".
Kant's flaw was that he advocated on one hand for autonomous value systems, but on the other hand, bound them on everyone else metaphysically. He claims, "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become universal law". His premise rests on the assumption that rational beings have universal practical reason, and from this we can determine an ethical universal law. his categorical imperative is flawed, in that it cannot account for every autonomous value system, by every autonomous rational being. It lacks the ability to determine rules sufficiently. It lacks flexibility.
I understand your position about human perceptions....I think. But if we take a position that "we can't know" then, aren't we saying "I know that I can't know?" This was the trap that Kant came very close to falling into.
Ah, the great philosophical conundrum stemming from the Parmenidean legacy. You are right, if we take the position of "we can't know" we are, in effect, claiming that "we know we cannot know". Subjective truth; however, broaches this problem from a different perspective. Notice I did not say that we cannot "know" truth, just that we "know" truth differently. It cannot be defined, because we will never agree on all that it entails. We know truth existentially, not metaphysically. The criterion for truth is different. You assumed, because I failed to clarify, that my criterion for truth was based on our differing sensory perceptions, when, in essence, my criterion for truth rests on the reflection of our personal experiences, or rather, how truth is related to our existence.
But for anything we say, the secret to testing our viewpoint is to turn the statement back on itself, and apply it's principles to itself.
Skeptical? Are we skeptical about skepticism?
Agnostic? Are we agnostic about agnosticism?
Relativism? Are our statements about relativism absolute or relative?
Again, I agree.
As for proving that God exists, I disagree with that also. There are several lines of reasoning that prove (yes 'prove') that God exits. Kalaam, vertical cosmological, moral, teleological are all VERY solid arguments in the hands of a good philosopher. See several works by Geisler.
You are right, and I should have been more clear. We can prove that God exists, but we cannot prove that "OUR" God exists. I have not read any of Geisler's works, but I will be sure to in the future.
Sincerely,
Filmproducer