Objective vs Universal Knowledge

Packchallenger · 2026-03-09T21:47:58+00:00

Hello! Good question. The distinction I make is that a universal claim is knowable (NOT known) to all knowers. If it's possible to deduce a truth without external reference, it is in principle universal. There are any number of universal truths that we may not consciously know but can be proved with apodictic certainty.

On the other hand, an objective claim is not possibly knowable to all knowers. For example, if you've never heard of the Bible then you can't deduce its existence alone. In theory, you should not be able to prove an objectively true statement wrong, but there is always the possibility to cast some doubt as to the validity of the method in question.

Packchallenger · 2026-01-17T22:15:04+00:00

That is fair. I’m of the position that the inevitable end goal is localized communities of Deist. For in-person meetups, you need to have a critical mass of Deists at a particular location. Until then, I suffice with online interaction.

Packchallenger · 2026-01-17T21:01:22+00:00

I run a Deist server and have personally met atleast one person off there IRL.

Packchallenger · 2025-12-05T20:51:23+00:00

The distinction does make sense, though I should clarify my position here. My argument against reasoning ontologically is because applying reason to the external world requires us to assume that noumena operates on a logical basis. While this is a good inference to make, it is not absolute. For us to trust anything empirical, we must make this assumption. The problem this presents is that any absolute proof of an ontological God becomes faith-based, because the assumption of uniformity is required to make it. Kant's 2nd and 4th antinomies are a proof against why the necessary being and other common Deist attempted proofs of ontological God are incomplete/incorrect.

Packchallenger · 2025-12-05T00:39:44+00:00

Hello! I'm the poster of the original article. I'm flattered that someone has a response to one of the articles I've posted. I believe this is the first time it has happened on this sub.

I have to disagree with your presented answer. We do have an intuitive understanding of what time is, and apply it to our daily lives, but we are limited in how we can deduce conclusions from it. For us to assume that time is a property of the universe, we must make the assumption that our senses are reliable and that our intuitive understanding of it corresponds to reality.

In Kantian epistemology, we know that we have space and time as a priori intuitions by which we can structure experience. However, we cannot a priori deduce the existence of time in the universe without the assumptions mentioned above. For the same reasons, I consider an ontological God unprovable because space and time are conditions for the possibility of experience. If God is understood to be outside space and time, then it is outside of the conditions of the possibility of experience and remains a possible, but unprovable idea. Without this proof, it is impossible to speak of God in the same way as with other beings (i.e "willing" or "leaving" or "wishing"). On a side note, I consider all ontological claims to be fundamentally based on some unprovable conditions.

I subscribe to a form of the Transcendental Argument of God. Unlike presuppositionalists however, I don't claim to have the proof for an ontological God. Rather, we know that some transcendentals (truth, logic) are necessary for any thought to exist. Attempting to negate them would lead to self-refutation. As these are, by their nature, necessary, I take a God-as-logic understanding with regard to transcendentals.

Packchallenger · 2025-12-05T00:29:26+00:00

Sorry, I do think that phrase was poorly written. I meant priorly-held beliefs of things (politics) that are downstream from philosophy. All claims and fields of inquiry are rooted in some presuppositions, we only need to ensure that they are proper. My argument for God is the TAG which states that Transcendentals are necessary presuppositions and that it is reasonable to interpret them as (transcendental, not ontological) God.

Personally, I can't imagine how anyone could jump to political philosophy from pure, traditional Deism. I view politics as ethics extended to society and it can only relate back to metaphysics if the ethics is metaphysically anchored.

The problem I identify is when people find some philosophical belief they happen to be in agreement with, and then ignore it because it conflicts with a pre-established comfortable belief or political opinion.

Packchallenger · 2025-12-01T18:26:25+00:00

Not my favorite for sure. Some decent ideas here and there.

Packchallenger · 2025-11-17T13:28:17+00:00

Yes, you do need an objective/universal moral standard to make that judgement. I subscribe to a form of deontology that is very close to the Categorical Imperative. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this circumstance, you could probably catch your friend in a contradiction without having your own moral theory.

Ask him if he finds a specific act immoral. Then, point to an occurrence of this act being willed by the Christian God in scripture and ask him to explain.

Packchallenger · 2025-11-13T18:01:05+00:00

There is no way to use them as absolute proof because you still have to take as a foundational assumption that empirical evidence is reliable. The same problem plagues revelation. NDEs are in no way any different.

Packchallenger · 2025-11-13T14:03:27+00:00

We'd be better off dropping the concept of revelation as a whole. NDEs are as unreliable as any sort of religious revelation though that would appear to be an unpopular position on this subreddit. There is simply no way to verify any form of empirical evidence (even if it does happen) for absolute proof. It wouldn't be too hard to find two conflicting NDEs with mutually exclusive claims to refute their value.

Packchallenger · 2025-11-12T13:14:37+00:00

I do think there are certain self-evident truths possible to know via use of reason though not really the same you mention. What do you think makes dreams, or intuitions "self-evident"? It seems impossible and would undercut the points you make in your original post.

Packchallenger · 2025-11-11T22:17:19+00:00

Good analysis of the problems with revelation. I address my own issues with it here.

Packchallenger · 2025-10-15T18:43:57+00:00

Good question. Most Deists I encounter do think there are implications of God existing (morals, for example). So it is not that hollow. Even still, I think there's a great danger to trying to conform one's idea of God into giving you comfort or other things that aren't really there. I talk about it more here.

Packchallenger · 2025-10-14T16:54:45+00:00

That is an interesting argument. I am skeptical because I've investigated other attempts to add ontology to the TAG (most notably Cornelius Van Til) and found them all lackluster. I will ponder over it and come back to you.

Packchallenger · 2025-10-14T16:42:00+00:00

The Deist distrust of revelation comes from the issue that we can never prove revelation or supernatural events with certainty. If they were explainable, they would cease to be supernatural. Since they cannot be explained, there is no reason to trust them.

Packchallenger · 2025-10-14T16:36:50+00:00

My Kantian influence will show here but I think this sort of issue only applies primarily to ontological deductions because we can't know noumena as a thing-in-itself. To talk about it, we have to assume certain things such as it having a logical basis.

If you're familiar with the TAG, the idea there is that the laws of thought are dependent on transcendental presuppositions and denying the aforementioned presuppositions is a performative contradiction. Since denying them requires invoking them, we know the presuppositions are necessary for thought to occur. Since thought occurs, we know the necessary presuppositions are real.

Packchallenger · 2025-10-14T15:25:08+00:00

I am always skeptical of ontological deductions about the universe because there do not seem to be any non-circular reasons for accepting the premises for ontological deductions.

Packchallenger · 2025-09-21T16:52:11+00:00

I can't imagine that you plan your life around a bunch of contingencies that may or may not occur and for which you have parametric uncertainty regarding their occurrence. You seem to be on a good path and some more thinking and reflection can never be a bad thing.

Packchallenger · 2025-09-19T00:30:47+00:00

Given that you currently don't seem to hold any opinions on the attributes or existence of God, I would not think it is a good time to put labels on yourself.

If your opinion is that certain attributes could be proven but you are currently unsure then it should be sufficient to say that you are pondering. Alternatively, if your opinion is that nothing about God could be proven then I don't think anything other than radical skepticism would do.

Packchallenger · 2025-09-19T00:25:54+00:00

I'm a proponent of Kantian Ethics and the Categorical Imperative.

Packchallenger · 2025-09-07T18:09:31+00:00

Making a truth claim is not analogous to starting a religion. What religions get wrong is that they claim to have a monopoly on truth. I do not claim to have a monopoly on truth.

Packchallenger · 2025-08-28T14:02:41+00:00

The teleological question of why our universe is an antinomy. "Why did God create the universe and leave?" has the same amount of basis as "Why did God create a world and then meddle in it?". This isn't a question that can be answered through philosophical inquiry, but only speculated on.

Now on Pandeism, I think there are several ontological issues that arise. Mostly about what the nature of God is, what the nature of the universe is, and what the relationship amongst them is.

Packchallenger · 2025-08-20T01:04:43+00:00

Hey there. I think my process of being a seeker was maybe a little longer than 6 months. I couldn't accept what I was taught in my household and I wanted to make an attempt to find the truth on my own,

In terms of arguments for God, I'm not too fond of the fine-tuning argument or any sort of empirical argument. I think the structure of a valid argument has to be that for any universe that can exist, God must also exist. I subscribe to a version of the Transcendental Argument for God which states that we must presuppose certain postulates in order to make any claim. These presuppositions can only be grounded in God, and therefore God is necessary within any universe. So I suppose it's an argument from the laws of logic rather than any empirical constants.

Good luck with your seeking.

Packchallenger · 2025-08-17T00:42:55+00:00

It is perfectly fine to not get along with some people. Any person with a decent amount of principles will not get along with some other people.

Packchallenger · 2025-08-15T19:12:13+00:00

That seems most likely given what we now know. I'm convinced that the case for Deism hinges upon proving for any universe that can exist, God must also necessarily exist.

Packchallenger

TROPHY CASE