Interesting question. You, Nam and I would have had a lot of fun in Sunday School class, I think. But I digress.
For me, my conclusions and understandings of God ARE objective truths in that they are true for me. I realize that explaining the situations which I understand to be a sign of God's presence is purely subjective in that these instances cannot be duplicated nor measured. But for me, they are real and, therefore, objective. No doubt this sounds like a very twisted piece of logical reasoning and perhaps it is. But that is my story and I'm stickin' to it.
I'm not sure I'd call it a 'twisted piece of logical reasoning'. But I think there is some conflating of the words 'objective' and 'real'. I don't deny that subjective experiences
are real. They are. But they aren't objective
. You liking or disliking vanilla iced cream is subjective. Your tasting
of vanilla iced cream is subjective. That a cold, churned collective of dairy product embedded with chemicals that most people associate with a flavor called 'vanilla' made contact with your tongue is objective
Regarding the question of definitive objective proof of God's non-existence, I don't know. I suspect my initial reaction would be to either ignore it or try to find a loop-hole. I might eventually come to embrace it, but I am not certain.
Try as I might, I still have not been able to fully circumvent the natural human tendency to dislike the feeling of being wrong. Your initial reaction sounds pretty much like my initial reaction when something happens to make me think I might be wrong about something (e.g. someone tells me something contrary to what I currently believe). My use of the word 'definitive' was intended to try to get around that part, but honestly, at the end of the day, I suppose it would depend on the nature of this 'definitive objective proof', wouldn't it?
But I asked because you said that your theism is, first and foremost, subjective
. Which is backwards from the way I view most everything - I can only have a subjective experience
in response to something objectively happening
. The subjective experience
of me tasting metal is in response
to something objective:
1) Some metallic object made physical contact with my tongue.
2) I am in the midst of experiencing a heart attack, and the physiological rumblings upon my body induced an experience of tasting metal.
3) A neurological misfire happened in my brain (extraordinarily strong EMI, a stroke, LSD, a seizure, etc.) that induced an experience of tasting metal.
4) A deity induced the experience of me tasting metal (perhaps through some physical means, perhaps through some divine-somethingorother).
5) A playful alien induced the experience of me tasting metal (perhaps through some understood physical means, perhaps through exploitation of physical laws that make no sense to humans right now).Subjective experience
is my response
to things objectively
Reading back on this may explain why some theists who are on this site trying to engage you guys in the superiority of Christian theism over atheism seem to adamant. They have their religious experiences which seem objective and real to them. Therefore, they may see themselves on equal footing with people on this website who are asking for objective evidence. Just a thought.
And again...there is a conflation of the words 'objective' and 'real'.
I do not deny the reality of your subjective experiences. I deny your explanation for the cause of some those experiences. Because if it's subjective experience all the way down, then by definition it exists only in your mind.
Does any of that make sense?