I guess we're talking past each other or using the word objective differently. By objective I mean something that would be real, or true, regardless of anybody. Like objective morality: that something would still be right and wrong even if there were no people to make a moral judgment about it.
I think it's reasonable to expect that if God, being God (as in almighty etc), wants everybody to know about something, then he'll make sure they do know about it. It seems unreasonable to leave it to what is practically chance (where and when you're born, what culture you grow up in etc) if it's actually important to him. So I reckon that either God doesn't want us all to know the truth, or there simply isn't no God or ultimate truth to be known.
Our experience should be based on reality to a pretty high degree given what we’ve been able to accomplish by relying on it to guide us. I mean, unless you’re arguing for something like solipsism I don’t see how you could say that the “margin of error” between our experience and reality as it is is too great to be negligible for all intents and purposes.
Your way isn't any less hypothetical. If you can show me a person that has lived forever, I'll change my mind.
An electromagnetic wave isn't "a truth". So what if statements and thoughts don't exist if minds don't exist? That doesn't make waves not exist.
I'd enjoy that. I have a conception of objective morality based on human physiology that I'd like to kick the tires on and see how it runs. We could duke it out and see who's morality is more demonstrable.
The fact there are truths awaiting our discovery indeed presupposes their objective existence. Where were these truths "held", so to speak, until known by us?
The "truths" weren't anywhere. The stuff that we make statements about were. Just like my analogy from the beginning of the thread. There's the penny, and then there's me saying, "Hey look! A penny!"
I agree that regardless of our perceptions the frequency for blue won't change. If no one could see blue though, we wouldn't really know it exists. At least in the perceptive sense. Saying "this car is blue" would hardly make sense anymore.
Why not?
I've shown that facts are true whether we know them or not. It's on you to show some direct link between knowledge and existence. You already agreed that knowledge doesn't cause things, so what is it?
One thing is for sure, knowledge concerning that reality must reside in a mind. Whatever it may be beyond that, if anything at all, is unknowable at least and non existent at most. They are that reality itself, yes, as far as we are concerned. You wouldn't know about reality without both your mind and your subjective/conscious experience.
