There seems to be two ways that people approach truth: some do it inwardly first, and some do it outwardly first.
The ones that first approach truth inwardly make up their mind without outside input (for example: "There is no God"). Once their truth is determined they take from the outside what supports their version of "truth". If the outside evidence does not support their “truth” they may ignore, or develop arguments against, what the outside world may suggest. Then they act toward the outside as if their "truth" is actual fact.
The ones that first approach truth outwardly try to observe in the events outside them that seem to be the truth. They may wonder, “How does all that I see originate?” They look at the outside to see what might represent the truth and try to discern what is the truth from those observations. Then they evaluate what they have inwardly determined as the truth (for example, “There is a God”) to see if it tracks with the outside observation. They will then act in accordance with this “truth”.
Both these views carry with them two aspects: an inward and outward acknowledgment or definition of truth. There is an inward reality of the individual. This is the subjective reality that exists within the individual. It is different for each person. There is also an outward reality of the physical/social world. This is objective and unchanging, or changes according to unvarying principles and is the same for all people.
One says, “There is no God”, the other says, “There is a God”. But neither can prove the other wrong. One can decide inwardly first "there is (or there is no) God and treat the outside world accordingly. One can make outside observations about the world and conclude from these "there is (or there is no) God.
Seeing the Bible says, "The fool hath said in his heart, 'There is no God' . . ." Which do you think is the safer conclusion as your physical life unceasingly, unremittingly moves toward the grave?
