Argument from truth

[Sapiens]

This is an argument from incredulity, and it’s a fallacy.

I’m afraid if you’re not willing to lay it out for me I’m left dismissing your justification for premise 1 as an argument from incredulity...

Alright. The lions are jumping on the lamb. I did provide justification for premiss one. You don't like it? I can't help you. I will cite myself and attempt to make it clearer. Perhaps specific questions/issues would help me. Questions other than "what is your justification".

If truth exists only in a human mind, then it didn't always exist and will not always either. If so, then truth is an illusion existing only in our mind. If we consider materialism, then it is only an experience caused by biochemical processes in the brain. If we consider evolution of life through natural selection, then it is only the result of selected components of chemistry in the human physiology enhancing survival (see video). So truth isn't objective. What is it then? Just atoms colliding in our brains and creating subjective experiences? Yes. Do they conform with reality? Not necessarily. Are they subject to change through evolution's process? Yes. In any case, if it depends on humans only, then it doesn't exist objectively.

It's hard to see how an assembling of atoms in a certain way makes a belief or statement true or false. They are just states of matter. They don't bear metaphysical values. Any experience of truth derived will be illusory.

Moreover, based on Plantinga's argument, natural evolution as an unguided physical process will not produce truth evaluating creatures but survival capable creatures. Creatures who will sustain themselves, protect themselves, and reproduce. No truth knowledge is required, so long as these requisites are met. Hence, no reason to believe that truth evaluation was selected. At best, we'd be agnostic, at worst we'd have to deny our rational faculties. One who wishes to affirm them and the truth, will need to ground them somewhere. Hence my argument.

If God does not exist, then we're left with relativism and truth-neutrality. Nothing is true nor false but only experiences in one's brain.

One more thing, the existence of truth implies our minds were made to interpret reality correctly, as if the world is intelligible. That does suggest a creator who wanted us to understand our surroundings and ourselves.

It points at design, hence what I said in previous posts. I wasn't making an argument from incredulity, but reaffirming what I already argued for. What is it that you would like to contend among what I said?

 

[Sapiens]

Why would I defend premise 1? I think it is wrong.

Yes of course. I wanted you to defend my argument. No, silly. YOUR argument. premiss "A." stating if truth exists then God doesn't.

 

[Sapiens]

Why would I defend premise 1? I think it is wrong.

I don't know if you meant your own argument was wrong, but if so then I fail to understand your point.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I don't know if you meant your own argument was wrong, but if so then I fail to understand your point.

Yes of course. I wanted you to defend my argument. No, silly. YOUR argument. premiss "A." stating if truth exists then God doesn't.

I thought you meant your premise 1.

My premise 1 was to demonstrate that anyone can make a syllogism. Mine was just as valid as yours and they contradict. Making syllogisms has a certain usefulness, but in and of themselves they don't prove anything except, perhaps, that one's thoughts are somewhat ordered.

 

[Sapiens]

I thought you meant your premise 1.

My premise 1 was to demonstrate that anyone can make a syllogism. Mine was just as valid as yours and they contradict. Making syllogisms has a certain usefulness, but in and of themselves they don't prove anything except, perhaps, that one's thoughts are somewhat ordered.

Sorry if I hadn't been clear before. Yeah, but you said yourself that premisses need to be defended... Which I did. Which you didn't.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Sorry if I hadn't been clear before. Yeah, but you said yourself that premisses need to be defended... Which I did. Which you didn't.

No. My syllogism was to demonstrate that anyone can make a syllogism. That, in and of itself, means nothing. I don't even believe that premise. I do not think that god exists, but I also do not think that truth existing demonstrates that god doesn't exist.

Validity does not imply soundness.

 

[Sapiens]

No. My syllogism was to demonstrate that anyone can make a syllogism. That, in and of itself, means nothing. I don't even believe that premise. I do not think that god exists, but I also do not think that truth existing demonstrates that god doesn't exist.

Validity does not imply soundness.

Alright then, I agree. Remind me why you reject the soundness of my premises? Maybe you said so but I don't recall who said what.

 

[Moral Orel]

Because it wasn't made for that. Without design, I don't see how the probabilities align for that.

It must be unreliable because it wasn't designed to be reliable? That's just begging the question. You need to show that it can't be unreliable, or at least that it probably isn't reliable.

How about just a basic thing. When I see the color purple, should I suspect that I'm seeing a different color somehow? My assessment of reality is that plums are purple. Why must God exist for that to be true?

 

[gaara4158]

It's hard to see how an assembling of atoms in a certain way makes a belief or statement true or false. They are just states of matter. They don't bear metaphysical values. Any experience of truth derived will be illusory.

It is indeed hard to explain how atoms and energy assembled in a certain way can give rise to consciousness capable of forming meaningful statements that correspond with reality. The hard problem of consciousness is its own conundrum in philosophy, let alone truth. But if we accept that consciousness and the ability to form coherent sentences exist somehow, there’s no reason to suppose none of those sentences will correspond to reality. It is uselessly reductionist to be examining atoms for truth value.

Moreover, based on Plantinga's argument, natural evolution as an unguided physical process will not produce truth evaluating creatures but survival capable creatures. Creatures who will sustain themselves, protect themselves, and reproduce. No truth knowledge is required, so long as these requisites are met. Hence, no reason to believe that truth evaluation was selected. At best, we'd be agnostic, at worst we'd have to deny our rational faculties. One who wishes to affirm them and the truth, will need to ground them somewhere. Hence my argument.

Truth is, per your definition, grounded in reality. As long as you accept that reality is what we contend with on a day to day basis, it makes perfect sense that we should develop faculties capable of discerning truth, at least as far as it is relevant to our purposes. If we weren’t adapted to reality, how could we ever hope to manifest our intentions?

 

[Temirlan]

Hello there!

I wish to present an argument for God and see how it holds up.

It is similar to the argument from morality, which I presented some years back, and I think these 2 arguments are the most easily apprehended and convincing ones. Here it goes:

1. If God does not exist, then truth does not exist.
2. Truth does exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Explanations:

Truth: Property of statements conforming with reality. The usual meaning of everyday use. Implies an objective viewpoint, as opposed to merely one's opinion. EDIT: I view truth as one's experience of reality. Thus, propositions are expressions of that experience.

God: The classical monotheistic God, as in Judeo-Christianity. All good, all knowing, all powerful, eternal, personal, creator of all things...

1. Truth exists only in a person's mind. Rocks don't know truth. The sky doesn't know truth. It is questionable if animals know truth, even in part. Point is: a mind is required for it to be known, and thus to exist. Now, if human minds are all there is, then truth is contingent on us. Without us, no truth. But that is not what we sense. There is an actual objective standard upon which all statements are evaluated and valid for everyone everywhere at any time. As if reality ought to be interpreted a certain way, the right way. What is that standard? If truth is to exist not merely in human minds, then there must be a supreme mind from which it originated. This mind knows all truths.

If truth exists only in a human mind, then it didn't always exist and will not always either. If so, then truth is an illusion existing only in our mind. If we consider materialism, then it is only an experience caused by biochemical processes in the brain. If we consider evolution of life through natural selection, then it is only the result of selected components of chemistry in the human physiology enhancing survival (see:

). So truth isn't objective. What is it then? Just atoms colliding in our brains and creating subjective experiences? Yes. Do they conform with reality? Not necessarily. Are they subject to change through evolution's process? Yes. In any case, if it depends on humans only, then it doesn't exist objectively. A better explanation of our experience of truth is that God eternally knew basic truths and logical laws. Some truths, of course, are contingent on a created universe. The statement "Gary is eating an apple" requires a guy named Gary to exist and apples, and them being able to be eaten by Gary. But the statement "one plus one equals two" is necessarily true, just as "two contradicting statements are mutually exclusive." If God does not exist, then we're left with relativism and truth-neutrality. Nothing is true nor false but only experiences in one's brain.

If you want to deny the truth, then we will have to not take you seriously and deny that your denial is true. Claiming that no statement can be true is self contradictory.

What's more, why deny that objective truth exists? Because you know there is no God? Because you know naturalistic evolution is true? Because you know materialism is true? If you don't believe truth exists, then you don't know anything! What could possibly be convincing enough to draw the conclusion that there is nothing true... Except perhaps the desire to not submit to a supreme creator whose moral standards are higher than ours...

One more thing, the existence of truth implies our minds were made to interpret reality correctly, as if the world is intelligible. That does suggest a creator who wanted us to understand our surroundings and ourselves. The existence of errors and falsehoods further prove that there is an objective standard which is being deviated from.

2. You can read this sentence. You read English.

3. God exists!

3*. Or at least, a supreme and eternal mind from which all truths originate exists. Along with the moral argument, the design argument, the cosmological arguments, we get a fuller picture of who and what this supreme being must be like.

What if there are multiple Gods? Or no God at all? Anything is possible, right?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Alright then, I agree. Remind me why you reject the soundness of my premises?

Truth is, per your definition, grounded in reality. As long as you accept that reality is what we contend with on a day to day basis, it makes perfect sense that we should develop faculties capable of discerning truth, at least as far as it is relevant to our purposes. If we weren’t adapted to reality, how could we ever hope to manifest our intentions?

I like @gaara4158's answer, but I'll go further. Truth is a property of statements, not reality. The degree that a statement reflects reality is the degree of truth it has.

That a rock has such and such a position is neither true nor false. When someone says/thinks/asks about it, that thought has a degree of truth.

There are things to be thought that have never been thought. Those things have a reality. But the statements about that reality have not yet been made. Nothing about the truth of those statements can be said because they haven't been said/thought.

Truth itself is a construct that defines the accuracy of thoughts. If there is no gods nor sapient beings, then the truth of some condition in that world is undefined.

If no gods exist but sapient beings do, then we can each evaluate statements for their accuracy ... God isn't a factor.

 

[Sapiens]

It must be unreliable because it wasn't designed to be reliable? That's just begging the question. You need to show that it can't be unreliable, or at least that it probably isn't reliable.

How about just a basic thing. When I see the color purple, should I suspect that I'm seeing a different color somehow? My assessment of reality is that plums are purple. Why must God exist for that to be true?

I said we should at least be agnostic about our faculties. I'm a bit tired to repeat the same things. There is no reason to trust them without God. If they were reliable, we wouldn't know. Maybe the color purple doesn't even exist.

 

[Tinker Grey]

There is no reason to trust them without God. If they were reliable, we wouldn't know. Maybe the color purple doesn't even exist.

Surely, experience counts for something.

 

[Sapiens]

It is indeed hard to explain how atoms and energy assembled in a certain way can give rise to consciousness capable of forming meaningful statements that correspond with reality. The hard problem of consciousness is its own conundrum in philosophy, let alone truth. But if we accept that consciousness and the ability to form coherent sentences exist somehow, there’s no reason to suppose none of those sentences will correspond to reality. It is uselessly reductionist to be examining atoms for truth value.


Truth is, per your definition, grounded in reality. As long as you accept that reality is what we contend with on a day to day basis, it makes perfect sense that we should develop faculties capable of discerning truth, at least as far as it is relevant to our purposes. If we weren’t adapted to reality, how could we ever hope to manifest our intentions?

My definition was that truth is the proper experience/perception of reality and then expression of that experience into intelligible sentences that can be assessed by others (they can then compare it with their own experience). Maybe we have many false perceptions of reality, if undesigned. Maybe we draw many false beliefs from our perceptions. The point is, there is no reason to assume that probably we have a reliable experience, if undesigned. We'd just know we have an experience generally favouring our survival. If designed, then we know what we experience is what was meant to be experienced. Not that we can't ever be mistaken, but that we can be right, and know it. If undesigned, there is no right way to experience reality, no right perception, no right belief. It's free for all. It's everyone's personal taste of reality. Just a subjective experience.

 

[Sapiens]

Surely, experience counts for something.

Surely. That is why I conclude we must be designed.

 

[Sapiens]

What if there are multiple Gods? Or no God at all? Anything is possible, right?

I don't see what those questions change to the argument. The idea is what is it we can draw from available knowledge (truth exists). We can draw there is a supreme mind. Anything is possible, not everything is the case.

 

[Moral Orel]

There is no reason to trust them without God.

There's no reason to trust them with God. If there's a being that can distort reality at will, how do you know that he doesn't do so? You just have to assume that in order to function in the world, just like I assume I'm not dreaming all of this.

 

[Sapiens]

I like @gaara4158's answer, but I'll go further. Truth is a property of statements, not reality. The degree that a statement reflects reality is the degree of truth it has.

That a rock has such and such a position is neither true nor false. When someone says/thinks/asks about it, that thought has a degree of truth.

There are things to be thought that have never been thought. Those things have a reality. But the statements about that reality have not yet been made. Nothing about the truth of those statements can be said because they haven't been said/thought.

Truth itself is a construct that defines the accuracy of thoughts. If there is no gods nor sapient beings, then the truth of some condition in that world is undefined.

If no gods exist but sapient beings do, then we can each evaluate statements for their accuracy ... God isn't a factor.

I agree with mostly everything you said.

Well... God isn't a factor in the immediate experience we have of truth and reality. God is the answer to "why does this work? Or what can we draw from the fact that this works?" Hence the argument I presented.

Plus, I don't think reality is more that what can be known/experienced of it. So ultimately, it all resides in God's mind and decrees. What can be known and experienced of it, I mean. Even what we'll never know or can't know. God knows.

 

[Sapiens]

There's no reason to trust them with God. If there's a being that can distort reality at will, how do you know that he doesn't do so? You just have to assume that in order to function in the world, just like I assume I'm not dreaming all of this.

Yes, you're right. We're just drawing conclusions from what we do know/take for granted.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I wouldn't say they are unjustified. We have an immediate experience attesting us of these things. We would just have to find common assumptions and build from there.

Our immediate experience is that the world is flat. Was that assumption justified thousands of years ago?

If there is no reason to doubt these things are what they really appear to be, I don't see a problem assuming they are truthful. Possible doesn't mean probable or reasonable.

Appeal to ignorance logical fallacy.

The world no, but our perception of them yes. And how we perceive them will affect how we will choose to act.

What you're describing, by definition, is subjective. You're then labeling it "objective morality."

If I learned that moral values are illusory, I would stop believing I need to conform to them. Why not rob, if I want to? Why restrain myself on anything?

Most of us have empathy, which prevents us from doing harm to others. You're describing yourself as a psychopath. There's no convincing a psychopath about moral issues. The existence of objective morality, however that would work and whatever it means, would not be persuasive to a psychopath.

In what sense do you conceive of truth? What should I take your words to be?

I'm a nihilist.