Argument from truth

[Moral Orel]

Sorry, only specific in the sense that it follows the "morally opaque" option presented here.

I'm saying that God is morally inscrutable, that's what you mean by opaque, ya? And if it's just as likely that He's evil as opposed to good, based on any evidence any human has, then truth isn't safe anymore.

Well there is possibility and then there is probability. Supposing it dawned on you that it is possible for your wife to stab you in your sleep, I doubt you would lose any sleep at night.

There are reasons based on what I know about humans that give me good reason to think she wouldn't. I don't know anything about God's actual character other than what the Bible claims, and I don't know anything about what He's up to because His plans are beyond my comprehension, right?

I might trust the claims of the Bible because a good portion of it is accurate. But so are the claims of a conman in a Ponzi scheme. Right up to the end when it really matters, anyways.

 

[zippy2006]

I'm saying that God is morally inscrutable, that's what you mean by opaque, ya? And if it's just as likely that He's evil as opposed to good, based on any evidence any human has, then truth isn't safe anymore.

There are reasons based on what I know about humans that give me good reason to think she wouldn't. I don't know anything about God's actual character other than what the Bible claims, and I don't know anything about what He's up to because His plans are beyond my comprehension, right?

I might trust the claims of the Bible because a good portion of it is accurate. But so are the claims of a conman in a Ponzi scheme. Right up to the end when it really matters, anyways.

If you think there is a strong possibility that God is evil then belief in that God would not be a very good foundation for truth.

 

[Moral Orel]

If you think there is a strong possibility that God is evil then belief in that God would not be a very good foundation for truth.

I'd phrase it that if you don't have sound reason to think God is good you don't have a solid foundation for truth. That god wouldn't have to be pure evil to be suspect of deceit.

 

[zippy2006]

I'd phrase it that if you don't have sound reason to think God is good you don't have a solid foundation for truth. That god wouldn't have to be pure evil to be suspect of deceit.

Oh, maybe. My phrasing was intentional. I think evil rather than neutrality correlates to deceit. If you don't have a reason to believe someone is deceitful then the possibility that they are deceiving you should be remote.

 

[Chriliman]

Then you've argued that knowledge doesn't exist without us, and I don't have a problem with that. Like you said, it could still be true that a world or reality could exist without any other minds, so where's the problem?

He’s saying truth can’t exist without a mind. So it can’t be true that a world or reality could exist without any minds to comprehend it. So without God, it wasn’t true that the universe/reality existed before you/any person comprehended it.

 

[Moral Orel]

Oh, maybe. My phrasing was intentional. I think evil rather than neutrality correlates to deceit.

I'll tentatively agree that "deceit" is not good, but I don't think a being has to be pure evil to be deceitful. I lie all the time, but I'm not pure evil.

If you don't have a reason to believe someone is deceitful then the possibility that they are deceiving you should be remote.

That's where I disagree. A good liar isn't going to give you a reason to think they're lying. Are there no liars that are really, really good at lying? If God was a liar, wouldn't He be the best at it? I agree that I don't have a reason to think the Bible is full of lies, but that doesn't make it probably true.

But I'm going to go a step further and say that even with a good God you wouldn't know if you knew the truth. You've probably heard this story, but during WWII we hired a bunch of movie people to create the illusion that there was a battalion that wasn't really there to trick the Nazis. We caused people to believe something that wasn't true, and it was good, right?

 

[Moral Orel]

He’s saying truth can’t exist without a mind. So it can’t be true that a world or reality could exist without any minds to comprehend it. So without God, it wasn’t true that the universe/reality existed before you/any person comprehended it.

No, he's saying that knowledge doesn't exist without a mind. See my penny analogy at the beginning of the thread. There's no reason to think that it was not true that there was a penny under my desk just because I was unaware of it. You're conflating "I know this to be true" with "This is true" and they aren't the same thing.

 

[gaara4158]

He’s saying truth can’t exist without a mind. So it can’t be true that a world or reality could exist without any minds to comprehend it. So without God, it wasn’t true that the universe/reality existed before you/any person comprehended it.

If truth is strictly a statement within a mind that correlates with reality, then sure, there was no “truth” of the universe’s existence before any minds came along, but the reality of the universe was still there.

 

[Chriliman]

If truth is strictly a statement within a mind that correlates with reality, then sure, there was no “truth” of the universe’s existence before any minds came along, but the reality of the universe was still there.

Well, reality suggests truth is there before we comprehend it, but I must posit God’s mind to hold this position. Otherwise I’d have to hold to the opposite, which doesn’t comport with what reality suggests.

 

[gaara4158]

Well, reality suggests truth is there before we comprehend it, but I must posit God’s mind to hold this position. Otherwise I’d have to hold to the opposite, which doesn’t comport with what reality suggests.

No, if truth is only a mind’s correct apprehension of reality, then by definition that truth doesn’t exist until a mind apprehends it even though the reality is still a fact.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Well, reality suggests truth is there before we comprehend it, but I must posit God’s mind to hold this position. Otherwise I’d have to hold to the opposite, which doesn’t comport with what reality suggests.

It's a question of perspective. If, as I allowed myself to define earlier, truth is an attribute of statements made about reality, then reality is just reality. It is. There is no truth until a statement is made about that reality. No minds are required for reality; truth is an assessment of statements.

It is tricky. It is very tempting--and indeed, idiomatic--to say "it is true that there is a rock there and it is true whether I say it or not." Yes, but you said it. It has been said. If there things about which I know nothing, such that about which I can say nothing, then truth doesn't exist or is undefined.

ETA: Or, what @gaara4158 said.

 

[Chriliman]

No, if truth is only a mind’s correct apprehension of reality, then by definition that truth doesn’t exist until a mind apprehends it even though the reality is still a fact.

Yea, but we still assume the fact of reality was there before we comprehend it, which is why God’s mind is posited. If you remove God’s mind then you can’t say the reality is still a fact regardless of comprehension.

Ultimately, I believe all reality and truth is a result of a relationship between God’s eternal mind and our finite minds, therefore reality and truth are inseparable.

 

[gaara4158]

Yea, but we still assume the fact of reality was there before we comprehend it, which is why God’s mind is posited. If you remove God’s mind then you can’t say the reality is still a fact regardless of comprehension.

Ultimately, I believe all reality and truth is a result of a relationship between God’s eternal mind and our finite minds, therefore reality and truth are inseparable.

I don’t follow. Why is God’s mind required for reality to exist?

 

[Chriliman]

I don’t follow. Why is God’s mind required for reality to exist?

Because without a mind we can’t say reality exists, especially reality prior to our own minds.

So you’re either stuck insisting reality exists apart from all minds with no way to verify that statement(bc you’d have to take away all minds) or insisting reality exists because of an eternal mind.

 

[gaara4158]

Because without a mind we can’t say reality exists, especially reality prior to our own minds.

So you’re either stuck insisting reality exists apart from all minds with no way to verify that statement(bc you’d have to take away all minds) or insisting reality exists because of an eternal mind.

Of course we can’t say reality exists without a mind. It requires a mind to say anything. That doesn’t mean it takes a mind for there to be anything.

 

[zippy2006]

I'll tentatively agree that "deceit" is not good, but I don't think a being has to be pure evil to be deceitful. I lie all the time, but I'm not pure evil.

Sure, but I didn't use the term "pure evil." In fact I was trying to establish a causal connection or spectrum. The greater the possibility that god is evil, the greater the possibility that he would deceive you.

That's where I disagree. A good liar isn't going to give you a reason to think they're lying. Are there no liars that are really, really good at lying? If God was a liar, wouldn't He be the best at it? I agree that I don't have a reason to think the Bible is full of lies, but that doesn't make it probably true.

By "possibility" I meant something like "estimated possibility." We are talking about justification for epistemic confidence, not sheer objective fact. If you have no reason to believe someone is deceitful then you should not estimate a strong possibility of being deceived. Further, just because a good lie looks like the truth does not mean that we should be suspicious of things that look like the truth. To contradict my conditional you would have to say that you should be suspicious of deceit even when you have no reason to believe that deceit is present. That is a very strange idea.

But I'm going to go a step further and say that even with a good God you wouldn't know if you knew the truth. You've probably heard this story, but during WWII we hired a bunch of movie people to create the illusion that there was a battalion that wasn't really there to trick the Nazis. We caused people to believe something that wasn't true, and it was good, right?

We are not at war with God, though. In WWII we brought about a good effect at the expense of the Axis Powers who we were at war with.

 

[Moral Orel]

Sure, but I didn't use the term "pure evil." In fact I was trying to establish a causal connection or spectrum. The greater the possibility that god is evil, the greater the possibility that he would deceive you.

But that's a spectrum of the possibility that god is evil, not a spectrum of how evil that god is. Maybe that god is somewhere in between pure good and pure evil. You aren't referring to a spectrum where the more evil that god is the more likely he is to be deceitful.

By "possibility" I meant something like "estimated possibility." We are talking about justification for epistemic confidence, not sheer objective fact. If you have no reason to believe someone is deceitful then you should not estimate a strong possibility of being deceived. Further, just because a good lie looks like the truth does not mean that we should be suspicious of things that look like the truth. To contradict my conditional you would have to say that you should be suspicious of deceit even when you have no reason to believe that deceit is present. That is a very strange idea.

First of all, what are you considering a "strong possibility" to be? Is 50/50 "strong"? And second, how is that a strange idea? Trusting everything anyone tells you until evidence is presented to the contrary sounds like gullibility to me.

We are not at war with God, though. In WWII we brought about a good effect at the expense of the Axis Powers who we were at war with.

Are you of the mind that causing someone to believe something that is false is always bad? Because I would disagree. Jokes are a kind of deceit. Are they bad? Because if deceit isn't always wrong, then a good god can cause you to believe false things too.

 

[zippy2006]

But that's a spectrum of the possibility that god is evil, not a spectrum of how evil that god is. Maybe that god is somewhere in between pure good and pure evil. You aren't referring to a spectrum where the more evil that god is the more likely he is to be deceitful.

Oh no, I admit and intended that spectrum as well. Indeed the spectrum that you note is primary. Both spectrums are operative.

First of all, what are you considering a "strong possibility" to be?

Significant, important, valuable, worth entertaining.

And second, how is that a strange idea? Trusting everything anyone tells you until evidence is presented to the contrary sounds like gullibility to me.

1. If you don't have a reason to believe someone is deceitful then the possibility that they are deceiving you should be remote.
   
2. You should trust everything anyone tells you until evidence is presented to the contrary.

(1) does not imply (2).

Are you of the mind that causing someone to believe something that is false is always bad? Because I would disagree. Jokes are a kind of deceit. Are they bad?

Traditionally we would say that lies are evil and deceit is problematic but not always evil. I do not have a problem with jokes, which are a temporary suspension of one's intellectual accuracy and seriousness.

Because if deceit isn't always wrong, then a good god can cause you to believe false things too.

Deceit is only acceptable in edge cases. Jokes, war, opposition, etc. Intentionally deceiving those you love is a rather different matter.

 

[Chriliman]

Of course we can’t say reality exists without a mind. It requires a mind to say anything. That doesn’t mean it takes a mind for there to be anything.

It’s impossible to know that it doesn’t take a mind for there to be anything. At least the inverse is possible to know(eternal mind before all things). I’ll leave it at that, good discussion!

 

[gaara4158]

It’s impossible to know that it doesn’t take a mind for there to be anything. At least the inverse is possible to know(eternal mind before all things). I’ll leave it at that, good discussion!

Sure, and my argument was never that we know there’s no mind holding reality together. It was just that the logic presented in the OP which you’re defending doesn’t soundly get us to the conclusion that it does take a mind for reality to exist.