Argument from truth

[Sapiens]

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 an unavoidably subjective experience of reality. Thus, propositions are expressions of that experience. Experience of truth: the "I get it" type. Example: "Sapiens has edited his post since he first wrote it". It's that intuitive feeling of knowing the proposition. Truth, therefore, is neccessarily known.

God: The classical monotheistic God, as in Judeo-Christianity. All good, all knowing, all powerful, eternal, personal, creator of all things... EDIT: It should read "a supreme transcendental mind" instead of God. I realize it makes more sense to say that. By that I mean a mind that knows all truths and all that could be true. A mind that eternally knew what is and could be true. A mind that exists above and beyond everything else. A mind that designed the world in such a way to be known a certain way. And that mind created the beings capable of knowing that world too.

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.

 

[Moral Orel]

I just noticed a penny sitting on the floor under my desk. It is true that there is a penny under my desk because there is actually a penny under my desk. The fact that I know it is there doesn't cause it to be true, and even if God exists, Him knowing it doesn't cause it to be true.

I think you're mixing up "truth" with "knowledge of the truth" and using them interchangeably.

 

[Sapiens]

I just noticed a penny sitting on the floor under my desk. It is true that there is a penny under my desk because there is actually a penny under my desk. The fact that I know it is there doesn't cause it to be true, and even if God exists, Him knowing it doesn't cause it to be true.

I think you're mixing up "truth" with "knowledge of the truth" and using them interchangeably.

You're right, I do use them interchangeably. Ultimately, God knows all truths. So while we may discover some over time, they were already in existence before our discovery. Either there is or isn't a penny under your desk. I don't see the problem. The idea is not to cause something to be true but to know it. God can cause some things to be true though because there are contingent truths, as I said.

 

[Moral Orel]

You're right, I do use them interchangeably. Ultimately, God knows all truths. So while we may discover some over time, they were already in existence before our discovery. Either there is or isn't a penny under your desk. I don't see the problem. The idea is not to cause something to be true but to know it. God can cause some things to be true though because there are contingent truths, as I said.

Things can be true whether anyone knows or doesn't know that they are true. So "truth" and "knowledge of the truth" can't be used interchangeably.

 

[Sapiens]

Things can be true whether anyone knows or doesn't know that they are true. So "truth" and "knowledge of the truth" can't be used interchangeably.

Not as I argued it. There is no such thing as truth floating out there in the void of space. It doesn't exist outside of a mind. A world or reality could exist without us, but nothing could be known about it (assuming no other minds existed either).

 

[Moral Orel]

Not as I argued it. There is no such thing as truth floating out there in the void of space. It doesn't exist outside of a mind. A world or reality could exist without us, but nothing could be known about it (assuming no other minds existed either).

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?

 

[Tinker Grey]

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

This is classic begging the question.

1 can be rewritten "God is required for truth to exist". Thus the syllogism is

1. God is required for truth to exist
2. Truth exists
3. Conclusion: God exists

Premise 1 assumes the conclusion. This is not a valid syllogism.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

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.

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.

1. If God does not exist, then truth does not exist.

A silly assertion. I skimmed, I admit it, but I saw nothing remotely justifying this.

But the statement "one plus one equals two" is necessarily true,

Necessary for what? For counting?

Mathematics is absolutely nothing but assumptions, definitions, and the conclusions that follow. Nothing about physical reality can be discerned from assumptions and definitions. The best we have accomplished in mathematics is aligning our axioms with physical observations, although the discovery of quantum mechanics has upended this effort.

1+1=2 is saying that f({Ø},{Ø})={Ø,{Ø}}. It is a string of symbols which ultimately have no meaning. They are literally undefined. They are the primitive symbols. Mathematics is just pushing symbols. Truth is determined arbitrarily.

What would God make of Gödel's incompleteness theorem? Is it true or false that there exists X such that |N|<|X|<|R|?

just as "two contradicting statements are mutually exclusive."

Yes. Because you're assuming the law of excluded middle, which is effectively a logical rearrangement of the law of non-contradiction. Just because you can't imagine a book both being on a desk and not being on a desk at the same time doesn't actually make it impossible. Electrons do not respect this law. So... what's your point? That if we assume the law of non-contradiction is true, then it is true? You act like you can just dismiss conversation if this assumption is not respected. Philosophy will *absolutely never* trump physical observations.

Or can you prove ~(A•~A)? You get nothing. No other theorems to start with. Just prove it with no starting assumptions.

2. Truth does exist.

Oh, have you solved the Münchhausen trilemma?

 

[Sapiens]

This is classic begging the question.

1 can be rewritten "God is required for truth to exist". Thus the syllogism is

1. God is required for truth to exist
2. Truth exists
3. Conclusion: God exists

Premise 1 assumes the conclusion. This is not a valid syllogism.

Um, no. It is modus tollens, a valid form of argument. The conlusion isn't assumed, all you'd need to do is show that "2" is false, or that God isn't required.

 

[Sapiens]

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?

I'm glad we agree. We don't have a problem. There is knowledge, and we know it transcends us, so we know there is a supreme mind. Or else we're just talking nonsensical gibberish right now.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Um, no. It is modus tollens, a valid form of argument. The conlusion isn't assumed, all you'd need to do is show that "2" is false, or that God isn't required.

Um, no.

Valid modus tollens looks like this:
1. If God, then truth.
2. No truth
C. No God

What you've constructed is an invalid modus ponens:
1. P ->Q
2. Q
C. Ergo, P

This is invalid.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Actually, I'll concede the point.

If the syllogism is written this way:
1. If truth, then God. (This gets your "requirement" or "cannot exist without")
2. Truth exists.
C. God exists.

This is valid. Sorry.

 

[gaara4158]

Premise 1 is highly problematic for me. So if God does not exist, you’re saying no-one can form statements that comport with reality. How do you figure?

 

[zippy2006]

Truth: Property of statements conforming with reality.

Okay.

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?

According to your definition of truth above, the standard is reality. Reality is the common referent that constrains and determines truth claims.

If truth exists only in a human mind, then it didn't always exist and will not always either.

Right, and yet the reality upon which truth rests continues to exist. So if humans cease to exist for 1,000 years then there will be no "human truth" during that term. If, in the 1,001st year, a human mind reappears, it would have access to the exact same truths that were accessible before. This is due to the fact that reality has not changed.

If so, then truth is an illusion existing only in our mind.

There is no reason to conclude that it is an illusion. If microscopes cease to exist for 1,000 years we would have no first-hand knowledge of microscopic organisms. That doesn't mean that the truths known via microscopes prior to those 1,000 years were illusory. The first-hand knowledge was temporary, but not illusory. Those are two different things.

Further, the only reason that the knowledge does not exist is because there are no microscopes. That is, if we include the subject as a necessary condition in the definition of truth--which you did--then truth will cease when knowing subjects cease. But that doesn't mean that the relations in reality that the truths refer to cease. If we instead define truth in terms of those relations apart from knowing subjects, as Moral Orel desires, then truth will not cease when knowing subjects cease. Either way, humans can access eternal realities with contingent and temporary instruments, namely their minds.

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."

Our knowledge of mathematics is also contingent on the created universe from which we deduce such truths. It is a higher level of abstraction, but the knowledge still depends on your interaction with the contingent universe. Contingent and necessary truths are different, but we come to know them both through our interaction with the universe.

You're arguing for a kind of Platonic Realism. That's not the only game in town, even for theists.

 

[Sapiens]

1. If God does not exist, then truth does not exist.

A silly assertion. I skimmed, I admit it, but I saw nothing remotely justifying this.

But the statement "one plus one equals two" is necessarily true,

Necessary for what? For counting?

Mathematics is absolutely nothing but assumptions, definitions, and the conclusions that follow. Nothing about physical reality can be discerned from assumptions and definitions. The best we have accomplished in mathematics is aligning our axioms with physical observations, although the discovery of quantum mechanics has upended this effort.

1+1=2 is saying that f({Ø},{Ø})={Ø,{Ø}}. It is a string of symbols which ultimately have no meaning. They are literally undefined. They are the primitive symbols. Mathematics is just pushing symbols. Truth is determined arbitrarily.

What would God make of Gödel's incompleteness theorem? Is it true or false that there exists X such that |N|<|X|<|R|?

just as "two contradicting statements are mutually exclusive."

Yes. Because you're assuming the law of excluded middle, which is effectively a logical rearrangement of the law of non-contradiction. Just because you can't imagine a book both being on a desk and not being on a desk at the same time doesn't actually make it impossible. Electrons do not respect this law. So... what's your point? That if we assume the law of non-contradiction is true, then it is true? You act like you can just dismiss conversation if this assumption is not respected. Philosophy will *absolutely never* trump physical observations.

Or can you prove ~(A•~A)? You get nothing. No other theorems to start with. Just prove it with no starting assumptions.

2. Truth does exist.

Oh, have you solved the Münchhausen trilemma?

I have to admit I'm not knowledgeable enough to appreciate everything you said.

I did some reading to have a clue, and I realize I'm a foundationalist. I don't get how it is a problem to assume some truths to be true and build the rest of the belief structure from these. Some basic beliefs I have are: the external world exists, I exist, I have experiences, the laws of logic are reliable, moral values exist objectively, propositions can be true or false depending on their correspondence with reality or logical consistency.

Maybe electrons have weird behaviors, but how does that affect our book? At a given time it is or isn't on the desk.

I'm not knowledgeable enough on Gödel's theorem to speak on it.

Concerning mathematics, you're saying it's just convention or some meaningless system?

 

[Sapiens]

Actually, I'll concede the point.

If the syllogism is written this way:
1. If truth, then God. (This gets your "requirement" or "cannot exist without")
2. Truth exists.
C. God exists.

This is valid. Sorry.

Well, it seems to me it still follows the rules. I mean, the 2nd premise is a negative of the statement of premise one. "...truth doesn't exist" to "truth exists".

 

[Sapiens]

Premise 1 is highly problematic for me. So if God does not exist, you’re saying no-one can form statements that comport with reality. How do you figure?

At the very least, we wouldn't have a clue, and no reason to believe so. As I said, it would all be relative. Our impression of truth would be illusory. There would be no reason to trust our reason.

 

[gaara4158]

At the very least, we wouldn't have a clue, and no reason to believe so. As I said, it would all be relative. Our impression of truth would be illusory. There would be no reason to trust our reason.

If we assume that our experience is at least in some way connected to reality, there’s plenty of reason to trust our reason.

 

[Sapiens]

Okay.



According to your definition of truth above, the standard is reality. Reality is the common referent that constrains and determines truth claims.



Right, and yet the reality upon which truth rests continues to exist. So if humans cease to exist for 1,000 years then there will be no "human truth" during that term. If, in the 1,001st year, a human mind reappears, it would have access to the exact same truths that were accessible before. This is due to the fact that reality has not changed.



There is no reason to conclude that it is an illusion. If microscopes cease to exist for 1,000 years we would have no first-hand knowledge of microscopic organisms. That doesn't mean that the truths known via microscopes prior to those 1,000 years were illusory. The first-hand knowledge was temporary, but not illusory. Those are two different things.

Further, the only reason that the knowledge does not exist is because there are no microscopes. That is, if we include the subject as a necessary condition in the definition of truth--which you did--then truth will cease when knowing subjects cease. But that doesn't mean that the relations in reality that the truths refer to cease. If we instead define truth in terms of those relations apart from knowing subjects, as Moral Orel desires, then truth will not cease when knowing subjects cease. Either way, humans can access eternal realities with contingent and temporary instruments, namely their minds.



Our knowledge of mathematics is also contingent on the created universe from which we deduce such truths. It is a higher level of abstraction, but the knowledge still depends on your interaction with the contingent universe. Contingent and necessary truths are different, but we come to know them both through our interaction with the universe.

You're arguing for a kind of Platonic Realism. That's not the only game in town, even for theists.

Yes, I should clarify that I view truth as an experience of reality. In that sense it can't exist without a conscious mind to experience it and express it in the form of propositions that can then be evaluated and used to transmit our thought experiences. The fact that we can interpret reality, and that we ought to interpret it properly, implies that certain things can be known about it. Why should we possess that ability? To me it suggests design. We were made to be able to apprehend the world and it to be apprehended by us.

 

[Sapiens]

If we assume that our experience is at least in some way connected to reality, there’s plenty of reason to trust our reason.

I guess it would depend how it is connected to it.