Argument from truth

zippy2006 · Jul 17, 2019

I'm going to shear down our conversation due to the fact that I am trying to spend less time on CF. Sorry in advance for the loss of content.

Moral Orel said:
I'll grant you that the deceptive nature of jokes is intended to be temporary, but that doesn't change the fact that if I'm successful, I caused you to hold a false belief for a time.

Okay, sure, but my point about the intent grounding a locution still holds. A jester is not necessarily untrustworthy, for intent can be gauged, especially in certain scenarios.

Right, first they believe something that is false, then they realize the truth. I don't know why you're hung up on whether we would call it "deception" or "a lie".

Okay I suppose some jokes include lies...

But I don't think the essence of humor is found in deception. Deception is just a common setting for a joke, but it isn't necessary and the humor of a joke doesn't come from deception. There are jokes that are just making fun of people for being stupid, gullible, etc., but I don't find them very humorous in the long run.

Remember, we're talking about whether truth can be grounded in a good god or not. I'm saying that even a good god can cause you to hold false beliefs and be doing something good with it.

The legitimacy of using lies or deception as a means to an end is a good argument. Jokes, not so much. I can grant that God has a sense of humor and not be at all concerned about deep deception in reality due to that fact.

No, it's because people liked being tricked when they don't have a personal stake in the matter. The natural response to realizing you were tricked into making a false assumption is laughter. People enjoy magic tricks for the same reason. People enjoy being immersed in a good book or movie where they forget that it's just characters on a page or a screen.

There is some humor that has deception at its core, but it's a small percentage and I think it pales in comparison to humor that is funny in form/content. (Granted, a larger percentage of humor includes deception as an accidental aspect, but the deception merely elevates rather than generates the humor.)

The essence of humor is the paradigm shift, when reality bends and shifts perspective from one lens to another. That paradoxical tension can take the form of a pun, equivocation, deception-truth turn, or any number of other things. The laughter comes from the sense of absurdity that is produced, the levity, transitoriness, and "manipulability" of reality. It is the same kind of delight that is produced when the autumn landscape is suddenly transformed by a blanket of snow. The mind, through the imagination, takes reality into its hand and reshapes it into something completely (and often contradictorily) different and new.

As long as you're the one revealing that you were being deceptive through a joke, people are fine with that because you can be counted on to tell the truth.

And if you don't reveal that in one way or another then it's not funny and it's not a joke, so it's hard to see how jokes produce distrust.

In my case, dark dry humor is my specialty. And I know so many jokes that almost everything reminds me of one, so I interject them into conversations like regular anecdotes. People don't generally catch on that it's all a big joke until after I've finished the punchline, so the extra surprise that they've been hearing a joke the whole time amplifies the funny. I tell so many, that sometimes when I'm telling a true story people want to interrupt and ask, "Is this for real?". Oddly enough, they never interrupt my jokes, just the true stories. But people trust me too because I always reveal whether the stories are true or false.

Yes, the phrase used to determine whether my grandpa was being facetious was, "His lips are moving!"

Moral Orel · Jul 17, 2019

zippy2006 said:
There is some humor that has deception at its core, but it's a small percentage and I think it pales in comparison to humor that is funny in form/content. (Granted, a larger percentage of humor includes deception as an accidental aspect, but the deception merely elevates rather than generates the humor.)

The essence of humor is the paradigm shift, when reality bends and shifts perspective from one lens to another. That paradoxical tension can take the form of a pun, equivocation, deception-truth turn, or any number of other things. The laughter comes from the sense of absurdity that is produced, the levity, transitoriness, and "manipulability" of reality. It is the same kind of delight that is produced when the autumn landscape is suddenly transformed by a blanket of snow. The mind, through the imagination, takes reality into its hand and reshapes it into something completely (and often contradictorily) different and new.

But the false assumption doesn't transform into something else, you realize it was false all along. That's what makes it a false belief. Deception makes a joke work. It does generate the humor because humor comes from the realization of how you were deceived. I know a lot of jokes, and I'm having a hard time thinking of one that doesn't involve deception of any kind. How about an example?

As long as there's one joke that uses deception and brings about good, my argument works. All I'm showing is that deception isn't inherently evil, so a good god is free to practice it. What is the intent of the good god who practices deception? Well, you won't know that until after you're dead and he reveals it to you.

I'm having trouble reconciling your idea that "If you have no reason to suspect deception, then deception is unlikely" with my idea that "If a god is deceiving you, he won't give you a reason to suspect deception". Deception occurring and deception not occurring look exactly the same, so how do you know that one is more likely than the other?

zippy2006 · Jul 17, 2019

Moral Orel said:
It does generate the humor because humor comes from the realization of how you were deceived.

I don't think so. Deception can cause the paradoxical paradigm shift that leads to humor, but it is rare that the humor depends directly upon the deception. As I said, the exception is making fun of gullible people. Think of Ashton Kutcher's "Punk'd." Most of the laughter is from the audience, not the participants. If the participants are laughing, it's more due to a sense of relief than anything else. Deep deception destroys humor on the part of those deceived.

I know a lot of jokes, and I'm having a hard time thinking of one that doesn't involve deception of any kind. How about an example?

"Did you hear about the fire at the circus? It was (in tents / intense)." (Requires vocalization)

Or just watch Demetri Martin. Hardly any of his jokes make use of deception. Heck, I don't think any stand up comedian makes use of outright deception in their jokes. The whole setting is imaginative. True deception is nigh impossible. Everyone is suspending their belief; no one is in truth-mode.

As long as there's one joke that uses deception and brings about good, my argument works. All I'm showing is that deception isn't inherently evil, so a good god is free to practice it. What is the intent of the good god who practices deception? Well, you won't know that until after you're dead and he reveals it to you.

But now you're conflating the crucial issue: temporary vs. permanent. A joke is temporary, innocuous deception that does not bear on trust and causes no significant injury to the deceived. That's not what you're talking about.

If you think that jokes which injure the deceived and cause long-term deception are licit, then I disagree. Suppose The Truman Show was a big joke being played on Jim Carrey's character. You could make the argument that it was a joke, at his expense, that served the common good of the humor of the viewers. It ruined his entire life, but maybe people find that funny, right? I think such jokes are sinful rather than legitimate, so there is no reason to suspect God of them.

I'm having trouble reconciling your idea that "If you have no reason to suspect deception, then deception is unlikely" with my idea that "If a god is deceiving you, he won't give you a reason to suspect deception". Deception occurring and deception not occurring look exactly the same, so how do you know that one is more likely than the other?

From this post:

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

Natural logic often fails in a contest with an omnipotent being. There are all sorts of natural rules and strategies for poker, horse racing, tennis, and chess, but if you are up against an omnipotent being those strategies will come to naught. And this points to the fact that there is, in an important sense, no reason to worry about whether an omnipotent being is deceiving you. If he is he is; if he isn't he isn't. There is no way to know and therefore no reason to worry.

Edit: Regarding your first point, why is deception funny per se? If deception is a proper cause of humor that is capable of generating humor, then simple, bald, unadorned deception should be funny without any help from other factors. Is it? Further, if deception is inherently funny then all forms of deception should contain some humor. Do they? Do you laugh when you get your math test back and realize your rational powers deceived you and caused you to make a mistake?

Moral Orel · Jul 18, 2019

zippy2006 said:
I don't think so. Deception can cause the paradoxical paradigm shift that leads to humor, but it is rare that the humor depends directly upon the deception. As I said, the exception is making fun of gullible people. Think of Ashton Kutcher's "Punk'd." Most of the laughter is from the audience, not the participants. If the participants are laughing, it's more due to a sense of relief than anything else. Deep deception destroys humor on the part of those deceived.

Pranks aren't jokes. Not all deception qualifies as "a joke".

zippy2006 said:
"Did you hear about the fire at the circus? It was (in tents / intense)." (Requires vocalization)

Or just watch Demetri Martin. Hardly any of his jokes make use of deception. Heck, I don't think any stand up comedian makes use of outright deception in their jokes. The whole setting is imaginative. True deception is nigh impossible. Everyone is suspending their belief; no one is in truth-mode.

I'm going to give you Demetri Martin, but I can't give you your pun. The pun requires an assumption of one usage of a word/sound and then the realization of another. It's subtle, it can be quick, but it's still a false assumption. Demetri definitely uses jokes, but he's all about showing the absurdity of everyday things.

For a lot of comics I would agree that it isn't inherently deceptive, because they're telling stories (generally) and we don't assume those stories are completely true. But I wouldn't really call a funny story a joke either unless it has a punchline. A story with a lot of silly/absurd elements doesn't qualify as a joke.

zippy2006 said:
But now you're conflating the crucial issue: temporary vs. permanent. A joke is temporary, innocuous deception that does not bear on trust and causes no significant injury to the deceived. That's not what you're talking about.

No I'm not. You're just not recognizing that "temporary" means any amount of time less than "permanent". Calling, "Until your physical body dies" permanent isn't accurate if you believe in an afterlife, right?

zippy2006 said:
If you think that jokes which injure the deceived and cause long-term deception are licit, then I disagree. Suppose The Truman Show was a big joke being played on Jim Carrey's character. You could make the argument that it was a joke, at his expense, that served the common good of the humor of the viewers. It ruined his entire life, but maybe people find that funny, right? I think such jokes are sinful rather than legitimate, so there is no reason to suspect God of them.

Again, that would be a prank, not a joke. The Truman Show was an elaborate hoax perpetrated, not something that was simply told to Jim. Even if it were, we would have to consider that lie was all-encompassing. Everything he thought was true turned out to be false. We could see real harm in the fact that he realized no one ever really loved him, and such. However, for my argument to work, I'm fine with saying that an all good god couldn't deceive in an all encompassing way such that everything is false, but anything could be false. Which would be indistinguishable to us right now, but the later results would be different.

zippy2006 said:
From this post:

"If you don't have a reason to believe someone is deceitful then the possibility that they are deceiving you should be remote."
Natural logic often fails in a contest with an omnipotent being. There are all sorts of natural rules and strategies for poker, horse racing, tennis, and chess, but if you are up against an omnipotent being those strategies will come to naught. And this points to the fact that there is, in an important sense, no reason to worry about whether an omnipotent being is deceiving you. If he is he is; if he isn't he isn't. There is no way to know and therefore no reason to worry.

I would agree that in a pragmatic sense we should go about our business as if our perception of reality can be trusted, but this thread is about grounding truth in a god. If natural logic fails in this regard with a god, then my point stands.

zippy2006 said:
Edit: Regarding your first point, why is deception funny per se? If deception is a proper cause of humor that is capable of generating humor, then simple, bald, unadorned deception should be funny without any help from other factors. Is it? Further, if deception is inherently funny then all forms of deception should contain some humor. Do they? Do you laugh when you get your math test back and realize your rational powers deceived you and caused you to make a mistake?

Deception isn't funny, per se. I have to walk back my original claims that deception is integral to telling jokes, since you brought up Demetri. So all I'm saying now is that when deception is used in a joke, it is the deception that makes it funny. Without the deception, that joke wouldn't be funny. That doesn't require all deception to be funny.

Let's say I have a broken sink. I need to open up a pipe. There are other ways to get that pipe open, but a wrench works, so that's what I'll use. I could use that wrench to do all sorts of other things too, but those other things wouldn't open up my pipe. So it's true that I didn't need a wrench, and it's true the wrench is capable of other things, but the wrench is directly responsible for opening that pipe.

gaara4158 · Jul 18, 2019

Sapiens said:
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.

You don't need an eternal mind if you think it's only a hallucinatory and objectively meaningless experience from a material brain. If you think it's more than that though, like I do, then yes.

To affirm that our thoughts represent accurately the reality they are about is to assume design.

I don’t know why you keep returning to your assertion our experience is entirely hallucinatory without some eternal mind grounding reality. I’m ok with saying our experience is objectively meaningless, but from our subjective experience an objective perspective is itself entirely inaccessible and therefore irrelevant unless it matches our subjective experience. It’s the subjective meaning that counts. Further, it does not follow that without an eternal mind grounding all of reality, our experience is entirely hallucinatory. It surely is hallucinatory to a degree, but my point this whole time has been that whatever that degree is, it’s largely negligible due to the fact that we’re able to accomplish so much while laboring under the assumptions that we make about our experience. I don’t understand why you think all of that should be illusory without an eternal mind.

Chriliman · Jul 18, 2019

gaara4158 said:
I don’t know why you keep returning to your assertion that an eternal mind is if we don’t concede that our experience is entirely hallucinatory and objectively meaningless. I’m ok with saying our experience is objectively meaningless, but from our subjective experience an objective perspective is itself entirely inaccessible and therefore irrelevant unless it matches our subjective experience. It’s the subjective meaning that counts. Further, it does not follow that without an eternal mind grounding all of reality, our experience is entirely hallucinatory. It surely is hallucinatory to a degree, but my point this whole time has been that whatever that degree is, it’s largely negligible due to the fact that we’re able to accomplish so much while laboring under the assumptions that we make about our experience. I don’t understand why you think all of that should be illusory without an eternal mind.

Essentially, what you're saying is the universe made us aware enough to realize we're all going to cease to exist in a vast eternal/everlasting waste of time and energy. That is if no eternal or everlasting mind exists to continually give meaning to reality.

You're welcome to believe the former, but others may find valid reason to believe the latter. Either position takes faith though.

gaara4158 · Jul 18, 2019

Chriliman said:
Essentially, what you're saying is the universe made us aware enough to realize we're all going to cease to exist in a vast eternal/everlasting waste of time and energy. That is if no eternal or everlasting mind exists to continually give meaning to reality.

You're welcome to believe the former, but others may find valid reason to believe the latter. Either position takes faith though.

“Waste” is a strong word, and I would even say it’s meaningless in the context of a purposeless universe. Anything that happens simply happens; there is no concept of waste or efficiency until thinking agents can give purpose to resources. In fact, to call the expanse of time after which all minds cease to exist a “waste” is a contradiction; the concept of waste refers to allocation of resources with regard to an intended purpose, which requires a mind.

But aside from all that, I understand that being alone in the universe is not an attractive prospect and isn’t necessarily a healthy perspective from which to approach life. I’m not closed off to the idea of some eternal mind existing, but I’m not going to agree that it must be true just because I’m uncomfortable with it being false.

Chriliman · Jul 18, 2019

gaara4158 said:
“Waste” is a strong word, and I would even say it’s meaningless in the context of a purposeless universe. Anything that happens simply happens; there is no concept of waste or efficiency until thinking agents can give purpose to resources. In fact, to call the expanse of time after which all minds cease to exist a “waste” is a contradiction; the concept of waste refers to allocation of resources with regard to an intended purpose, which requires a mind.

Given that there are minds now, I think the term "waste" could be rationally used. After all, a mind is a terrible thing to waste isn't it but you're right, after all minds cease to exist, it really doesn't matter.

gaara4158 said:
But aside from all that, I understand that being alone in the universe is not an attractive prospect and isn’t necessarily a healthy perspective from which to approach life. I’m not closed off to the idea of some eternal mind existing, but I’m not going to agree that it must be true just because I’m uncomfortable with it being false.

Always good to hear.

Sapiens · Jul 18, 2019

Chriliman said:
I have no idea which is more likely. Any guesses?

gaara4158 said:
I don’t know either. I think there are existential reasons to proceed as though there is some meaning, or at least create one for oneself, but as for what’s really true? I don’t even know how to begin examining that question objectively.

Once again, our everyday commonsense intuition tells us our lives have meaning. We have to again deny a basic evidence for a less obvious thought process, such as naturalism and nihilism. It seems like we're here for a reason. To exist and live, at least. To be happy and fulfilled. Objectively, as Chriliman has said, we would only be dust in the wind. As a Christian, it's to know God and do his will. I also expect him to fulfill his promises of making a new world, eradicating evil, suffering, and death.

I personally don't find convincing the "invent one for yourself" idea. If I invented one, I'd know it's fake. I wouldn't want to live for a fantasy.

Sapiens · Jul 18, 2019

gaara4158 said:
Ok, so if either of those were the case that sort of meaning would dwarf temporal meaning to insignificance. However, that’s a really big IF. In my experience, all meaning has been temporal, even if it felt profoundly significant. This might indicate that there is in fact no such thing as infinite meaning, otherwise how could I be so moved by a meaning that is essentially zero?

You would be self deluded, that's what it would mean. Otherwise, it never was meaningless.

Sapiens · Jul 18, 2019

holo said:
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.

Or to put it another way, I don't know what it would take to make me a believer, but God should know.

Well, if there is an ultimate purpose, then it'll have to come from a sentient being with a will. Purpose is given only by such a being. That being would have to be ultimate. Now we already know that without God there is no such meaning. Materialism and naturalism don't give it to us. We have to resort to making up purposes for ourselves, which isn't objective by definition.

Some basic purposes we have that everyone should be able to discern os to take care of yourself and of others. To know people, to do something (good hopefully) with your life.

Sapiens · Jul 18, 2019

Chriliman said:
In theism, objective morality doesn’t exist without God, so no I don’t think objective morality can exist apart from a being capable of determining right from wrong.

I like the way you’re thinking.

Objective as in not dependent on a human mind/opinion, I would say. Ultimately, objective reality and all that it contains rests on God.

Sapiens · Jul 18, 2019

eleos1954 said:
Bob you saw with your own eyes = fact

Your friend says I just saw Bob run in front of my/your house and you believe what he said - accept what he said as being true.

With the Lords word .... we believe (accept as true) what it says

be·lieve

accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.

and yes as we study the Lords word we believe more and more as we are given more light (discover and accept more truth) through His word and through the holy spirit

Well we should still have reasons to trust or not that person. The same with God and the Bible. I have spent the last 2 years wondering and reading about the bible's reliability, and the new testament in particular. I think God is worthy of our trust and the new testament as well. Some others alleged revelations should be found unreliable upon scrutiny, such as the Qur'an, Mormon writings, etc. My point is testimony can be evaluated.

Sapiens · Jul 18, 2019

Sapiens said:
Well, we'd have no clue to what degree they are reliable or not. That was my point. I was agreeing that if they are connected, we probably don't completely conceive wrongly of it. But I think we need more than a little bit reliable. Our experience tells us it's more than that. In any case, it still wouldn't ground truth in reality, which is what we want if we believe it holds objective significance. Or did we just stumble on the right frequency by chance? And why would there be a right frequency? That's why I'm wondering how we can deny God/a supreme mind exists without concluding we're just hallucinating or else don't have a clue about what we are experiencing.

I should have said "ground thoughts or statements in reality". Since truth is correspondance between statements/thoughts and reality. I made a little mistake there.

gaara4158 · Jul 18, 2019

Sapiens said:
Once again, our everyday commonsense intuition tells us our lives have meaning. We have to again deny a basic evidence for a less obvious thought process, such as naturalism and nihilism. It seems like we're here for a reason. To exist and live, at least. To be happy and fulfilled. Objectively, as Chriliman has said, we would only be dust in the wind. As a Christian, it's to know God and do his will. I also expect him to fulfill his promises of making a new world, eradicating evil, suffering, and death.

I personally don't find convincing the "invent one for yourself" idea. If I invented one, I'd know it's fake. I wouldn't want to live for a fantasy.

Our common sense intuition is the epitome of subjective guidance. There is plenty of subjective meaning to be had, and it’s just as real as anything else you experience. There is no guarantee that whatever “objective” meaning might exist for us is any better than ones we find on our own anyway. For example, the meaning of a farm pig’s life is to be fattened and slaughtered to be sold at the meat market, but knowing that wouldn’t help the pig much. No, a pig is much better off searching for whatever meaning it can find intuitively rather than contemplating its cosmic fate. And so are we.

Sapiens · Jul 18, 2019

gaara4158 said:
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.

Well we both agree on that. I just deny that evolution through natural means is what gave us that. I think design is the more obvious and sensible conclusion.

eleos1954 · Jul 18, 2019

Sapiens said:
Well we should still have reasons to trust or not that person. The same with God and the Bible. I have spent the last 2 years wondering and reading about the bible's reliability, and the new testament in particular. I think God is worthy of our trust and the new testament as well. Some others alleged revelations should be found unreliable upon scrutiny, such as the Qur'an, Mormon writings, etc. My point is testimony can be evaluated.

The Lords word is amazing how all of it fits together ... it does not contradict itself ... if something appears contradictory ... it's our lack of understanding or knowledge and just need to keep searching His word until He reveals to us how it fits together.

gaara4158 · Jul 18, 2019

Sapiens said:
Well we both agree on that. I just deny that evolution through natural means is what gave us that. I think design is the more obvious and sensible conclusion.

Why? Don’t you need to be able to point to a potential designer before you can infer design?

Sapiens · Jul 18, 2019

Moral Orel said:
Your way isn't any less hypothetical. If you can show me a person that has lived forever, I'll change my mind.

We don't need proof. We're just talking about the philosophical implications of our beliefs. The promises God made to me (and other Christians) to give us eternal life I take by faith. But I believe God provided good reasons to trust in these promises. But if ultimately "we are just dust in the wind" as the song goes, then our actions were literally inconsequential, and so were our lives. On Christian theism, our actions now will have eternal repercussions.

Sapiens · Jul 18, 2019

Moral Orel said:
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.

The only way we know about that wave is by thinking about it (after observations and measures). The point of my argument is correspondance between thoughts/statements and reality, not mind dependent or independent reality. But it's interesting to consider that reality is only known to exist via a mind experiencing it. To say we have direct access to reality "as it is", independent of human opinion, is what leads me to infer design. But I'm repeating myself!

To clarify, the "truth" here is the correspondance between the proposition that such a wave exists with such and such properties and the way it actually is in reality.

Argument from truth

Dragonsworn

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Dragonsworn

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Gen Alpha Dad

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

Gen Alpha Dad

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

Wisdom is of God

Wisdom is of God

Wisdom is of God

Wisdom is of God

Wisdom is of God

Wisdom is of God

Gen Alpha Dad

Wisdom is of God

God is Love

Gen Alpha Dad

Wisdom is of God

Wisdom is of God

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency