Argument from truth

[Moral Orel]

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

Okay, and with how little we can know about a being as transcendent as a god, what is the probability that being is 100% good vs the likelihood that he falls somewhere else on the spectrum?

Significant, important, valuable, worth entertaining.

I was putting it terms of numbers (50/50) to get at whether the likelihood of someone being deceitful has to be greater than the likelihood that someone is trustworthy.

Probabilities should be able to be broken down to numbers. Maybe the actual calculations aren't entirely possible, but we should be able to describe things in terms of numbers. For instance, my wife isn't likely to stab me in my sleep because the majority of people (>50%) don't do that. If you don't have the information to make the estimate, then you don't know the likelihood. Do gods lie? I have no idea, how do I determine the likelihood that they do or don't?

(1) does not imply (2).

Okay, but this:

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.

implies that we should not be suspicious of deceit when we have no reason to believe that deceit is present. Maybe this is another semantic problem of gradients, but if you are not suspicious at all then you are completely trusting, ya? I'd say it's good to always be at least a little suspicious, especially of things you don't know much about.

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.

I saw a whino one time that was eating grapes. So I said to him, "Dude, you have to wait!"

That never actually happened, so it's actually an outright lie. I wanted you to believe the setup actually happened so that you were caught off guard for the punchline. I intentionally attempted to deceive you, was I being evil? If not, what made it okay?

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

Okay, but telling a joke to a loved one is intentionally deceiving them, so it isn't a different matter.

 

[Chriliman]

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.

Ok gotcha. Well, I’m defending the idea that truth doesn’t exist without a mind and therefore it can’t be true that reality was ever devoid of a mind(I understand some mental teeter tottering can happen here), thus the conclusion that mind and reality are one and eternal.

 

[gaara4158]

Ok gotcha. Well, I’m defending the idea that truth doesn’t exist without a mind and therefore it can’t be true that reality was ever devoid of a mind(I understand some mental teeter tottering can happen here), thus the conclusion that mind and reality are one and eternal.

Ah, I see. Well, I think where you’re getting mixed up is in the meaning of “it could be true that reality was ever devoid of a mind.” Truth, in that context, does not refer to the state of a mind in the past, but rather the state of a mind in the present describing the past.

 

[Chriliman]

Ah, I see. Well, I think where you’re getting mixed up is in the meaning of “it could be true that reality was ever devoid of a mind.” Truth, in that context, does not refer to the state of a mind in the past, but rather the state of a mind in the present describing the past.

Right, but again, if reality was ever devoid of a mind, we couldn’t know it, which puts us back to my point that such a position is unverifiable.

 

[gaara4158]

Right, but again, if reality was ever devoid of a mind, we couldn’t know it, which puts us back to my point that such a position is unverifiable.

Yes, it’s unverifiable. Still, the point the OP is trying to establish fails. Are you suggesting that the assumption of an eternal mind is somehow the default position without verification of the opposite?

 

[Chriliman]

Yes, it’s unverifiable. Still, the point the OP is trying to establish fails. Are you suggesting that the assumption of an eternal mind is somehow the default position without verification of the opposite?

Not necessarily the default.

At least in science, an answer that’s verifiable is preferred over an answer that we know is unverifiable.

 

[gaara4158]

Not necessarily the default.

At least in science, an answer that’s verifiable is preferred over an answer that we know is unverifiable.

In science, verifiability doesn’t inform us on what options are preferable, but rather what options can be investigated scientifically. But this argument is a philosophical one, not a scientific one, so I don’t know why you’re appealing to science here.

 

[Chriliman]

In science, verifiability doesn’t inform us on what options are preferable, but rather what options can be investigated scientifically. But this argument is a philosophical one, not a scientific one, so I don’t know why you’re appealing to science here.

I think science and philosophy go hand in hand. Philosophy can inform us how best to apply science to reality to get the most accurate answers. So, in this case, we’re using philosophy to determine we should use science to find the verifiable answers and not use it to find unverifiable answers. Maybe “prefer” was the wrong term.

 

[gaara4158]

I think science and philosophy go hand in hand. Philosophy can inform us how best to apply science to reality to get the most accurate answers. So, in this case, we’re using philosophy to determine we should use science to find the verifiable answers and not use it to find unverifiable answers. Maybe “prefer” was the wrong term.

Well, yes. Science is a branch of philosophy, specifically the branch of pragmatic empirical investigation. But the logic in the OP wasn’t about anything empirical, it was about the relationship between truth and reality, which is a different sort of philosophical issue. So it’s true that we can’t scientifically verify the non-existence of minds in the universe before life began on Earth, but that fact doesn’t get us any closer to an answer either way.

 

[Chriliman]

Well, yes. Science is a branch of philosophy, specifically the branch of pragmatic empirical investigation. But the logic in the OP wasn’t about anything empirical, it was about the relationship between truth and reality, which is a different sort of philosophical issue. So it’s true that we can’t scientifically verify the non-existence of minds in the universe before life began on Earth, but that fact doesn’t get us any closer to an answer either way.

Eh, maybe for some it doesn’t get them any closer, but others may get closer by recognizing a universe causing mind could be verifiable.

 

[gaara4158]

Eh, maybe for some it doesn’t get them any closer, but others may get closer by recognizing a universe causing mind could be verifiable.

Well sure, all kinds of outlandish possibilities could be verifiable. All kinds of completely mundane possibilities could be unverifiable. That doesn’t tell us anything about how likely they are to be true. You have to do more work to get there.

 

[eleos1954]

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.

Truth

a fact or belief that is accepted as true

So, as a Christian I accept the inspired word of God, the bible as true.

People who believe in evolution or something outside of God the creator accept that as true.

All truths are subjective.

and that's what makes a peculiar people ;o)

 

[zippy2006]

Okay, and with how little we can know about a being as transcendent as a god, what is the probability that being is 100% good vs the likelihood that he falls somewhere else on the spectrum?

Sorry, I don't want to extend this conversation into that area. I have admitted that if you are unsure about God's 'moral character' then this could present some problems regarding truth in his creation.

I was putting it terms of numbers (50/50) to get at whether the likelihood of someone being deceitful has to be greater than the likelihood that someone is trustworthy.

Probabilities should be able to be broken down to numbers. Maybe the actual calculations aren't entirely possible, but we should be able to describe things in terms of numbers. For instance, my wife isn't likely to stab me in my sleep because the majority of people (>50%) don't do that. If you don't have the information to make the estimate, then you don't know the likelihood. Do gods lie? I have no idea, how do I determine the likelihood that they do or don't?

How do you determine whether a god is trustworthy? I don't know, probably the same way you determine whether a person is trustworthy. The question strikes me as too broad.

Okay, but this:

implies that we should not be suspicious of deceit when we have no reason to believe that deceit is present.

Right, or to be more accurate, it implies proposition 1 here, which it was drawn from.

Maybe this is another semantic problem of gradients, but if you are not suspicious at all then you are completely trusting, ya? I'd say it's good to always be at least a little suspicious, especially of things you don't know much about.

Yeah, I suppose I don't think suspicion and trust are all-encompassing. For example, when you meet someone new there should be relatively little trust and relatively little suspicion of deceit. Instead there is a kind of openness. Just because I do not suspect that someone is deceiving me does not mean that I am "completely trusting."

I saw a whino one time that was eating grapes. So I said to him, "Dude, you have to wait!"

That never actually happened, so it's actually an outright lie. I wanted you to believe the setup actually happened so that you were caught off guard for the punchline. I intentionally attempted to deceive you, was I being evil? If not, what made it okay?

Again, it is a temporary suspension of one's intellectual seriousness. Humor is a kind of genre or game in which temporary 'deception' is mutually allowed. The framing of a joke and the tone of voice usually make the listener aware that the assertion is not intended literally, but even with very dry humor the basic difference of intent holds true.

Okay, but telling a joke to a loved one is intentionally deceiving them, so it isn't a different matter.

I don't know that I would even use the words "lie" or "deceive" in such a case. You are attempting to make them laugh by proposing a counterfactual scenario that leads to some absurdity. You are leading and exercising their imagination in a certain way so that you can both have fun. Some jokes might be mediated by a form of temporary deception, but most good jokes aim for a kind of confusion or suspension of the intellectual faculty, not outright deception. Further, the tension produced by a deceptive joke can also be produced by a non-deceptive joke. One can play with the tension brought about by an equivocation between levels of truth rather than the tension between truth and an outright untruth. I actually prefer such jokes because they are harder to spot and generally create a greater degree of confusion, tension, and resolution.

 

[Sapiens]

Therefore, god or no god, we can trust that we have access to truth. Are you retracting your original argument?

No. I think you may be misunderstanding my argument. This fact we agree on, that we can apprehend reality at least to a certain extent proves my premiss 2. It says nothing of 1. My argument shows that we should infer from that that God exists and is the ultimate grounding in reality for objectiveness of truth. If naturalistic evolution is true, we cannot know to what extent our truth experience is reliable. Especially as to what does not pertain to survival directly. It would still be an illusion of the mind. Not actually refering to reality. Reality in a sense is inaccessible to us. The fact that we can conceive rightly of reality means there is design. Otherwise it's like a magic correspondance.

 

[Sapiens]

No, on my own premises, it does mean that, as far as you and I are concerned. The 'truth' may still lie in the ineffable mind of Yahweh, but that does us no good. All we have to go on is the external world, which may be altered or destroyed at any second.

'Truth' is meaningless to us creatures, in such a place. It's a cartoon reality where anything can happen, unpredictably, for reasons that need never be made apparent to us. I'm glad there is no reason to suspect we live in it.

You're right. There is no reason to suspect we live in that fanciful world you're imagining. Why then are we talking about it? If he wiped out our memory. And changed reality we'd effectively live in another world from one moment to the other. Reality remains what God has chosen it to be and our minds will apprehend whatever it is. But all that is an imaginary scenario anyways. We better stick with what we already know: there is one reality and we live in it.

 

[Sapiens]

If you assume Christianity is totally true, then sure, reality is steadfast. I'd argue that no matter how historically accurate Christianity can be shown to be, you've got no idea whether or not there is a creator of the universe, and even if we assumed there is, you've got no idea whether or not He is good or evil or somewhere in between.

Actually, the moral argument does show that he is good. Ultimate grounding in reality for goodness is in God's very nature. His commands give us our duty. Considering the design option, we should conclude from our conscience that God wants us to do good, since that is what our conscience tells us. It would be a contradiction to say God is evil if he gave us a good conscience. You'd have to argue for God being evil or in between while still holding morarilty to be objective... If we infer from surest knowledge, God is good and truthful, indeed, the very origin of truth.

 

[Sapiens]

Sorry for my late replies everyone. I have been having private conversations on the argument and life happens too. I am not through everyone yet. I'm somewhere at page 6.

Please note I have modified my OP. I have indicated the modifications by "EDIT". It's in the truth difinition and the God definition.

By the way, thank you for your objections and discussions so far. I am learning.

 

[Moral Orel]

Sorry, I don't want to extend this conversation into that area. I have admitted that if you are unsure about God's 'moral character' then this could present some problems regarding truth in his creation.

That's fine, I don't want our discussion to get so broad that we're writing dissertations either.

How do you determine whether a god is trustworthy? I don't know, probably the same way you determine whether a person is trustworthy. The question strikes me as too broad.

I've been accused many times of anthropomorphizing God by asking wrong questions before. How do I know when I should think of God in terms of a person and when I should think in some other terms?

Right, or to be more accurate, it implies proposition 1 here, which it was drawn from.

I don't know if it's the ads or what. But lately when people link to posts, my browser doesn't point to the right one. Can you quote yourself at me so I can see exactly what you're talking about?

Yeah, I suppose I don't think suspicion and trust are all-encompassing. For example, when you meet someone new there should be relatively little trust and relatively little suspicion of deceit. Instead there is a kind of openness. Just because I do not suspect that someone is deceiving me does not mean that I am "completely trusting."

I see suspicious and trustworthy as opposite poles on a spectrum. So maybe we're just conceptualizing these things differently.

Again, it is a temporary suspension of one's intellectual seriousness. Humor is a kind of genre or game in which temporary 'deception' is mutually allowed. The framing of a joke and the tone of voice usually make the listener aware that the assertion is not intended literally, but even with very dry humor the basic difference of intent holds true.

I don't know that I would even use the words "lie" or "deceive" in such a case. You are attempting to make them laugh by proposing a counterfactual scenario that leads to some absurdity. You are leading and exercising their imagination in a certain way so that you can both have fun. Some jokes might be mediated by a form of temporary deception, but most good jokes aim for a kind of confusion or suspension of the intellectual faculty, not outright deception. Further, the tension produced by a deceptive joke can also be produced by a non-deceptive joke. One can play with the tension brought about by an equivocation between levels of truth rather than the tension between truth and an outright untruth. I actually prefer such jokes because they are harder to spot and generally create a greater degree of confusion, tension, and resolution.

My intent is to cause you to believe something that is false, just like a lie. Now further, my intent is to bring about some good, namely laughter. So you don't have to call it a deception or a lie if you don't want to. All that matters is that causing someone to believe something that is false can be good, and you can call it what you want. But it does keep us from grounding truth in even a good god. If causing someone to believe something that is false temporarily isn't inherently evil, then a good god can screw up your ability to know at least some true things as long as it brings about some good, and you don't have to know what that good is or what those untrue things are until after you're dead.

 

[Moral Orel]

Actually, the moral argument does show that he is good. Ultimate grounding in reality for goodness is in God's very nature. His commands give us our duty. Considering the design option, we should conclude from our conscience that God wants us to do good, since that is what our conscience tells us. It would be a contradiction to say God is evil if he gave us a good conscience. You'd have to argue for God being evil or in between while still holding morarilty to be objective... If we infer from surest knowledge, God is good and truthful, indeed, the very origin of truth.

I have a drive to do good, we can call that my conscience if you want. What do you want to call my drive to do evil though? How do I know that a god gave me one but not the other? What does it mean if that god gave me both? And how do I know which drive is correct? Maybe morality isn't objective. What if it's subjective? How do you demonstrate that "Giving to charity" is the correct thing to do?

I wouldn't really answer these questions; they're way, way, waaaaay, off topic for your thread. You can start a new thread with the moral argument if you want and I'll gladly participate though.

 

[gaara4158]

No. I think you may be misunderstanding my argument. This fact we agree on, that we can apprehend reality at least to a certain extent proves my premiss 2. It says nothing of 1. My argument shows that we should infer from that that God exists and is the ultimate grounding in reality for objectiveness of truth. If naturalistic evolution is true, we cannot know to what extent our truth experience is reliable. Especially as to what does not pertain to survival directly. It would still be an illusion of the mind. Not actually refering to reality. Reality in a sense is inaccessible to us. The fact that we can conceive rightly of reality means there is design. Otherwise it's like a magic correspondance.

Didn’t we just agree that as long as we assume survival is connected to reality, then there’s no reason to suspect that our survival-based faculties are significantly deceitful?