RE: The argument from truth
October 31, 2013 at 4:27 pm
(This post was last modified: October 31, 2013 at 4:30 pm by Simon Moon.)
This argument changes the scope of what it is referring to. It is no different than a magician palming a card.
This is referring to the human concept of truth and what we are able to discover about it. This is mind dependent.
In the first premise, it is referring to human minds ability to discover things about the truth.
In this premise, there is a change in scope to refer to the underlying truths, that are an attribute of reality. This underlying truth of reality does not exist in any mind.
It's no different than 2 + 2 = 4.
These symbols and what they represent reside in our minds. But the things they are pointing to in reality exist even if we are not here to conceptualize them and create the symbolic math.
Non-sequitur.
There is a fallacy of composition here. Just because concepts of truth exist in our minds, does not mean the truths they are referring to exist in a mind.
This is where the card is palmed.
It requires minds in order to discover truths. But the truths exist outside ANY mind\. They are an attribute of reality.
If there was a universe exactly like this one, with the exception that there were no minds to discover truths, truths would still exist. A star would still be what it is with all its attributes, whether there is a mind to discover any truth about it.
Quote:1. Our limited minds can discover eternal truths about being.
This is referring to the human concept of truth and what we are able to discover about it. This is mind dependent.
Quote:2. Truth properly resides in a mind.
In the first premise, it is referring to human minds ability to discover things about the truth.
In this premise, there is a change in scope to refer to the underlying truths, that are an attribute of reality. This underlying truth of reality does not exist in any mind.
It's no different than 2 + 2 = 4.
These symbols and what they represent reside in our minds. But the things they are pointing to in reality exist even if we are not here to conceptualize them and create the symbolic math.
Quote:3. But the human mind is not eternal.
Non-sequitur.
Quote:4.Therefore there must exist an eternal mind in which these truths reside.
There is a fallacy of composition here. Just because concepts of truth exist in our minds, does not mean the truths they are referring to exist in a mind.
This is where the card is palmed.
It requires minds in order to discover truths. But the truths exist outside ANY mind\. They are an attribute of reality.
If there was a universe exactly like this one, with the exception that there were no minds to discover truths, truths would still exist. A star would still be what it is with all its attributes, whether there is a mind to discover any truth about it.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
