Posts: 3837
Threads: 197
Joined: August 28, 2013
Reputation:
38
The argument from truth
October 31, 2013 at 12:33 am
Max_kolbe posted a link to this site that has 20 arguments for god. link here
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/2...nce.htm#11
So this is the one I felt like knocking down the most as I haven't heard it before
The Argument from Truth Wrote:This argument is closely related to the argument from consciousness. It comes mainly from Augustine.
Our limited minds can discover eternal truths about being.
Truth properly resides in a mind. Does truth properly reside in a mind? this seems a pretty bare assertion to me. I would actually make the argument that there is one absolute truth, and that is there are no absolute truths save that one because you can not demonstrate reality is real and thus you are forced to make three base assumptions : Reality is real, I can learn about reality, and prediction making models are better then none predictive ones.
Quote: But the human mind is not eternal.
Therefore there must exist an eternal mind in which these truths reside.
There is only one absolute truth as I just demonstrate, and It does not require a eternal mind to hold, all it requires is that something is thinking in my stead, by it me or what have you. You could say god is think through all of us, but in the e nd that assertion is no better then me assertioning that your actually a brain in a jar and we are a crazy hallucination.
Quote:This proof might appeal to someone who shares a Platonic view of knowledge—who, for example, believes that there are Eternal Intelligible Forms which are present to the mind in every act of knowledge. Given that view, it is a very short step to see these Eternal Forms as properly existing within an Eternal Mind. And there is a good deal to be said for this. But that is just the problem. There is too much about the theory of knowledge that needs to be said before this could work as a persuasive demonstration.
I would like to applaud the honesty of the author at that, however I could make another objection to that as well. We can now using instruments, detect human thoughts in the form of chemical and electrical impulses, and every thought we have ever recorded is in a brain and all brains are finite, that we have observed, with no evidence to the contrary and we have a good deal of evidence that there is no external part of a human brain. The exception is literature of course which could theoretically exist eternally, but as we can see every piece of literature we have is product of a human mind with zero evidence to the contrary.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Posts: 1152
Threads: 42
Joined: July 8, 2013
Reputation:
23
RE: The argument from truth
October 31, 2013 at 12:37 am
From what I can tell, that argument fails because truth is (as I'm using it) the correspondence between a belief or assertion, and reality. Hence, truth only exists if there are minds, eternal or not.
Posts: 3837
Threads: 197
Joined: August 28, 2013
Reputation:
38
RE: The argument from truth
October 31, 2013 at 12:39 am
(October 31, 2013 at 12:37 am)MindForgedManacle Wrote: From what I can tell, that argument fails because truth is (as I'm using it) the correspondence between a belief or assertion, and reality. Hence, truth only exists if there are minds, eternal or not.
Random as hell but you reminded of another failing of this argument, it proves desim at best
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Posts: 4940
Threads: 99
Joined: April 17, 2011
Reputation:
45
RE: The argument from truth
October 31, 2013 at 9:25 am
Again, how does this prove Yahweh and not Zeus, Odin, Mithra, etc.?
Christian apologetics is the art of rolling a dog turd in sugar and selling it as a donut.
Posts: 579
Threads: 3
Joined: October 18, 2013
Reputation:
14
RE: The argument from truth
October 31, 2013 at 10:08 am
(October 31, 2013 at 12:33 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Does truth properly reside in a mind? this seems a pretty bare assertion to me. I would actually make the argument that there is one absolute truth, and that is there are no absolute truths save that one because you can not demonstrate reality is real and thus you are forced to make three base assumptions : Reality is real, I can learn about reality, and prediction making models are better then none predictive ones. I'm no philosopher, so please forgive me if have things arse-about-tit, but surely we can state with absolute confidence that reality appears to exist, without assuming that it actually does?
Couldn't we justify all our knowledge and experience with that one statement, without ever having to assume an absolute truth?
Posts: 3837
Threads: 197
Joined: August 28, 2013
Reputation:
38
RE: The argument from truth
October 31, 2013 at 1:53 pm
(This post was last modified: October 31, 2013 at 1:53 pm by Lemonvariable72.)
(October 31, 2013 at 10:08 am)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote: (October 31, 2013 at 12:33 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Does truth properly reside in a mind? this seems a pretty bare assertion to me. I would actually make the argument that there is one absolute truth, and that is there are no absolute truths save that one because you can not demonstrate reality is real and thus you are forced to make three base assumptions : Reality is real, I can learn about reality, and prediction making models are better then none predictive ones. I'm no philosopher, so please forgive me if have things arse-about-tit, but surely we can state with absolute confidence that reality appears to exist, without assuming that it actually does?
Couldn't we justify all our knowledge and experience with that one statement, without ever having to assume an absolute truth? Yes reality appears to exist, but prove your not a coma victim dreaming and that we are all part of your dream.
You can't but for practical matters you assume reality is real any way
(October 31, 2013 at 10:08 am)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote: (October 31, 2013 at 12:33 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Does truth properly reside in a mind? this seems a pretty bare assertion to me. I would actually make the argument that there is one absolute truth, and that is there are no absolute truths save that one because you can not demonstrate reality is real and thus you are forced to make three base assumptions : Reality is real, I can learn about reality, and prediction making models are better then none predictive ones. I'm no philosopher, so please forgive me if have things arse-about-tit, but surely we can state with absolute confidence that reality appears to exist, without assuming that it actually does?
Couldn't we justify all our knowledge and experience with that one statement, without ever having to assume an absolute truth? Yes reality appears to exist, but prove your not a coma victim dreaming and that we are all part of your dream.
You can't but for practical matters you assume reality is real any way
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Posts: 579
Threads: 3
Joined: October 18, 2013
Reputation:
14
RE: The argument from truth
October 31, 2013 at 2:10 pm
(October 31, 2013 at 1:53 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Yes reality appears to exist, but prove your not a coma victim dreaming and that we are all part of your dream.
You can't but for practical matters you assume reality is real any way But that's kinda my point - whether or not it's an illusion is irrelevant. We can still observe it and make predictions based upon those observations. Surely the only thing that matters is that the apparent reality is consistant?
Posts: 3628
Threads: 20
Joined: July 20, 2011
Reputation:
47
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.
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.
Posts: 1108
Threads: 33
Joined: June 4, 2013
Reputation:
18
RE: The argument from truth
October 31, 2013 at 4:30 pm
Furthermore, a world without life does not deal in falsities.
Posts: 1537
Threads: 43
Joined: July 24, 2013
Reputation:
31
RE: The argument from truth
October 31, 2013 at 4:31 pm
I posted this in another thread, but it seems more appropriate here.
![[Image: tumblr_mjrkbhTP6N1qas7dno1_r1_500.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-dwlAb0fpc8o%2FUel3y641EZI%2FAAAAAAAAR2I%2FdxG3-4sX8fs%2Fs1600%2Ftumblr_mjrkbhTP6N1qas7dno1_r1_500.gif)
|
