The Argument from Truth

[Egor]

There must be an over-arching consciousness in the universe responsible for truth.
Consider this:

1. Truth is the knowledge of reality.

2. Knowledge is an attribute of consciousness.

3. Things were true before there was physical life in the universe.

4. Therefore, consciousness must have existed before there was any physical life in the universe.

5. That preexisting consciousness we call God.

Let's get ready to rumble!

[Pharaoh Cat]

There must be an over-arching consciousness in the universe responsible for truth.
Consider this:

1. Truth is the knowledge of reality.

2. Knowledge is an attribute of consciousness.

3. Things were true before there was physical life in the universe.

I agree with your first two propositions.  I would replace your third with these:

3. Consciousness is an attribute of life.

4. Logical conclusion: Before life there was no truth.

[Stevil]

There must be an over-arching consciousness in the universe responsible for truth.
Consider this:

1. Truth is the knowledge of reality.

2. Knowledge is an attribute of consciousness.

3. Things were true before there was physical life in the universe.

4. Therefore, consciousness must have existed before there was any physical life in the universe.

5. That preexisting consciousness we call God.

Let's get ready to rumble!

WTF!

Please present evidence supporting point 3.

[OldGit]

Yup, that's where it goes wobbly.

[Gawen]

Let's get ready to rumble??? Nothing to rumble over.

More like we're watching you tumble...stumble...bumble...over item 3.

[Tank]

There must be an over-arching consciousness in the universe responsible for truth.
Consider this:

1. Truth is the knowledge of reality.

2. Knowledge is an attribute of consciousness.

3. Things were true before there was physical life in the universe.

4. Therefore, consciousness must have existed before there was any physical life in the universe.

5. That preexisting consciousness we call God.

Let's get ready to rumble!

Present peer reviewed scientific papers from reputable sources to support assertion 3 or conceed your failure.

Another example of an absolutly shite argument that means absolutly nothing.

[Gawen]

Present peer reviewed scientific papers from reputable sources to support assertion 3 or conceed your failure.

Another example of an absolutly shite argument that means absolutly nothing.

and THAT'S the truth!!...*chucklin*

[squidfetish]

Is this another ham-fisted attempt to equate truth and Truth?

[xSilverPhinx]

1, 2,

Where's 3?

Non sequitur.

Also, what kind of knowledge are you talking about? Justified knowledge? Belief?

Epistemology

This is going to need to get way more sophisticated...

[Ecurb Noselrub]

3. Things were true before there was physical life in the universe.

As has been pointed out, this is an unsupported assumption and amounts to boot-strapping. You are assuming the very point in issue - that there was some form of life that pre-existed the universe. Also, if by definition you equate truth with knowledge, then you are essentially attempting to win your argument by definitions. 

[Asmodean]

There must be an over-arching consciousness in the universe responsible for truth.

Not really.

1. Truth is the knowledge of reality.

Fair enough, but consider that perception of reality is subjective.

2. Knowledge is an attribute of consciousness.

I'd call it a function of the brain, but yes.

3. Things were true before there was physical life in the universe.

No. Matter and energy did behave in certain ways prior to intelligent (And I use that term VERY loosely) life, but as there were no creatures posessing knowledge of their surroundings, there were no truths.

4. Therefore, consciousness must have existed before there was any physical life in the universe.

Functions of the nervous system did not exist prior to the system itself. Both consciousness and percieved truths are such functions. Is getting two parts of water for every two parts of hydrogen(g), burned in one part of oxygen(g) a truth? No, it's a result of a process. "Truth" is only relevant when trying to explain and understand this process as an intelligent being. Thus, "truth" relates to the correctness of a creature's understanding and not to the actual process.

5. That preexisting consciousness we call God.

This list does not in any way demonstrate the need for "pre-existing consciousness"

[Happy_Is_Good]

There must be an over-arching consciousness in the universe responsible for truth.
Consider this:

1. Truth is the knowledge of reality.

2. Knowledge is an attribute of consciousness.

3. Things were true before there was physical life in the universe.

4. Therefore, consciousness must have existed before there was any physical life in the universe.

5. That preexisting consciousness we call God.

Let's get ready to rumble!

Egor,

You're arguments are weak - especially starting from argument Number #2!  I mean..can you prove that having "consciousness" is enough to "knowledge": the correct identification of reality?   I don;t think so!

Try again and think really hard.

Happy

[Guardian85]

Until you are able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you posess knowledge of what must have been before the big bang (Nobel prize material, right there!) you are not in a position to argue that something must have existed before TBB.

Fooling around with the definitions of words (again) is not evidence of your god, or any other.

[fester30]

"Archaeology is the search for fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall."

Considering the argument the OP gives concerns truth, it's not a scientific argument anyway.  Truth is philosophy, not science.  One person's truth may be vastly different from another's.  There was no truth before life, since truth is a concept that comes from living things.  There were, however, facts.

[Asmodean]

"Archaeology is the search for fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall."

Considering the argument the OP gives concerns truth, it's not a scientific argument anyway.  Truth is philosophy, not science.  One person's truth may be vastly different from another's.  There was no truth before life, since truth is a concept that comes from living things.  There were, however, facts.

Pretty much what The Asmo said, only this is in a neater package, so a +1 from me.

However, I wouldn't even say facts existed, since facts are also constructs of understanding. There were processes and interactions and their results.