The Argument from Truth

[Egor]

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.

And that’s pretty much what I thought an atheist would say, is that before any physical life existed, there was no truth. And it seems to be the major complaint of most of the atheists who have responded, that the argument falls apart at #3, so we will start from there.

WTF!

Please present evidence supporting point 3.

That’s where we’re going to start.

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.

Peer reviewed? What are you talking about? This isn’t an article for Science Magazine. This is a thought experiment. If God exists, he must exist outside of the physical dimensions of time and space which began and are contained within the physical universe. So, if he exists, he is not going to be proven scientifically—you do see that don’t you. Science deals with things in the physical universe. You do see that if he exists, and if you persist in trying to prove his existence scientifically that you will never be able to do it. Or should I be arguing with someone else?

So, peer reviewed, by whom?

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. 

So, I need to prove point #3.

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.

So, you are saying that God did not exist. I thought atheists these days never made such statements of faith. You do realize you are making an absolutely unsubstantiated claim.

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.

You’re quoting the classic case for Atheistic Ignorance. There had to be something before, but we can’t know it, so stop even trying to guess at it. Just be ignorant and live as if there were no God.

And you can’t see the satanic deception in that kind of thinking? The inherent deception designed to keep you looking down instead of up? You are embracing ignorance.

----------

Okay, so let’s look at the argument again:


1. Truth is the knowledge of reality. (there’s enough agreement on that)

2. Knowledge is an attribute of consciousness. (there’s enough agreement on that)

3. Things were true before there was physical life in the universe. (total disagreement)

4. Therefore, consciousness must have existed before there was any physical life in the universe. (would follow only if #3 were a fact)

5. That preexisting consciousness we call God. (this is the conclusion and hopefully most people would agree that a preexisting consciousness would fit with the assumption of God’s existence)


The greatest contention seems to be that since truth is “knowledge” of reality that #3 is assuming the conclusion. There was only potential for truth before there was life in the universe, there wasn’t actually truth. There was reality, but there was no knowledge of reality.

But wait a minute: Are you telling me that things were real before there was physical life in the universe?

Anyone care to comment?  ???

[Asmodean]

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.

So, you are saying that God did not exist. I thought atheists these days never made such statements of faith. You do realize you are making an absolutely unsubstantiated claim.

I'm saying that,

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.

[Gawen]

Egor, no matter which way you slice and dice, no argument for the existence of God/s has stood up. All have been debunked. So before you start all your arguments for/of truth, or any other argument you simply must show evidence of the god and that it did indeed do what you claim it did/does. The bad part is that you can't provide that evidence.

[Stevil]

Anyone care to comment?  ???

Can you please present your proof of point 3?

[DeterminedJuliet]

He keeps refuting the need for "proof". Don't you see, we're all just supposed to take his word for it!

[Tank]

He keeps refuting the need for "proof". Don't you see, we're all just supposed to take his word for it!

I wouldn't take the word of a second hand car salesman in exactly the same way I wouldn't take the word of Edward, far too much vested interest in the outcome  

[MadBomr101]

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

This pretty much encapsulates everything Egor has posted since Day 1.  Talking to him is pointless.  His threads should be locked upon posting to represent how closed his mind is to logic and reason.   

[Ecurb Noselrub]

But wait a minute: Are you telling me that things were real before there was physical life in the universe?

Anyone care to comment?  ???

I'll bite. Yes, things were real before there was physical life in the universe.  Reality is not contingent upon the existence of physical life.  If something exists, it is real. Non-living things existed before living things, unless you have some alternate definition of "life" that you are now going to spring on me.

[Stevil]

But wait a minute: Are you telling me that things were real before there was physical life in the universe?

Anyone care to comment?  ???

Point 3 was about truth prior to life, with truth having been defined as an attribute of consciousness.
How does this tie into things being real before there was physical life?

Please connect the dots, they are currently too far apart for me.

[Gawen]

He keeps refuting the need for "proof". Don't you see, we're all just supposed to take his word for it!

That is precisely how I read Egor.

[Asmodean]

blabla unsubstantiated bla...

I'm saying that,

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.

Oh! and if you READ what I DID say, rather than attempt to put words in my mouth, you will find that nothing there is unsubstantiated - matter and energy DID exist prior to life, and so they DID behave in certain ways. Truth is, as you yourself put it, "knowledge of reality", so prior to organisms capable of knowledge, there couldn't have been any.

[Gawen]

blabla unsubstantiated bla...

That made me laugh...really hard...

[Sandra Craft]

"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.

This is why I was so impressed that many people got all the way to #3 before objecting.  #1 was a stumbling block for me.

[Asmodean]

This is why I was so impressed that many people got all the way to #3 before objecting.  #1 was a stumbling block for me.

#1 just defines truth in the setting of the argument. It only turns into a stumbling block once you do get to #3, unless you object the definition, which I didn't bother to do.

[Pharaoh Cat]

Truth is philosophy, not science.  

This is why I was so impressed that many people got all the way to #3 before objecting.  #1 was a stumbling block for me.

I'm sitting on a chair, typing.  Unless I'm deceived or deceiving, it's true that I'm sitting on a chair, typing.  Any statement by anyone who is neither deceived nor deceiving is true because it conveys knowledge of reality.  Philosophers have raised the question of whether it is possible at all to be undeceived, or possible at all to be undeceiving, but the rest of us go about our business without bothering about such idle speculations because no other course of action would be practical.  Slap me in the face and then ask me if it's true that you slapped me in the face.  If I say "No" or "Maybe not," slap me again, because I deserve it.

None of that negates the utter fallacy of Egor's OP or follow-up.  Without a speaker or at least a thinker, there is no statement, and without a statement, there is no possibility of truth or falsehood, so before we can claim the existence of truth, we must establish the existence of a speaker or at least a thinker.