The Argument from Truth

[McQ]

Well, you lost me at #1. Truth is not necessarily the knowledge of reality. Truth simply is reality. Knowledge has nothing to do with it. Even your opening sentence is a presupposed bit of hogwash.

What a waste of time. Can't be bothered to argue with these made up bits of nonsense - not when your premise itself fails. Try again when you have something worth spending time on.

[Stevil]

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.

That's what I hope to do. So stay tuned.

... and so I wait....
This gift of enlightenment you offer me is like watching paint dry.
I'm pretty sure that the end result isn't going to look any different to the begining position, and it takes so very, very long to get there.
And when we are there, will I be able to recognise that we are there, at the end. At least paint doesn't take longer than two days to dry.
...but here I am...
...waiting...
...waiting...
...but wait...


...there's more...

[Egor]

So what you're saying there is that God either has no mind or he didn't exist until somebody thought him up. Excellent Edward you've got it!

No. Once we agree that there had to be an overarching consciousness to make anything real, we then have to look at arguments like the cosmological argument. That is the idea that there has to be an uncaused, eternal cause of all things.

No.  We're saying it wasn't perceived.

Reality can be divided into the objective and the subjective.  Subjective reality requires a perceiving subject.  Objective reality doesn't.  Before the subjective emerged, the objective had already been.  Meaning is a subjective phenomenon.  Objective reality has no meaning and needs none.  Before the subjective emerged, all was meaningless.  If the subjective is ever extinguished everywhere, all will again be meaningless.  Today, because there is subjectivity, there is meaning, but that meaning does not impinge on the objective, nor does the objective lack anything it needs by lacking meaning.  Objective reality gets along just fine being meaningless.

What you just described (and by the way, you did a very good job of it.) is faith-based magical thinking. But that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense or isn't true. Just calling it magical thinking is not a sufficient rebuttal, and I know that. But just keep in mind that any counter I make, you will always be able to come back and say, in essence, "Nope. It is the way it is and that's it," offering absolutely no proof or even a logical thought experiment to support your assertion.

So let me say that existence requires meaning. Because if you are the only conscious thing in a black infinite space, and floating next to you is a wooden block. If you disappear, if your consciousness is extinguished, the block of wood loses all meaning. But what that implies is that it becomes everything and nothing at the same time. It no longer is a block of wood. It is as much a pink elephant as it is a cat as it is a cup as it is a block of wood. It's essence is without definition. To say a thing can exist without definition is an absurd statement.

After you are gone, the block of wood can only remain in existence if there is an overarching consciousness to give it definition.

My claim is that was the state of the universe before there was physical life in it.

There you go again, trying to win an argument with definitions.  I'll accept you idea that truth is a conscious phenomenon, but not reality.  Something is real if it exists.  Perception of it does not detract from its existence.  The idea of "reality" may require consciousness, because it is an idea. But looking at the existence of things, it is obvious that some things existed (i.e.: were "real") before humans came along to perceive them and formulate ideas about them.  Something being "real" and something being "meaningful" are two different things. You are mixing apples and oranges, and trying to define your way to victory. 

Consider what I said above about existence. Explain to me what a block of wood is that is alone in a hypothetical black void. At this point, you are claiming that it exists without definition. But that's not existence.

Embracing ignorance? The arrogance you radiate is nauseating.

But I'm born again through faith. I would say my arrogance is justified. I am, after all, part of the royal court of God. I mean that's a fact.

I am arguing that you should try to find the facts BEFORE drawing the conclusion(as scientists around the world are endavoring to do).

Praise be to scientists—especially the one who made H5N1 airborne just to see if he could!

oh great...another semantics "proof" that involves throwing the dictionary out the window 

It's not a semantics proof. If logically things can't be real without observation, and obviously the universe existed before there was physical life in it, then that implies a consciousness that existed without physical life. That would most accurately be called God.

And your branding that "Atheistic" is also false - I've spoken to Christians who have referred to the same thing, the contemplation of unknowing, as a source of great awe and catharsis, and as being at the core of all genuine religious feeling.

Is the idea of cosmic ignorance simply frightening to you? Is that why you want there to be a God? If so, then I posit to you that your belief is insincere, and that you are an atheist in denial.

I couldn't escape my belief in God if I wanted to. And at times, I have wanted to. But that would be insanity. And just shutting my eyes as atheists do, does not make God go away.

[Egor]

Well, you lost me at #1. Truth is not necessarily the knowledge of reality. Truth simply is reality. Knowledge has nothing to do with it. Even your opening sentence is a presupposed bit of hogwash.

Oh really? So, truth existed before there was physical life in the universe? Be careful now, don't fall into any traps! 

What a waste of time. Can't be bothered to argue with these made up bits of nonsense - not when your premise itself fails. Try again when you have something worth spending time on.

Waste of time? Then why are you in here typing?

[Stevil]

Two more posts from Egor,

but I find myself still waiting

[Whitney]

If logically things can't be real without observation, and obviously the universe existed before there was physical life in it,

How is the bolded part logical?

The logical position is that one can't claim to know that something is real until it is observed...

The illogical position would be claiming that something does not exist unless it is seen...lots of things existed before they were discovered.

But I see what you are trying to do here...turn the skeptic's requirement of proof against them; but it's not working since you are building a strawman.

[Asmodean]

But I'm born again through faith. I would say my arrogance is justified. I am, after all, part of the royal court of God. I mean that's a fact.

Oh look! We have a monarchist here!

Royal court my ass! If your god did exist, he'd flush you down the drain with the rest of them assholes for people like me to torture in hell for all eternity. Royals have been known to do that to their parents, kids and siblings... What makes you think your lord and master would not toss you where the sun never shines?

[Twentythree]

So let me say that existence requires meaning. Because if you are the only conscious thing in a black infinite space, and floating next to you is a wooden block. If you disappear, if your consciousness is extinguished, the block of wood loses all meaning. But what that implies is that it becomes everything and nothing at the same time. It no longer is a block of wood. It is as much a pink elephant as it is a cat as it is a cup as it is a block of wood. It's essence is without definition. To say a thing can exist without definition is an absurd statement.

After you are gone, the block of wood can only remain in existence if there is an overarching consciousness to give it definition.

My claim is that was the state of the universe before there was physical life in it.

I can see what you are saying here. It sounds as if you are trying to describe an observer based reality. With no observer reality itself becomes undefined. We only understand reality as we are able to perceive it. Without the presence of an observer all notions of reality cease to exist. So if I'm not mistaken, your position is that the observer is god. Therefore reality can continue to exist even without a sentient observer. I find this line of thought intriguing. Not to the extent that I believe that god is holding reality in place by being the alpha observer. But the fact that reality ceases to be clearly defined with the lack of an observer. Reality as we define it now has everything to do with how we perceive it. Every record, fact and theory is based on what we can see calculate or imagine. So did reality exist before the sentient observer. It's hard to say, thinking from a quantum perspective (as far as I am capable to) we may even be able to imagine that reality simultaneously existed and did not exist and only snapped into perceived existence with the introduction of a sentient observer. This is all well above my pay grade clearly but lines of discussion like this are valuable to the forum and I feel should be met with a bit more openness. You are clearly educated but have allowed yourself to slip into defending your arguments with barbs and quips. I hope you will expound upon this idea and offer a bit more clarity as to why you feel that reality is and or has to be held in place by a non material observer like god. I would also imagine that it is not your goal to have discussion disintegrate into argument. Especially over things such as the nature of reality. A topic I fell that no one is overtly capable of fully defending as no one knows for certain the true nature of reality. As atheists we know only so much as we can learn from scientific postulation. As a theist you understand the nature of reality as it has been given to you within the realm of your personal relationship with god. To these ends we should be eager to hear and experience one another's viewpoints its so hard to be honest when we are being defensive. So thank you for your openness and participation. Unless of course you are a troll in which case get the hell off my lawn!

[Guardian85]

What you just described (and by the way, you did a very good job of it.) is faith-based magical thinking. But that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense or isn't true. Just calling it magical thinking is not a sufficient rebuttal, and I know that. But just keep in mind that any counter I make, you will always be able to come back and say, in essence, "Nope. It is the way it is and that's it," offering absolutely no proof or even a logical thought experiment to support your assertion.

So let me say that existence requires meaning. Because if you are the only conscious thing in a black infinite space, and floating next to you is a wooden block. If you disappear, if your consciousness is extinguished, the block of wood loses all meaning. But what that implies is that it becomes everything and nothing at the same time. It no longer is a block of wood. It is as much a pink elephant as it is a cat as it is a cup as it is a block of wood. It's essence is without definition. To say a thing can exist without definition is an absurd statement.

After you are gone, the block of wood can only remain in existence if there is an overarching consciousness to give it definition.

My claim is that was the state of the universe before there was physical life in it.

Primo: You are one to talk about faith-based magical thinking! PharaohCat made a valid point in regards to the definition of truth in your assertion of the nature of truth, and your rebuttal is simply to label it magical thinking? Are you smelling the irony of you of all people here using that argument?

Secundo: Your argument that something requires meaning to exist and doesn't really exist until someone observes it sounds like the old philosophy thought experiment: "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it still make a sound?"
It does make a sound. And the log floaing in the water is still going to be a log floating in the water, with all the characteristics of a log floating in the water, even if there are no one around to define it as such. The human definition of the thing is not important to the existence of the thing.Or are you asserting that as soon as nobody is watching it, it would magically disintegrate, and vanish from the universe?

[The Magic Pudding]

That is the idea that there has to be an uncaused, eternal cause of all things.

Ye that's why I think those who worship god the creator are wasting their time.
I don't waste my time worshipping god the god creator either, I worship god the god creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator ...........

[Asmodean]

That is the idea that there has to be an uncaused, eternal cause of all things.

Ye that's why I think those who worship god the creator are wasting their time.
I don't waste my time worshipping god the god creator either, I worship god the god creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator creator ...........

*Ctrl - Alt - Del* 

[Pharaoh Cat]

I wonder how many believers would agree with Egor's arguments, not to win a debate, but because those arguments seem valid to those believers.  If so, there's a clue here as to believer psychology.

Most atheists assume molecules can exist without minds, but not minds without molecules.

Egor's arguments, by contrast, assume minds can exist without molecules, but not molecules without minds.

Minds without molecules are ghosts, precisely the form of being expected by most of those who anticipate surviving death, so we know these folks would agree with the minds without molecules proposition.  Would they also agree that there can be no molecules without minds?

The third option is, minds and molecules are mutually independent, so that minds without molecules could exist, and molecules without minds also could.  This is what I thought most believers assumed.  Could I be wrong?  Are Egor's arguments representative of common believer psychology?

[MadBomr101]

Are Egor's arguments representative of common believer psychology?

Egor's comments are representative of someone not taking his meds.

[McQ]

Oh really? So, truth existed before there was physical life in the universe? Be careful now, don't fall into any traps!  

Yes. Things exist whether you're around to see them or not. Physical laws existed before humans, before all life.
And your premise is flawed so badly it doesn't hold up to even a moment's scrutiny.

Waste of time? Then why are you in here typing?

To demonstrate what a foolish thing you are arguing for, and to let you know that you aren't saying anything useful. Also to see if you can do better than to plug your ears and say, "Nahahahaha...ICAN'THEARYOU!", which is all you're doing now.

So, start over, without a failed premise. Otherwise you're just trolling. It's that obvious.

[The Magic Pudding]

Egor's comments are representative of someone not taking his meds.

Not necessarily, this may be medicated Egor.