The Argument from Truth

[Egor]

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.

That's true. There has to be a mind for something to be either true or false. If there was no mind in the universe before physical life, then there was no truth. But things were either real or not real.

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.

so prior to organisms capable of knowledge, there couldn't have been any. [truth]

I agree.

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.

Reality is a conscious phenomenon. And not just the knowledge of reality (that's what we call truth) but reality itself.

Take away all consciousness and reality loses meaning. It becomes a statement of faith, and faith is a conscious phenomenon, too.

Try a thought experiment: Imagine you are the only conscious being in the universe. Everyone else seems conscious, but they're not, they just act that way. There is no God, and no afterlife, and only you are truly observing other things with a mind. Everyone else is just behaving according to their inputs—like a computer.

What happens to the universe when you die? If you're still thinking about it, you aren't dead enough. Imagine you are not imagining the universe, and you were the only thing that was conscious. Even if you say it still exists, it exists without any meaning at all. It has no reality, because it's not real to anything.

In order to have reality, you have to have consciousness.

So, are we saying that before there was physical life in the universe, the universe wasn't real? "Real" is, after all, a judgment call.

Now, of course, my point is that the universe was real, because God was conscious and giving it reality.

But, I'll even go one step further and play Devil's Advocate: We got rid of truth because it implied consciousness, and we can't have that. I suppose we could toss out meaning as well, and maybe even say that reality is unnecessary. Instead we can talk about plain old existence.

Because there was no consciousness, there was no reality, no truth, no meaning, but there was existence, yes?

Is existence then independent of mind?

What do you think?

[Tank]

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.

That's true. There has to be a mind for something to be either true or false. If there was no mind in the universe before physical life, then there was no truth. But things were either real or not real.

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!

[Crocoduck]

I find it so darn cute how Christians having failed for so long to offer any real proof for god are left with only these abstract philosophical arguments. I'm reminded of the old saying "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit".
If god is real offer some real proof. If god is simply an abstract philosophical concept then please continue to try and bullshit us into believing in your god.

[Pharaoh Cat]

What happens to the universe when you die?

The ecosystem is immediately relieved of the burden of my existence.

So, are we saying that before there was physical life in the universe, the universe wasn't real?

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.  If the subjective is ever extinguished everywhere, the objective will probably still continue, and eventually the subjective may emerge once again.
 
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.

[The Magic Pudding]

I thought (1) was dubiously worded.
"Truth is the knowledge of reality. "
I'm OK with correspondence with reality.
What's knowledge got to do with it.
If you have knowledge of truth you should be able to recognise it.
I've seen things that start out like this and you concede a small point for the sake of the game and then they draw you into their circles.  I don't don't think Egor is up to this but I'm not conceding anything.

Threes OK, things corresponded with reality before life, what else were they going to do, there was no one to misinterpret.
I could let two and three go and say four is crap.
"Therefore, consciousness must have existed before there was any physical life in the universe."
I'm sticking with truth corresponding with reality, only after their was life could ideas be formed that didn't conform with reality.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

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.

Reality is a conscious phenomenon. And not just the knowledge of reality (that's what we call truth) but reality itself.

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. 

[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.

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.

Embracing ignorance? The arrogance you radiate is nauseating.

I am arguing that you should try to find the facts BEFORE drawing the conclusion(as scientists around the world are endavoring to do). I embrace ignorance only in the sense that objective understanding and knowledge can only come from a starting point of ignorance. You on the other hand seem to think that just because you can define something into existence, it has as much objective truth value as something that can be proven.
The ignorant one here is you for you are the one who has stopped looking for the truth.

[Whitney]

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

[Tank]

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

It keeps him entertained and off the street. 

[Asmodean]

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

It keeps him entertained and off the street. 

Keeps The Asmo entertained and off the streets too... For what it's worth 

[Guardian85]

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

It keeps him entertained and off the street. 

Keeps The Asmo entertained and off the streets too... For what it's worth 

The only true merit to these discussions: entertainment, and the fact that they keep Asmo busy...

[Tank]

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

It keeps him entertained and off the street. 

Keeps The Asmo entertained and off the streets too... For what it's worth 

My plan is working!

[Asmodean]

My plan is working!

Ah, but you see, The Asmo and his Minions, they is on to you now! They have no plan yet, but they will. And before then, they will stay off the streets and pretend to be sitting on their gray butts doing nothing. Yes, yes... A good plan... Eh...  ??? Where was I?!

[The Magic Pudding]

Where was I?!

Making me a large cup of tea, milk, 1.5 sugars as we agreed previously.

[Melmoth]

I've little to add that hasn't already been said.

You are embracing ignorance.

You do not remove ignorance by simply denying that you have it. I'm sure that Guardian does embrace his ignorance, in the sense that he hasn't pretended to know anything that he doesn't. Scio me nihil scire. We accept our ignorance and have a healthy awareness of our own limitations. 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.