HEY GUYS i think i have a fairly good argument for the existence of GOD

[blablablah]

That there necessarily need be an ultimate source of truth or knowledge to be used as a standard. There needn't be.

the alternative is subjectivism, which leads to no truth of any kind.

[madeinoregon]

strong username to post ratio

cuz all i read was blablablah

[PlasticJanus]

the alternative is subjectivism, which leads to no truth of any kind.

Most theories of truth are not subjective or relative. The correspondence theory of truth yields absolute truths without there being an absolute source of truth to use as a standard, and the same can be said of theories of knowledge.

[blablablah]

Feels like OP is going around in circles.


This is the problem with presuppositional apologetics- It already presupposes its own truth and the falisty of an opposing viewpoint, and usually the very nature of the belief precludes you from actually listening to and taking your opponent seriously since you need to assume they're automatically wrong for your argument to work.

If you've already convinced yourself your position is the true one and nothing can convince you otherwise, its a worthless discussion. Its logical trickery and willful self-delusion.

im sorry if it appears that way because i am doing my utmost to be open and consistent.

it may very well be true that my argument pre-supposes its own truth and validity, but as a human this is unavoidable. you pre-suppose the validity of human reason, but this you do not gainsay. why is it any different?

[lucious]

the alternative is subjectivism, which leads to no truth of any kind.

truth is correspondence to facts, what dont you understand about this?


What does ultimate truth entail?

[blablablah]

truth is correspondence to facts, what dont you understand about this?


What does ultimate truth entail?

truth is correspondant to facts if you are an empiricist. i am not talking about relativistic truths here. i am talking about truths that are absolute

[lucious]

im sorry if it appears that way because i am doing my utmost to be open and consistent.

it may very well be true that my argument pre-supposes its own truth and validity, but as a human this is unavoidable. you pre-suppose the validity of human reason, but this you do not gainsay. why is it any different?

That is simply not true. We know human reasoning is valid because there are very good reasons to believe so- Evolution would only select for beings which have valid reasoning faculties. We trust our reason because it provides results. It works.

[lucious]

truth is correspondant to facts if you are an empiricist. i am not talking about relativistic truths here. i am talking about truths that are absolute

Whats an absolute truth? If you mean logic or math, those are abstractions and are true by their nature.

This goes back to my point about analytic truth-thats a truth that is true by virtue of the definitions. Its truth is contained within itself.


We're going around in circles

[blablablah]

That is simply not true. We know human reasoning is valid because there are very good reasons to believe so- Evolution would only select for beings which have valid reasoning faculties. We trust our reason because it provides results. It works.

this is not an argument. it is a biased case of circular reasoning. we know that human reason is valid because we deduced it is, using human reason.

evolution is irrelevant.

[blablablah]

Whats an absolute truth? If you mean logic or math, those are abstractions and are true by their nature.

This goes back to my point about analytic truth-thats a truth that is true by virtue of the definitions. Its truth is contained within itself.


We're going around in circles

youre going around in circles because you cannot accept the absolute. to you everything is relative. the truth cannot be relative by definition.

[PlasticJanus]

truth is correspondant to facts if you are an empiricist. i am not talking about relativistic truths here. i am talking about truths that are absolute

Correspondence theories of truth and empiricism are not interchangeable. One may believe one while still rejecting the other. Furthermore, I feel as if you may have missed my previous post:

Most theories of truth are not subjective or relative. The correspondence theory of truth yields absolute truths without there being an absolute source of truth to use as a standard, and the same can be said of theories of knowledge.

Finally:

this is not an argument. it is a biased case of circular reasoning. we know that human reason is valid because we deduced it is, using human reason.

Human reasoning is not an argument, and it doesn't make sense to ask whether or not it is valid.

[Grug]

How is human existence 'trans-subjective'? Existence is purely subjective, so the understanding and comprehension of it comes down purely to the individual - so there's no need for a framework (like that provided by the belief in a higher power), a subjective perspective will simply attach the purpose and reasoning it personally finds in existence.

Which is to say that a person might (independently) arrive at the conclusion that a higher power might exist, but equally it may never even occur to them.

With subjectivity, knowledge, truth and understanding don't only come from external sources (if they did, the human race would never have developed even the most basic of tools), they come from personal interpretation (from external sources or otherwise). So there is absolutely NO reason to assume that people couldn't conceive of there not being a higher power.

[loik]

this thread will not get you to 1k reps

abort

umad?

[blablablah]

Correspondence theories of truth and empiricism are not interchangeable. One may believe one while still rejecting the other. Furthermore, I feel as if you may have missed my previous post:



Finally:



Human reasoning is not an argument, and it doesn't make sense to ask whether or not it is valid.

i have to reject the concept of a correspondant theory of truth, as i have no idea what it is, and i think it is distracting from the real discussion: whether the concept of truth or knowledge has any meaning without reference to a source of ultimate truth and knowledge. thus far you have ignored it.

[lucious]

youre going around in circles because you cannot accept the absolute. to you everything is relative. the truth cannot be relative by definition.

But what is "absolute truth"? Truthes have to correspond to something!!!!!

[Wikiniks]

Brb using big words to sound smarter and to pretend like my arguement seems well thought out.


People who deny god usually adopt other theorys such as big bang not just deny there being any source.



Arguement=invalid

[PlasticJanus]

i have to reject the concept of a correspondant theory of truth, as i have no idea what it is, and i think it is distracting from the real discussion: whether the concept of truth or knowledge has any meaning without reference to a source of ultimate truth and knowledge. thus far you have ignored it.

The correspondence theory of truth is the real discussion; it explains how there can be truth without reference to a source of ultimate truth. It states that a proposition is true if it corresponds to the facts. I haven't ignored anything. Indeed, I've explained the correspondence theory of truth more than thoroughly enough for you to understand why you are coming up with needlessly false conclusions regarding some unnecessary ultimate source of truth.

[blablablah]

But what is "absolute truth"? Truthes have to correspond to something!!!!!

this is exactly my point. truths, if they are to be true, must have some standard to which they can be judged in reference to. if there is no standard, there cannot be a concept of truth - do you accept this?

[PlasticJanus]

this is exactly my point. truths, if they are to be true, must have some standard to which they can be judged in reference to. if there is no standard, there cannot be a concept of truth - do you accept this?

The standard is, most plausibly, whether or not they are in accordance with reality.

[blablablah]

The correspondence theory of truth is the real discussion; it explains how there can be truth without reference to a source of ultimate truth. It states that a proposition is true if it corresponds to the facts. I haven't ignored anything. Indeed, I've explained the correspondence theory of truth more than thoroughly enough for you to understand why you are coming up with needlessly false conclusions regarding some unnecessary ultimate source of truth.

it sppears to me you are continually referencing relativistic truths. i have no interest in the relative. my concern is with the absolute. if there is to be a coherent concept of absolute truth, there must be a standard against which it can be judged. if there is no standard, we can have no concept of truth.

do you agree with this?

[blablablah]

The standard is, most plausibly, whether or not they are in accordance with reality.

no it is not. you are speaking in relative terms again

[PlasticJanus]

it sppears to me you are continually referencing relativistic truths. i have no interest in the relative. my concern is with the absolute. if there is to be a coherent concept of absolute truth, there must be a standard against which it can be judged. if there is no standard, we can have no concept of truth.

do you agree with this?

The correspondence theory of truth yields absolute, not relative truths. The standard you're looking for is whether or not the propositions accord with reality. There is nothing relative about it.

[Kalmah6661]

So, basically, OP wrote a long piece of drawn-out text and then concluded with "therefore, my god is real."

Unfortunately for you, winning arguments doesn't work that way.

Nice try.

[cchar042]

If we were created in Gods image, whos image were the dolphin, snake, platypus, and cockroach created in?

[blablablah]

The correspondence theory of truth yields absolute, not relative truths. The standard you're looking for is whether or not the propositions accord with reality. There is nothing relative about it.

how does the correspondence theory of truth determine truth then? if it is in relation to facts, it is relative

[PlasticJanus]

how does the correspondence theory of truth determine truth then? if it is in relation to facts, it is relative

I am thoroughly excited to hear your explanation behind that reasoning.

[blablablah]

I am thoroughly excited to hear your explanation behind that reasoning.

to clarify, i am talking of the metaphysical concept of truth. this concept requires a source of ultimate truth to be judged against, and to determine whether it is true. if this source does not exist, there would be no way to determine the truth.

i think you are talking of the this-world concept of truth and deriving the necessary truths from a set of premises. that is a different concept entirely, and one which this discussion is not about.

[Kalmah6661]

If we were created in Gods image, whos image were the dolphin, snake, platypus, and cockroach created in?

This is where most religious people just start making things up.

And isn't it funny how the only species on earth capable of critical thinking and speech is the one that concludes that humans were created in the image of a god?

A little too convenient if you ask me. What if ants were created in a god's image but just can't tell us about it?

[PlasticJanus]

to clarify, i am talking of the metaphysical concept of truth. this concept requires a source of ultimate truth to be judged against, and to determine whether it is true. if this source does not exist, there would be no way to determine the truth.

i think you are talking of the this-world concept of truth and deriving the necessary truths from a set of premises. that is a different concept entirely, and one which this discussion is not about.

I already dealt with this objection. You can get absolute metaphysical truths by corresponding propositions to facts about our metaphysical framework in the same way that you can get typical truths by corresponding propositions to typical facts. No source of ultimate truth required.

[magog704]

to clarify, i am talking of the metaphysical concept of truth. this concept requires a source of ultimate truth to be judged against, and to determine whether it is true. if this source does not exist, there would be no way to determine the truth.

that's right. what you're describing is platonism. it's kind of archaic in the world of philosophy.

so there is no Truth, capital T.


"there are no facts, only interpretations" -Nietzsche