If God doesn't exist, how do you know that truth exists?

It's a fact that you say "my celebrity crush is..." but you have not proven this statement to be true in and of itself.

Who defines what is right and wrong? It isn't just humans, all human understanding must have originated from somewhere.

we exist because of the indisputable fact we are questioning our own existence.

There's nothing absolute about that 'truth'. It is purely defined by language constructions i.e. what we mean by 'triangle'.

What I mean by 'truth' is an exact representation of reality. Pure knowledge.

Do you believe in this 'truth'. Or in your triangle argument, do you believe that there exists something in this world (not in your mind) with exactly 3 sides? When you speak of 'triangles' are you speaking of an exact representation of reality? Or are they just manmade abstraction?

Do you know that truth exists? Truth being 'an exact representation of reality; pure knowledge'.

If so, how do you know that truth exists? Now answer this question assuming God doesn't exist.

I made this thread seeing if someone could counter the idea that belief in truth only makes sense if you also believe in God.

There is no such thing as 'pure knowledge'. I'd like to see an objective proof of this.

If truth didn't exist, how could you say there's a fact in there?

If truth exists, how did god's existence or non-existence enabled you to recognize that fact?

If you didn't accept someone's self-proclaimed crush as a truth to himself, how could you possibly say this was a truth?

The exact representation of reality is that triangle has been defined in a certain way. We can't be certain whether the concept or definition comes purely from humans, but it remains a fact that it has been defined in a certain way.

First of all you need to establish in what way exactly was god needed. All you have been doing is no different from me asking how truth could exist if Madonna didn't exist.

Secondly truths don't need to be known for them to exist. The exact representation of reality can exist without recognition. A mathematical question has an answer before the solution was found - though of course it's possible for there not to be answer, but if there's one, it exists before humans discover it.

If the reality exists, the exact representation of it exists, even when it's not understood by humans. If the exact representation doesn't exist, reality doesn't exist because that's the only scenario where it's impossible to have an exact representation of it.

"All you have been doing is no different from me asking how truth could exist if Madonna didn't exist". True except for one major difference, in asking the question my way I am ruling out any responses that rely on the existence of supernatural entities explaining truth. As far as we know, Madonna is not a supernatural entity.

Ok so if you believe mathematical answers exist independent of human understanding then you do believe in truth. This thread is asking "how do you know that truth exists" and I don't think you will be able to answer this without assuming God (=an entity of absolute power that is timeless and permanent) exists.

Prove "If the reality exists, the exact representation of it exists".

You asked the question how truth could exist without God, but you haven't established how truths come from God. It's like if one says how could there be objective morality without God, one would need to say something like it's because from different perspectives, an event or intention could be interpreted differently by different people. Without a supreme authority there's no absolute right or wrong. But you haven't done anything like that. You didn't establish the link between truths and God.

So you need me to make an argument for why God is needed for truth to exist before you can make your own argument? Ok here is the basic argument of this thread. However note that even if you try to counter this argument, you still need to prove that truth does exist not just that it can exist.

Reality exists.
Truth is an exact representation of reality.
God is an entity of absolute power that is timeless and permanent.
An exact representation must not change over time for it to be exact.
No natural phenomenon is permanent.
An exact representation of reality is not possible except if a God made it.
If God doesn't exist, truth can't exist.


Btw the rest of your post continues to make lots of unsubstantiated claims,

"I just know that IF there's a solution to the mathematical problem, it exists before it's discovered." ; "Absolute truths have yet to be known by humans, but the inability to prove they exist doesn't mean they don't." ; "the exact representation of reality doesn't have to exist if reality exists, but I'm just saying it can exist.",

until you make an argument (you need to give reasons) I can only repeat myself.

There was only one unsubstantiated claim in mine, that the solution, if it exists, it exists before its discovery. You can indeed doubt that but then you'd be making the argument that reality exists only because *we* recognize it. In this case, there probably wasn't a solution at all, but it's merely our imagined perception that it exists.

In your reasoning, you have made some unsubstantiated claims yourself. God doesn't have to be timeless or permanent - the former is likely to be the case, the latter not really. We simply don't know. Nothing natural is permanent - maybe not those we already know about. There can be things exist outside the universe.

I don't know if absolute truths exist. I was just asking why God must exist for them to exist.

Well that's the definition of God I am using, and one that's presupposed by a lot of the popular religions.

Don't worry if you don't know, I made this thread because I don't think anyone knows. Which is interesting really because it seems the only way to genuinely believe in an absolute truth is to also believe in a God.

If one does not believe in an absolute truth he would not be able to claim "There is an object in reality that has X number of sides and X number of angles". Whether or not we define it as object X does not change the fact that it has to exist first according to this claim. So to me it does seem you see triangles as an exact representation of a real thing which has exactly 3 sides.

I would disagree with your knowledge argument. We would not be able to agree on any knowledge being pure unless it represented an absolute entity. I can think what I like and so can you in each of our individual minds. But when we communicate this knowledge to the wider world, it can only be pure if there existed an absolute truth.

One can be both genuine and mistaken in their belief so I disagree, not that I think it has to come from God or that either necessarily exist. If you define truth as absolute and unchanging then my belief is that there indeed may be none.

For someone to believe in a truth like that they don't need a belief in a personal god. Pantheism could work.

Ahh, but I think you must define what you mean by absolute entity. I say that logic is absolute entity because it is at its most fundamental the basic rules apon which we view the universe. It needs no validation, no evidence or proof or any sort of invention because it is and always will be. Logic in this regard is very similar to the idea of God, so asking for an absolute entity isn't as impossible as you might think.

We human beings are rational people at heart and thus need a set of coherent rules upon which to exist. Logic states that A=A OR A =/= A, not both or neither. Thus if we state that object X has X sides and X angles then we are basing our statement upon absolute axioms, the axioms of logic.

Yeah but how do you know for definite what is "correct"? How do you know for definite God doesn't exist

We don't.

There is no objective and absolute truth, since we cannot perceive things independent of our flawed perspective.

First, define "truth".
Then, define "god".
Then we can have a chat.

I literally did. I explicitly defined both of those. Read what I have said then tell me if you want a chat.

Your OP says...
"Please answer the question above, I'm hoping for a rational discussion on this topic"

No definition of truth or god there. If it is elsewhere in the thread, you'll have to link it. If you pose a question, you need to put everything necessary in the OP. I'm guessing that your definitions are in response to another question.

If truth doesn't exist, how do you know that God exists? You can't, hence faith.

What do people even mean by this 'there is no truth' stance? Not only is it self-defeating but it just doesn't seem very plausible. Is not 'the blue car is blue' a true statement? Or, 'all bachelors are unmarried'? Are these not truthful statements? Can someone please explain without reference to 'oh everything is just from our limited point of view' nonsense. I've presented analytic truths, which are true irrespctive of anyone's 'point of view'

I'm not talking about 'analytical truths', it doesn't fit into my definition of truth as 'an exact representation of reality'.

1) This is a very narrow use of the word 'truth'. But accepting it, what reasons do you have for thinking we cannot know with a reasonable degree of certainty that reality is not as we suppose? Any examples?

2) The statement 'we do not know the truth about reality' is, presumably, a truth about reality, so your position is self-defeating.