Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zephrom)
    You are reaching dangerously by asking for 'Pure Knowledge'. What do you mean by this? I assume you mean knowledge that is 100% true no matter your frame of reference. What you have to realise is that as I have said, there is no difference between 'pure knowledge' and our limited knowledge - in our frame of reference. Relative to us, our limited knowledge IS pure knowledge.
    This is true. :thumbsup:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xylas)
    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.
    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?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bulletzone)
    Who defines what is right and wrong? It isn't just humans, all human understanding must have originated from somewhere.
    The majority. Or the ones in power. When homosexuality was deemed by most as "wrong", it was considered "wrong". When it's thought to be "right", it's "right". Neutral concepts that are not detrimental to the community becomes right or wrong largely by chance.

    How about "murder is wrong"? People who thought murder was right were less likely to be able to reproduce due to individuals wanting themselves to survive. Hence, that becomes the prevailing view of the majority. The assumption here is that most organism wish to survive.

    (Original post by xylas)
    we exist because of the indisputable fact we are questioning our own existence.
    If you didn't accept someone's self-proclaimed crush as a truth to himself, how could you possibly say this was a truth?

    (Original post by xylas)
    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?
    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.

    (Original post by xylas)
    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.
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThePricklyOne)
    There is no such thing as 'pure knowledge'. I'd like to see an objective proof of this.
    That's the whole point of this thread! I'd very much like to see someone prove pure knowledge exists as well!


    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    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?
    The fact that something has been written is completely explained that we are reading it now. And it is a fact that for you to quote something you must have seen it. Note fact =/= truth. They are very similar but there is a crucial difference that facts need to be defined whereas 'truth' does not. The idea of truth (which no-one has been able to prove exists on this thread) is that something is true whether or not it is proven to be so. A fact is something that is proved to be true.

    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    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.
    "Truth to himself" =/= absolute truth.

    "The exact representation of reality is that triangle has been defined" - you are playing with words here. If something has been defined a certain way then it is not an exact representation, it is the opposite of exact.

    The concept of definition is just that. A concept. What does concept mean, it means it came from the human mind. Therefore if you have to define something to be true then that thing is not an exact representation of reality. It is a relative truth, not an absolute truth.

    "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".


    To anyone who did not understand the thread this post should clarify all the terms and the fundamental question it is asking.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xylas)
    "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".
    The point is not whether Madonna is a supernatural being, but that in making the claim, I didn't establish how her existence has anything to do with the existence of truth.

    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.

    I didn't say I know that truths exist. I didn't say I know that mathematical answers exist. I just know that IF there's a solution to the mathematical problem, it exists before it's discovered. Just because no-one has yet to discover a solution doesn't mean one doesn't exist, even though it's possible for one not to.

    That's in response to your asking people to prove that absolute truths exist. Absolute truths have yet to be known by humans, but the inability to prove they exist doesn't mean they don't. Your question should be "demonstrate a scenario where a truth can exist without God" rather than prove blah is an absolute truth first.

    Well, the exact representation of reality doesn't have to exist if reality exists, but I'm just saying it can exist. I'm assuming here the exact representation of reality can only exist when someone or something creates it (conceptualize it) - the solution to a problem may exist (ie reality), but the exact representation of it (ie the steps represented by manmade symbols) might not have. But if there's a former, the latter can exist, we just don't when our by whom. It's also possible for the latter to never materialize, but the possibility is still there.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xylas)
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xylas)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xylas)
    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.
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    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.
    Sure, there's no disagreement that I can see. If you don't believe in an absolute truth then fair enough. I never mentioned a personal God so pantheism is included.


    (Original post by Zephrom)
    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.
    What do you mean by logic being an absolute entity? Do you mean the rules of logic actually exist? Or is it just a product of neurones in the human brain which we perceive as existing?

    We define axioms so unless you can prove otherwise, I would say they do not exist in an absolute sense.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xylas)
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    First, define "truth".
    Then, define "god".
    Then we can have a chat.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _gcx)
    We don't.

    There is no objective and absolute truth, since we cannot perceive things independent of our flawed perspective.
    If we accept there is no truth then the statement 'there is no truth' itself cannot be true. Your position is self-defeating.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xylas)
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    If truth doesn't exist, how do you know that God exists? You can't, hence faith.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    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'
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    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.
    I know what the op says. If you read the 2nd page (post 34) I wrote

    "What I mean by God is an entity of absolute power that is timeless and permanent.

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

    Actually if you tell me to do something without even reading my posts you will appear foolish. To prevent this I'd recommend asking a question in a normal way next time...


    (Original post by Melancholy)
    If truth doesn't exist, how do you know that God exists? You can't, hence faith.
    I like what you did there. While I don't necessarily disagree with that, I think that truth is a higher concept than God therefore it would be impossible to assert 'hence faith' in a world without truth.

    (Original post by SunnysideSea)
    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'.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xylas)

    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.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.