Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[substantivalist]

As the name of this post indicates this is a post about a specific logical argument for a god that I had come across while looking over a video treating TAG (Trancendental Argument for God). It followed TAG in a somewhat similar manner going somewhat as such:

1. There are necessary truths.
2. These necessary truths are necessary because they cannot be any other way.
3. Their truth is thusly not dependent on contingent existents with regards either to disagreement about the truth of those statements or any conscious contingent beings existence.
a. The truth of necessary statements are not dependent on material or physical reality.
_______________________________________________________________________________
--> Their necessary truth must be grounded in a mind or intellect because they exist separate from material reality but cannot exist ontologically on their own.

This is a restatement of it with much unwritten, I've been "debating" with the person but I've been rather foolish with my responses. A further clarification is that he is not arguing for these necessary propositions being platonic but grounded in a necessary mind, this was first mistake and he clarified that he was not arguing for platonism but rather some form of mental grounded dualism for necessary truths. Further in our debate I dipped into a position where necessary truths are contingent on or dependent on the axiomatic (logical) frameworks we possess to analyze or classify such propositions. I feel there is something wrong with any philosophical argument which argues from central truths to something we either cannot ever know or would always have its existence be indistinguishable from its non-existence or its state of affairs not having been fulfilled. I have this feeling that the argument is more language games than it is uncovering central aspects of our reality and wonder if any of you hold similar or contrary positions. A discussion of metametaphysics wouldn't be far from this.

I'll state up front that I'm atheist and thusly plagued with presuppositions that cloud my understanding but I cannot do without them because then I wouldn't have a starting point to walk from. Any comments, asking for further clarification, defending or attacking this argument and so on are hoped for.

[MAYA EL]

1. There are necessary truths....are there? Borderline fallacious statement especially if it is not proven which I don't think it can be.

2. These necessary truths are necessary because they cannot be any other way.. Now this would be a fallacious statement because a person cannot just say somthings necessary because I said so
we're not talking to her mother's after all lol.

3. Their truth is thusly not dependent on contingent existents with regards either to disagreement about the truth of those statements or any conscious contingent beings existence...... This sounds like somebody pulled fake fundamental principles out there butt without any evidence/proof or explanation for them and said you can't touch them because they're my ticket to winning this argument and then set them to the side which is a standard Christian thing to do.


a. The truth of necessary statements are not dependent on material or physical reality. .... and this is a statement in order to prevent the dismantling of said fallacious Concepts because if abided by it makes them untouchable . Not too sure I understand why this person even wants to have a discussion with you? It seems as if they've tried to set up the rules to where you don't even have a say in anything. They're definitely not open-minded that's for sure

[Felix]

substantivalist, I believe the argument you stated was first made by Leibniz. He held that the ultimate reason for contingent truths, i.e., of Nature itself, cannot itself be contingent but must depend on necessary eternal truths. Those eternal truths must exist as "thoughts" in the Mind of an eternal Being, i.e., God.

The Vedic (Hindu) conception is less concrete, they assert that Consciousness is the necessary ground of all being, for without consciousness nothing what-so-ever can be known to exist.

[NickGaspar]

In order for us to identify your problems in your arguments, we first need to define the word Truth.

According to Oxford University course on logic 101 Truth is an evaluation term. We Humans use it to identify whether a claim describes accurately or not current facts about our world.
This definition has the following consequences:
A. The only things that can be true(or not) in this world are premises(claims) and arguments.
B. The abstract concept of truth can only point out to our tendency to strive for this quality in our claims.Truth value "exists" either as a potential quality of our claims(look definition) or as our general goal to respect this quality, not as a Rule, or Goal or Property imposed by an idealistic or supernatural source!!!!!

True or not true claims are constructed by human brains in their effort to make sense of the world by using observable facts.

Constructing true claims is the process of trying to come up with the best descriptive framework, not an effort to find or agree with the dictations set by a supernatural "source". In essence Truth claims are byproducts of a process called LEARNING. The improvement of our understanding about the physical world help us improve the truth value of our claims about it. Truth claims CHANGE because our technology and understanding changes....so absolute Truth is a red herring.

From what I understand, you are trying to project a "magical" ontology on the concept of truth, a concept that has nothing to do with the actual role or use of the concept in our world.

It would be wise to give your definitions first.

[Thomyum2]

Further in our debate I dipped into a position where necessary truths are contingent on or dependent on the axiomatic (logical) frameworks we possess to analyze or classify such propositions. I feel there is something wrong with any philosophical argument which argues from central truths to something we either cannot ever know or would always have its existence be indistinguishable from its non-existence or its state of affairs not having been fulfilled. I have this feeling that the argument is more language games than it is uncovering central aspects of our reality and wonder if any of you hold similar or contrary positions.

I agree with you on this point here. I think talking about 'truths' as if they were something that existed in a separate and fixed reality outside of ourselves is problematic, as Wittgenstein might have said, a misuse of language that can lead into nonsensical arguments. In language, the terms 'true' and 'false', being adjectives, are terms we assign to statements or propositions based on whether or not they correspond accurately to objective reality as the speaker or listener experiences it. The 'language game', as I think you accurately describe it, occurs when we convert the adjective into a noun - i.e. 'truth' - and begin to talk about truth not as a quality that relates to a proposition, but rather as an object in and of itself, which it is not.

With respect to discussions about the existence of god, I believe that Wittgenstein's 'beetle in a box' analogy applies well too. Though the 'beetle in a box' is often discussed in the context of private language with respect to subjective experiences such as pain, I have wondered if he may have actually had in mind the individual's experience of god when he wrote this. Just as if we cannot see each others' 'beetles', thereby causing the breakdown of language if we try to talk about such a thing, talking about an inner experience such as faith in god similarly causes a failure of language. How can we discuss whether or not 'god' exists when the very term itself really defies any shared concrete definition? So as you've put it, without being able to agree on the framework (which would have to include a shared understanding of what 'god' actually is), it becomes almost impossible to have meaningful discussion.

Thanks for your interesting post. I'm interest to hear others thoughts on this too.

[MAYA EL]

In order for us to identify your problems in your arguments, we first need to define the word Truth.

According to Oxford University course on logic 101 Truth is an evaluation term. We Humans use it to identify whether a claim describes accurately or not current facts about our world.
This definition has the following consequences:
A. The only things that can be true(or not) in this world are premises(claims) and arguments.
B. The abstract concept of truth can only point out to our tendency to strive for this quality in our claims.Truth value "exists" either as a potential quality of our claims(look definition) or as our general goal to respect this quality, not as a Rule, or Goal or Property imposed by an idealistic or supernatural source!!!!!

True or not true claims are constructed by human brains in their effort to make sense of the world by using observable facts.

Constructing true claims is the process of trying to come up with the best descriptive framework, not an effort to find or agree with the dictations set by a supernatural "source". In essence Truth claims are byproducts of a process called LEARNING. The improvement of our understanding about the physical world help us improve the truth value of our claims about it. Truth claims CHANGE because our technology and understanding changes....so absolute Truth is a red herring.

From what I understand, you are trying to project a "magical" ontology on the concept of truth, a concept that has nothing to do with the actual role or use of the concept in our world.

It would be wise to give your definitions first.

Beautiful I could not have said it better myself

[Belindi]

Substantivalist wrote:

1. There are necessary truths.
2. These necessary truths are necessary because they cannot be any other way.
3. Their truth is thusly not dependent on contingent existents with regards either to disagreement about the truth of those statements or any conscious contingent beings existence.
a. The truth of necessary statements are not dependent on material or physical reality.

Truths don't depend upon material or physical reality. Nor do truths depend upon consciousness.If necessary truths exist they depend upon truth.

[Felix]

NickGaspar: In order for us to identify your problems in your arguments, we first need to define the word Truth.

In philosophy, the terms contingent and necessary (truth) have explicit meanings. Contingent truths have to do with existence and are therefore sometimes true and sometimes false. Eternal or necessary truths have to do with essence and are always true or always false. The gist of Leibniz' argument is that: truths are conceived by minds and therefore eternal truths must be conceived by an eternal mind, i.e., God. The ultimate reason for all contingent truths is found in eternal truths.

[NickGaspar]

NickGaspar: In order for us to identify your problems in your arguments, we first need to define the word Truth.

In philosophy, the terms contingent and necessary (truth) have explicit meanings. have to do with existence and are therefore sometimes true and sometimes false. Eternal or necessary truths have to do with essence and are always true or always false. The gist of Leibniz' argument is that: truths are conceived by minds and therefore eternal truths must be conceived by an eternal mind, i.e., God. The ultimate reason for all contingent truths is found in eternal truths.

I agree Felix and my argument is that those "qualifiers" are in conflict with the only possible nature of the evaluation term"truth" in our world and they are responsible for our fallacious reasoning.
Truth propositions are claims about our world which are products of our limited observations of facts. When our observations change, our truth claims change. Eternal truths are claims which are not limited by the limits of our observations because they are either products of superficial observations or tautologies or identify the positions of true dichotomy .
e.g. If it lives, it dies.
Everything has limitations.
At least within our universe, for every effect there is at least one cause.
2 + 2 = 4

Lets take a look at the definition of eternal truths
""eternal truth is an entity or a proposition that is true with no relation to time. That is, it is true, not only always, but always with absolute necessity."
Lets assume that such propositions that are not just superficial observation or tautologies are possible.
First of all the quality of "eternity" is not contingent upon the "quality" of the mind but on whether the mind has access to all the facts relevant to the claim!( Swan fallacy). The utilized facts about the world are what make a claim eternal, necessary and true. A mind's job is to observe the relations of those facts and propose a claim.
As I said only those propositions which are Superficial or tautology or identify the positions of true dichotomy can be labeled as "eternal".
Secondly, are the facts described by a proposition unavailable to non eternal minds? Why do we need to assume the existence of an eternal mind as the only capable to make those observations?How do we recognize that a truth claim is eternal if we do not have access to those observations?
So you see from the moment we realize that a claim is eternal, the need of an eternal mind is useless...right?!!!
An eternal mind is not a Necessary or a Sufficient explanation for eternal truth claims...if we can accept such kind of truth can ever "exist"
We have a far more reasonable and evidence based explanation which is.
Our basic observations produce claims that seem to be eternal and they are contingent to the facts of the world interacting with our physical brains.

[Belindi]

NickGaspar wrote:

We have a far more reasonable and evidence based explanation ( for eternal truth claims)which is.
Our basic observations produce claims that seem to be eternal and they are contingent to the facts of the world interacting with our physical brains.

My brackets.

That would explain how we can make eternal truth claims. However I don't think it explains what an eternal truth is . An eternal truth is or purports to be a claim about reality. Reality is presumed to be order as if it were chaos nothing could be claimed about it. But we do make claims about reality and we happen and feel we happen so there must be order.

[NickGaspar]

NickGaspar wrote:

We have a far more reasonable and evidence based explanation ( for eternal truth claims)which is.
Our basic observations produce claims that seem to be eternal and they are contingent to the facts of the world interacting with our physical brains.

My brackets.

That would explain how we can make eternal truth claims. However I don't think it explains what an eternal truth is . An eternal truth is or purports to be a claim about reality. Reality is presumed to be order as if it were chaos nothing could be claimed about it. But we do make claims about reality and we happen and feel we happen so there must be order.

But Eternal truth is nothing more than a label about the quality of those claims!
"Eternal truth" and "reality" are labels we use to define specific states of observable natural processes. They are abstract concepts that we construct and use to refer to a specific state of a process, freeing us from the need to describe the whole process again and again when we need to communicate information about it!. This is the power of symbolic language. The problem with human mind is its tendency to assign "idealistic" properties to this concepts(mix the Map with the Place). eg. Information, Consciousness,Truth, Knowledge etc. Those are labels we use on processes we observe in nature, not idealistic "entities" informing our thoughts!

Reality is not "order" .Order is a specific quality that we observe and label as such in Reality., but it also displays chaotic qualities in many aspects of its process(Chaos Theory) Both are observer relative terms, both are, again, concepts that represent a specific state of a process . We don't need to assume anything about Truth or Reality. These are labels we apply on states of processes, having specific characteristics and qualities which we can directly observe. Whether the content of our claim describes an important unchangeable observation that doesn't change the process we use to come up with this claim.

[Felix]

If it lives, it dies.
Everything has limitations.
At least within our universe, for every effect there is at least one cause.
2 + 2 = 4

Yes, those are tautologies that are always true, I don't see a contradiction (?)

NickGaspar: Secondly, are the facts described by a proposition unavailable to non eternal minds?

The factual evidence is available but not the justification for it.

NickGaspar: So you see from the moment we realize that a claim is eternal, the need of an eternal mind is useless... right?!!!

I cannot agree. Mere recognition of a fact and the explanation of it are two different things. We can observe that 2 + 2 = 4 but we cannot explain why we exist in a world where this is true.

NickGaspar: Our basic observations produce claims that seem to be eternal and they are contingent to the facts of the world interacting with our physical brains.

This is based on an assumption that Leibniz, Plato, et. al., would not accept, which is that consciousness itself is contingent. You imply that when you mention physical brains (empiricists believe that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of physical brains). Leibniz and others propose that Consciousness is primary, or that both Consciousness and Matter are primary and interdependent, but not derivative or contingent on one another.

[h_k_s]

As the name of this post indicates this is a post about a specific logical argument for a god that I had come across while looking over a video treating TAG (Trancendental Argument for God). It followed TAG in a somewhat similar manner going somewhat as such:

1. There are necessary truths.
2. These necessary truths are necessary because they cannot be any other way.
3. Their truth is thusly not dependent on contingent existents with regards either to disagreement about the truth of those statements or any conscious contingent beings existence.
a. The truth of necessary statements are not dependent on material or physical reality.
_______________________________________________________________________________
--> Their necessary truth must be grounded in a mind or intellect because they exist separate from material reality but cannot exist ontologically on their own.

This is a restatement of it with much unwritten, I've been "debating" with the person but I've been rather foolish with my responses. A further clarification is that he is not arguing for these necessary propositions being platonic but grounded in a necessary mind, this was first mistake and he clarified that he was not arguing for platonism but rather some form of mental grounded dualism for necessary truths. Further in our debate I dipped into a position where necessary truths are contingent on or dependent on the axiomatic (logical) frameworks we possess to analyze or classify such propositions. I feel there is something wrong with any philosophical argument which argues from central truths to something we either cannot ever know or would always have its existence be indistinguishable from its non-existence or its state of affairs not having been fulfilled. I have this feeling that the argument is more language games than it is uncovering central aspects of our reality and wonder if any of you hold similar or contrary positions. A discussion of metametaphysics wouldn't be far from this.

I'll state up front that I'm atheist and thusly plagued with presuppositions that cloud my understanding but I cannot do without them because then I wouldn't have a starting point to walk from. Any comments, asking for further clarification, defending or attacking this argument and so on are hoped for.

Google "San Tomas Aquinas" and read his "proofs of God."

You either agree with them or you do not.

If you agree then you are a Romantic Philosopher.

If not then you are just another atheist or agnostic.

[frailRearranger]

1. There are necessary truths.
2. These necessary truths are necessary because they cannot be any other way.
3. Their truth is thusly not dependent on contingent existents with regards either to disagreement about the truth of those statements or any conscious contingent beings existence.
a. The truth of necessary statements are not dependent on material or physical reality.
_______________________________________________________________________________
--> Their necessary truth must be grounded in a mind or intellect because they exist separate from material reality but cannot exist ontologically on their own.

I read some Spinoza recently, and he distinguished intellect from imagination in a way that might explain how this argument is meant to be interpreted? I'm not certain I understood him correctly, but, at least I will offer my interpretation as it may make sense of your argument.

Spinoza seemed to think of imagination as the impressions experienced in our consciousness as a result of the movements in our body[/brain]. (Those movements are in turn caused by external movements, via the sensory organs, or internal movements having to do with the structure of the body/brain.)

On the other hand, intellect was the fact itself, regardless of whether or not it was being observed, thought about, physically manifest, or consciously experienced.

If the original argument is trying to defend the existence of some kind of mind which independently imagines, feels, thinks, acts, manifests, etc, then I don't see how that makes any sense. How does the existence of the necessary truths require that type of a mind to think them?

On the other hand, if we are only stating something along the lines of: "God is the set of all intellectual facts," then perhaps that could make sense.

What is your interlocutor trying to use this argument to prove? A god whose nature actually follows from the argument, or some other god whom they are only hoping to defend with this argument?

[Belindi]

NickGaspar wrote:


My brackets.

That would explain how we can make eternal truth claims. However I don't think it explains what an eternal truth is . An eternal truth is or purports to be a claim about reality. Reality is presumed to be order as if it were chaos nothing could be claimed about it. But we do make claims about reality and we happen and feel we happen so there must be order.

But Eternal truth is nothing more than a label about the quality of those claims!
"Eternal truth" and "reality" are labels we use to define specific states of observable natural processes. They are abstract concepts that we construct and use to refer to a specific state of a process, freeing us from the need to describe the whole process again and again when we need to communicate information about it!. This is the power of symbolic language. The problem with human mind is its tendency to assign "idealistic" properties to this concepts(mix the Map with the Place). eg. Information, Consciousness,Truth, Knowledge etc. Those are labels we use on processes we observe in nature, not idealistic "entities" informing our thoughts!

Reality is not "order" .Order is a specific quality that we observe and label as such in Reality., but it also displays chaotic qualities in many aspects of its process(Chaos Theory) Both are observer relative terms, both are, again, concepts that represent a specific state of a process . We don't need to assume anything about Truth or Reality. These are labels we apply on states of processes, having specific characteristics and qualities which we can directly observe. Whether the content of our claim describes an important unchangeable observation that doesn't change the process we use to come up with this claim.

Are you conflating eternal and everlasting?

Regarding Chaos Theory. Chaos Theory explains how determinism does not imply prediction.

I and many if not most people do need to trust a model of Truth and Reality . Most people don't represent those by way of words or images.