Belief in God as properly basic

[Charlemagne_III]

Saying that no amount of publicly available evidence could change a belief, even in principle, is simply to commit intellectual suicide. If you are sincerely seeking the truth, you should be willing to give up even your most cherished beliefs if they are shown to be false. Indeed, that is exactly what seeking the truth is.

I can’t possibly address every point you’ve made. But this point seems vital.

There is no publicly available evidence that God does not exist. Nor can there be. Nor can you as a Catholic believe there could be. So it is not intellectual suicide to refuse to change that belief no matter what evidence is advanced. It is the devil’s own logic to persuade us that God does not exist. And it is by this very logic that we have considerable evidence that it’s the devil who does exist.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

“Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?” John 18:38

You quote an internet source which defines “absolute” in a Kantian way. Well, sure, if you define the “absolute” as “God”, then it follows that a belief in the absolute entails a belief in God. But really, you’re just defining words however you like as a way to make your point.

The Biblical notion of “aletheia” – which is NOT the same as the English word “truth” – is not what we are talking about. “Aletheia” (from John 18, and elsewhere) is a word that is often best translated as “what is genuine” or “what is real”. Now realness or genuineness is an ontological/metaphysical concept. In English, however, “truth” is an epistemological concept. They have little in common, unless you are a Platonist.

If you mean by an “absolute” truth a necessary truth, then I’ll agree that “the cat is fat” is not an absolute truth. However, “the cat is a mammal” is an absolute truth, in that sense.

Wikipedia’s entry contrasts “absolute” with “relative”. In this sense, “the cat has whiskers” is an absolute truth.

In short, I can’t figure out any meaning of an absolute truth that makes “God exists” the only absolute truth.

Can you?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

By the doctrine of the transcendentals, God is Truth (or absolute truth). But that is an ontological rather than epistemic claim. A proposition disclosing “God exists” need not itself be an absolute truth, in particular because in knowing its truth value we still do not know what it means for God to exist (ie. God’s nature). The proposition is notional.

Could you explain to me what English meaning of “Truth” the sentence “God is Truth” appeals to? It’s simply a mistranslation of the Greek.

On another plausible interpretation of absolute truth, it is simply the “most fundamental” truth of all.

I can agree to this.

If God exists, then God is absolute truth. But if, say, materialism were true, and God did not exist, then that would probably qualify as “the absolute truth.”

If materialism were true, then the laws of physics would be the most fundamental truths – or the deeper laws that explain the possible changes to the laws of physics.

 

[Counterpoint]

Regarding the claim you make here, to clarify: are you saying that you’ve made an argument that if someone says, “I am a seeker of absolute truth,” then he is presupposing the existence of God?

Yes, the seeker is presupposing the existence God. (But the presupposition might be subconscious or unconscious rather than conscious.)

I don’t see why that would be the case. I believe God exists (and that demonstrations exist to show that), so I believe that there is such a thing as “absolute truth.” But someone who does not grasp that God exists and is purely actual, that actuality is convertible with truth, etc. need not be presupposing the existence of God as classically understood, for he could say he is seeking absolute truth without having a concept of God.

But if you are seeking the absolute truth, then you are presupposing that it can be known. Or, at the very least, you are presupposing that you are progressing to that goal. If you didn’t believe this, then you would have to concede that any truth you come to know must be characterized as relative. So, in a very real sense, the truth seeker is presupposing that there is a God’s-eye view of the world - that all truth relations can be theoretically known.

On another plausible interpretation of absolute truth, it is simply the “most fundamental” truth of all. If God exists, then God is absolute truth. But if, say, materialism were true, and God did not exist, then that would probably qualify as “the absolute truth.”

The naturalist must concede that we can never prove naturalism, not even in theory, because we cannot transcend the natural domain in order to achieve a truly objective perspective.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

But if you are seeking the absolute truth, then you are presupposing that it can be known. Or, at the very least, you are presupposing that you are progressing to that goal. If you didn’t believe this, then you would have to concede that any truth you come to know must be characterized as relative. So, in a very real sense, the truth seeker is presupposing that there is a God’s-eye view of the world - that all truth relations can be theoretically known.

Please construct an argument that objective truth implies a God’s-eye view of the world actually existing. This is **far **from clear to me.

 

[Counterpoint]

Please construct an argument that objective truth implies a God’s-eye view of the world actually existing. This is **far **from clear to me.

I already have.

“In knowing anything, I implicitly affirm God.” - St. Thomas Aquinas

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I already have.

“In knowing anything, I implicitly affirm God.” - St. Thomas Aquinas

I must have missed it. As for Aquinas, I don’t mindlessly agree with everything he says.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I must have missed it. As for Aquinas, I don’t mindlessly agree with everything he says.

I don’t recall the reference. But Aquinas was saying, to paraphrase, that by knowing the world, I necessarily know that God exists. Of course he was thinking of the Metaphysical implications of the world’s existence. The world cannot cause its own perfection or change or order. Therefore God exists as the only possible cause.

Linus2nd

 

[polytropos]

But if you are seeking the absolute truth, then you are presupposing that it can be known.

Not at all.

• One might seek absolute truth because it might be known.
• For the seeker, “absolute truth” can satisfy a more general description for which it is epistemically possible that it not refer to God.
• One needs to be clear about what it means to say that “it can be known.” A Catholic, for instance, adheres to the Church’s dogma that the existence of God can be known through natural reason. The Catholic then believes that it is possible to show that “God exists” is true. That does not exactly imply that absolute truth can be known, if one is (per the doctrine of transcendentals) taking God to be absolute truth, for the Catholic denies that we know God’s essence, even if we know that “God exists” is true.

So, in a very real sense, the truth seeker is presupposing that there is a God’s-eye view of the world - that all truth relations can be theoretically known.

John Haldane has made a similar point. Realism seems to imply that, because truth is independent of us, it is possible that there should be truths that are in principle unknowable by us. But the idea of truths that we cannot know is somewhat odd, since truth (on many construals) is a relation between reality and intellect. So it is hard to make sense of the possibility of human-independent truth without the existence of God.

The truth seeker may presuppose that truth is objective. Maybe that is to presuppose that there is “a God’s-eye view of the world.” But that does not imply that he is presupposing the existence of God, since he obviously need not presuppose that under any description derived from God. (And the point Haldane makes is far from trivial.)

However, no circularity seems to ensue, because the supposition that there are human-independent truths should not interfere with the method of inquiry, nor does it assume that God (under any particular conception) exists. This is because the supposition that there are human-independent truths is not something that we are going to establish definitively (unless it is a corollary of God’s existence, which we can establish definitively). The truth seeker could (epistemically) still discover that God does not exist, even if he presupposed that there are human-independent truths. In other words… whether there are human-independent truths is an issue that could only be decided posterior to the question of God. For a similar reason, few people would attempt to argue that (1) relativism is true, and (2) if God exists then relativism is false, so therefore God does not exist.

The naturalist must concede that we can never prove naturalism, not even in theory, because we cannot transcend the natural domain in order to achieve a truly objective perspective.

The negotiation between philosophical systems is always a weighing of various costs and benefits, ie. which views are most intellectually “expensive” to hold. Naturalism can’t be proven. Very little can be proven to a determined skeptic, though. It is epistemically possible that naturalism could be given better support than any other theory, say if we suddenly found that all of our arguments for moderate realism (and other philosophical positions) were actually invalid.

 

[polytropos]

As for Aquinas, I don’t mindlessly agree with everything he says.

But aren’t you a Catholic?

 

[Counterpoint]

I must have missed it. As for Aquinas, I don’t mindlessly agree with everything he says.

I don’t either. But his metaphysics is fairly sound.

 

[orang]

I don’t either. But his metaphysics is fairly sound.

Hold on…know what, last time I checked in here you were suggesting a premise , with to do with not believing in God , make up your mind !

Know what ?

I have had it with juveniles like yourself who do NOTHING but contradict themselves in such 2 year old ways.

This week , a good friend of mine, and a very good guy was taken in a brutal way…do you get that? T-H-I-N-K …

OR DO you think life iS a FREAKEIN JOKE WITH AL YOUR DUMB *** bs ???

( intentional, deliberate manipulation , a representation even the worst of worst atheist would drive into the DITCH. !

In the courage of my lost friend…get lost u freakin contradicting irrational lier You think religion is a joke, well then you come deal with me and. we shall see what goes…K ?

No mercy for counterpoint initiative, no mercy.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I don’t either. But his metaphysics is fairly sound.

I’ve never made a thorough investigation of it. At any rate, I’m still waiting for an argument showing that objectivism entails the actual existence of a God’s-eye view of the world.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

But aren’t you a Catholic?

Honestly, I don’t get the obsession with Aquinas. It’s like the old obsession with Aristotle, in terms of science. Aquinas himself was always pushing the understanding of his predecessors; he certainly didn’t see himself as putting forward the final word on all matters.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Honestly, I don’t get the obsession with Aquinas. It’s like the old obsession with Aristotle, in terms of science. Aquinas himself was always pushing the understanding of his predecessors; he certainly didn’t see himself as putting forward the final word on all matters.

Right, I don’t think he regarded himself as the last word in philosophy.

He might have adapted himself to many movements in modern philosophy and science, always keeping in mind their consistency with the teachings of our faith.

For example, he would have liked the Big Bang theory (Lemaitre), but would have repudiated the notion that the universe could have created itself from nothing (Hawking)

 

[orang]

I will apologize for my entry and to fellow member counterpoint for undeserved anger venting , I am not myself due to a terrible grief. Thank you and with all sincerity.