How do I turn the table on atheists?

[greylorn]

I’m reading the book the godless delusion, and it’s very helpful. I was just wondering if there is a good set of questions to ask atheists to maybe help them understand their view holds no ground and constantly contradict each other. Thanks

The only way to “turn the table” on someone who is better educated and smarter than yourself is to become better educated and smarter, yourself.

Study physics. Read Darwin, not Dawkins. etc. Not easy. The alternative is to have them rule.

 

[Bobber90]

And i would finish that sentence with, “your agnosticism is unreasonable”.

Agnosticism is plausible, a facet of which I’m trying to show by pointing out that the concept of truth does not rely upon a deity.

 

[Bobber90]

Bobber:

Not to mention the existence of the factical which we call the futurum exactum, or, future perfect (tense). That we can now say that at some distant point in the future, we will have had this conversation, and that such a statement must be as true then as it is now, i.e., grounded in Truth - even if there are no more people in the universe then to hear it - means that God must exist, as the receptacle and ground of that Truth, or it is not true now. Yet, it must be True because we have it and we understand it to be grounded in factuality.

God bless,
jd

That is all well, but maybe you missed my stating the definition of truth as a correspondence between the meaning of a statement and the reality it refers to. Truth is the property of a statement, and a statement requires a stater. If there is no-one around in the future, that perfect tense sentence could never be uttered and that truth would not exist.

A bit like the ‘does a tree falling without any witnesses produce a noise/sound?’ To answer that strictly, we have to pay close attention to the definitions.

 

[Bobber90]

Bobber:

Not to mention the existence of the factical which we call the futurum exactum, or, future perfect (tense). That we can now say that at some distant point in the future, we will have had this conversation, and that such a statement must be as true then as it is now, i.e., grounded in Truth - even if there are no more people in the universe then to hear it - means that God must exist, as the receptacle and ground of that Truth, or it is not true now. Yet, it must be True because we have it and we understand it to be grounded in factuality.

God bless,
jd

This deserved a fuller answer I think. When you say Truth as opposed to truth, I see the difference as that between a fact and an observed fact (- or a true statement). We really are doing things now which could be remarked upon later, and this reality does not depend upon their being discussed later. This is easy to see, but it is obscured if we call both facts and truths the same thing. It can lead us to the dilemma where we must have the trappings of truth else something was not a fact, when something can be a fact but never a truth, in the sense that it can exist without ever being recognised by a thinker.

If truth was the same as factuality, then things which cannot think can be part of a correspondence with other things, and this relationship can be described as having the property of truth. Given that this is not the meaning we usually have when we talk about truth, we ought to keep the separation between actual reality and the content of statements which correspond with it.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Agnosticism is plausible, a facet of which I’m trying to show by pointing out that the concept of truth does not rely upon a deity.

Reality is objective truth. In nothing there is no objective truth. Any truth that becomes true (contingent truths) has to be rooted in a timeless (eternal) truth in-order to exist as a possible/potential truth.

1. This becomes more obvious when one is aware of the fact that an absolute universal nothing cannot be objectively true.
2. For if it were true, there would be an “objective truth” that there was absolutely nothing which contradicts the fact that a universal nothing is the the absence of all objective truth.
3. Where there is objective truth there is a reality which expresses that truth (or through which truth is expressed) because truth cannot exist in absolutely nothing.
4. Thus there must be a being that cannot fail to exist and does not become a truth (it is not a contingent truth).
5. Having no potentiality (no becoming), it can only be pure actuality and is thus a timeless truth (eternal).
6. This truth cannot be physical reality, because physical reality is a dynamic truth (it is a collection of contingent events). Becoming is apart of its natural expression of truth.
7. Therefore we can know that the absolute truth by definition is not a physical nature because ultimate reality is eternal (timeless). Thus physical nature is something separate (not an intrinsic part of absolute reality) and is contingent upon a timeless truth for its existence (a timeless being).
8. It is absolutely separate in nature (separate in terms of its essential attributes), because if it shared the same intrinsic nature, it would be timeless by its intrinsic nature.

Mull over that for a while, and if you agree with it, i will then give you the reason why i know that such a being is has an intelligent will. I don’t see much point in logically demonstrating Gods intelligence until you understand the above argument.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bobber90,

I really can not speak for Tonyrey … I am doing good to speak for meysel… So, let me respond to your comment and move it forward.

You will be surely interested in knowing I watched a 4-part show by and about Stephen Hawking’ s ideas about aliens, planets and the universe. There was a voice synthesizer for a small introduction of the various sections and then it was taken over by an announcer. Bottom line: maybe there is a God, but, personally this physicist, who hold Newton’s Chair, doubt it. Given an almost infinite set of variable, life on earth can come about because of the Hydrogen atom, and compression and supernova’s that ultimately made all of what we see possible. Recalling how I struggled through physics … arguing with this guy is not the big deal I thought it would be. Hawking is really arguing about statistics - but, with an invalid assumption. To me this is like saying, given an infinite number of dead bodies - one of them will get up and walk away! And since we are walking, I’m right! (The fact that he has not yet died is of no consequence… )

Forgive me settng up my ‘Straw Man’ to do battle with Hawking’s and your ‘Straw Man’… I couldn’t resist! But, let’s see what we can take out of this by going back to my previous posts. My argument was about patterns.

Yes, one could say that replicating patters and evidence of truth - but, I fear this is premature and risks going off on a tangent. The section I enboldened below shows what appears to simply be a tangent moving off topic. There really are only two realities to be considered - order and chaos. Order can be represented by things like repeating patterns that allow for study, analysis, identification. Chaos admits for no recognized order - every thing is different from what it was before, there is no predictability so that study, analysis and identification can take place. There is only one place where all is chaos - and that is Hell.

We can claim that there are chaotic events - a volcano erupts with lava streaming down on panic citizens (I hope no one is planning any trips to Naples… ) But, notice, while there could the desire for more order (no erruption, no panic, etc.) the erruption happens in a predictable manner - ash, heated gasses and molten rock come out - not fountains of ice water! The people are moving in a predictable manner - away from the threat, they are not moving towards the disaster! Eventually, vegetation will begin to develop - and it too follows a pattern. Here is an interesting link about vegetation coming back to the Mt. St. Helen’s area: foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/18/mount-st-helens-recovering-years-later/ In this article, the writer notes that chance events (nocturnal animals being alrady bedded down when the eruption began, there being a late Spring, snow still being in some areas, etc. ) all have played a role in what has come back duirng the past 30 years since this major volcanic eruption.

It really does not make any sense to me that, in theory - in a yet unknown universe, you say something like this, “God does not exist and you can’t prove me wrong!” And, the reason it makes no sense is that our current universe is far bigger than anything we individually or collectively can imagine. The ‘Milky Way’ has more in it than I can imagine and this is just one of billions of galaxies! I think it is easy enough getting lost with what we have much less trying to imagine something exists that we have no proof for!

I would appreciate you addressing patterns. I submit that the plain evidence of patterns means that there is a Pattern Maker. We are not looking at chaos - but, genuine order that replicates at predictable intervals. What we are seeing is real order - and not in the sense of cookies being ‘ordered’ out of a dough mix via a cookie cutter, so that each cookie is identical. Just like there are no two snowflakes alike, there are no two iris patterns alike - even in the eyes of the same person (the right and left iris pattern differ in everyone! There really are small variations in each flower - even in a 'host of golden daffodils…" bartleby.com/106/253.html

Now, it isn’t that there is a pattern here or one there - it is that patterns are everywhere! We see patterns in living and nonliving samples, pattersn in men and women, patterns in sickness and health, patterns in Planet Earth and another planet light years away. We had a good idea of what we would find on the moon or Mars becaue the patterns of chemistry, physics and biology gave us starting parameters. When we arrived - we found things we expected… and things we didn’t. God was not stingy with giving us the diea that he is around - and this is something we cn know from the natural world.

God bless

Tqualey and tonyrey,

I am simplifying no doubt, but is it fair to say that your thinking goes like this?:

There is order therefore there was a creator; because of this there is intelligibility; truth itself can only work with a universal reason for everything(; there is truth, therefore God exists.)

There are individual arguments to be had about each point, but all I wish to point out is that the definition of truth as a correspondence between the meaning of a statement and the reality it refers to allows for true statements about disordered and highly unintelligible systems. There can be truth without a creator god, without a rational universe, and without order/patterns etc etc. You may doubt this is the universe we live in, but do you not think that as a set of conditions of a hypothetical universe it still permits truth?

 

[JDaniel]

That is all well, but maybe you missed my stating the definition of truth as a correspondence between the meaning of a statement and the reality it refers to. Truth is the property of a statement, and a statement requires a stater. If there is no-one around in the future, that perfect tense sentence could never be uttered and that truth would not exist.

A bit like the ‘does a tree falling without any witnesses produce a noise/sound?’ To answer that strictly, we have to pay close attention to the definitions.

Your explication is incorrect. There is no lack of correspondence between the meaning of such a statement and the reality that is/was its referent (as long as the statement is not the communication of an outright “lie.”) (A non-aberrant person cannot lie to himself.). I think that you are equating that which has a (longish) continuum in existence, such as a tree, with that which has fleeting existence, e.g., a conversation. That’s not correct. But, to the extent that there are no minds - any more - to hold the statement, is precisely the point. The statement has its ground in the factical no less than the previous existence of my ex-wife has her ground in the facticality of her existence back then. And, any and all events that took place between her and the rest of reality are grounded in her involvement-in-them-back-then. It is nothing like the “tree in the forest.” Why? Precisely because the future perfect tense is uttered now but projected onto the future. Furthermore, a “stater” can be “God,” but then, especially in this case, the sound of the tree that fell in the forest would be in full possession of its facticality and thus its Truth.

Also, neither truth nor the Truth are conditioned upon there being a “stater.” Only communication is. The event is/was a factical. It ontologically occurred (existed in the non-contemporaneous succession we understand to be time) and, because it did, it is always the referent for a (particular) Truth or truth statement.
jd

 

[Bobber90]

Reality is objective truth. In nothing there is no objective truth. Any truth that becomes true (contingent truths) has to be rooted in a timeless (eternal) truth in-order to exist as a possible/potential truth.

1. This becomes more obvious when one is aware of the fact that an absolute universal nothing cannot be objectively true.
2. For if it were true, there would be an “objective truth” that there was absolutely nothing which contradicts the fact that a universal nothing is the the absence of all objective truth.
3. Where there is objective truth there is a reality which expresses that truth (or through which truth is expressed) because truth cannot exist in absolutely nothing.
4. Thus there must be a being that cannot fail to exist and does not become a truth (it is not a contingent truth).
5. Having no potentiality (no becoming), it can only be pure actuality and is thus a timeless truth (eternal).
6. This truth cannot be physical reality, because physical reality is a dynamic truth (it is a collection of contingent events). Becoming is apart of its natural expression of truth.
7. Therefore we can know that the absolute truth by definition is not a physical nature because ultimate reality is eternal (timeless). Thus physical nature is something separate (not an intrinsic part of absolute reality) and is contingent upon a timeless truth for its existence (a timeless being).
8. It is absolutely separate in nature (separate in terms of its essential attributes), because if it shared the same intrinsic nature, it would be timeless by its intrinsic nature.

Mull over that for a while, and if you agree with it, i will then give you the reason why i know that such a being is has an intelligent will. I don’t see much point in logically demonstrating Gods intelligence until you understand the above argument.

There are seemingly two main problems here: ‘truth’ and ‘necessary/contingent’.

I do not understand what is mean by ‘objective truth’ or ‘eternal truth’ or ‘contingent truth’ or ‘timeless truth’ that is not meant by ‘truth’. I do not think the property of truth itself is altered by those adjectives, instead the relation of the property to other properties or things.

I take it that you do not think that truth itself is simply the property of a statement whose contents correspond with actual reality? If you do, then it is soon clear that there is no such thing as ‘objective truth’, because that purports to be the accuracy of a statement about reality that is made objectively - statements are made by people, and people do things subjectively.

The necessary/contingent business is another grey area for me. What is the evidence that something (anything) is necessary or has to be necessary? These categories are a priori and unconvincing. If anyone accepts the categories, they are ready to believe there is a god, but I see no reason to think the categories are true or that we are in a position to work them out.

 

[Bobber90]

Your explication is incorrect. There is no lack of correspondence between the meaning of such a statement and the reality that is/was its referent (as long as the statement is not the communication of an outright “lie.”) (A non-aberrant person cannot lie to himself.). I think that you are equating that which has a (longish) continuum in existence, such as a tree, with that which has fleeting existence, e.g., a conversation. That’s not correct. But, to the extent that there are no minds - any more - to hold the statement, is precisely the point. The statement has its ground in the factical no less than the previous existence of my ex-wife has her ground in the facticality of her existence back then. And, any and all events that took place between her and the rest of reality are grounded in her involvement-in-them-back-then. It is nothing like the “tree in the forest.” Why? Precisely because the future perfect tense is uttered now but projected onto the future. Furthermore, a “stater” can be “God,” but then, especially in this case, the sound of the tree that fell in the forest would be in full possession of its facticality and thus its Truth.

Also, neither truth nor the Truth are conditioned upon there being a “stater.” Only communication is. The event is/was a factical. It ontologically occurred (existed in the non-contemporaneous succession we understand to be time) and, because it did, it is always the referent for a (particular) Truth or truth statement.
jd

I think you are wrong on this, because I think the distinction between reality and truth does explain the scenario of future tense. The future tense thought experiment can happen in reality; the tree can fall over in reality; this true statement can be uttered in reality, but none of that is true either now or in future. What is or can be true is a reportage of any of these things. If a reportage is made accurately, it is true, but if it is never made, the truth in the former example does not exist - and yet what could have been stated was always reality.

I don’t see how there is any real connection between the thing that happened in the past and any future reportage of it and therefore do think that a true statement can be uttered in complete ignorance of its accuracy with no cosmic consequences. It is still just as true. Maybe you’ll think this reply is wholly irrelevant, as I must admit that I’m struggling to follow your reasoning.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, MOM2,

That was really quite good!

God bless

Reality is objective truth. In nothing there is no objective truth. Any truth that becomes true (contingent truths) has to be rooted in a timeless (eternal) truth in-order to exist as a possible/potential truth.

1. This becomes more obvious when one is aware of the fact that an absolute universal nothing cannot be objectively true.
2. For if it were true, there would be an “objective truth” that there was absolutely nothing which contradicts the fact that a universal nothing is the the absence of all objective truth.
3. Where there is objective truth there is a reality which expresses that truth (or through which truth is expressed) because truth cannot exist in absolutely nothing.
4. Thus there must be a being that cannot fail to exist and does not become a truth (it is not a contingent truth).
5. Having no potentiality (no becoming), it can only be pure actuality and is thus a timeless truth (eternal).
6. This truth cannot be physical reality, because physical reality is a dynamic truth (it is a collection of contingent events). Becoming is apart of its natural expression of truth.
7. Therefore we can know that the absolute truth by definition is not a physical nature because ultimate reality is eternal (timeless). Thus physical nature is something separate (not an intrinsic part of absolute reality) and is contingent upon a timeless truth for its existence (a timeless being).
8. It is absolutely separate in nature (separate in terms of its essential attributes), because if it shared the same intrinsic nature, it would be timeless by its intrinsic nature.

Mull over that for a while, and if you agree with it, i will then give you the reason why i know that such a being is has an intelligent will. I don’t see much point in logically demonstrating Gods intelligence until you understand the above argument.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bobber90,

The problem lies in your minor premise: “…and a statement requires a stater…”

I just started to give you the link - but, truly this is so singularly beautiful, that I think it needs to be reapeted:
**
1 In the beginning* was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.a
2He was in the beginning with God.3* All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be 4through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race; 5* the light shines in the darkness,and the darkness has not overcome it.**
Here is the link: usccb.org/bible/john/1

While we can continue to spin our wheels in the sand until we are hopelessly stuck, let me suggest that reality is far more involved than a tree falling in the forest in any verb tense desired. We are here contemplating our very existence - and to the best of my knowledge no other life form has ever given any evidence of having had such thoughts. All other life forms either react to an outsdie stimuli, while we are responding to our own internal thoughts.

Ultimately, we are confronted with the certain knowledge that all we see around us - was not made by us, or our parents, or our grandparents - or any human. Something much bigger than humanity is responsible for the universe. Now, looking at how other civilizations have resonded to this in the past is not really a difficult feat - ancient societies recognized that a God or gods were at work. This is really as far as most of humanity can take this concept. And, as you know, there are those who deny the existence of any Power - except chaos, or randomness or luck or some other natually explained power. And, this is where we stand: most believing in a Power and a few claiming that all of this order was just thrown together and just keeps on happening with tryly awesome (or in some cases, damning) regularity.

My idea is that if acknowledging the existence of God was the same as acknowledging the existence of a supernova that was only 21 million light years away from earth(latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/08/new-supernova-discovered-closest-exploding-star-to-earth-in-25-years.html ) - in other words, “That’s nice, I guess.” then there would not be a problem. But God (and in some ancient societies ‘gods’) demands not only acknowledgement - but, recognition and worship through purposeful behavior in this regard. Now, a concept is one thing - but the requirement to adjust one’s behavior to fit this concept is something quite different - and difficult. I am thinking that it is far easier to control the concepts one allows to be acknowledged rathr than one’s behavior.

God bless

That is all well, but maybe you missed my stating the definition of truth as a correspondence between the meaning of a statement and the reality it refers to. Truth is the property of a statement, and a statement requires a stater. If there is no-one around in the future, that perfect tense sentence could never be uttered and that truth would not exist.

A bit like the ‘does a tree falling without any witnesses produce a noise/sound?’ To answer that strictly, we have to pay close attention to the definitions.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

In nothing there is no objective truth. Any truth that becomes true (contingent truths) has to be rooted in a timeless (eternal) truth in-order to exist as a possible/potential truth.

1. This becomes more obvious when one is aware of the fact that an absolute universal nothing cannot be objectively true.
2. For if it were true, there would be an “objective truth” that there was absolutely nothing which contradicts the fact that a universal nothing is the the absence of all objective truth.

There’s a lot of strength in this argument, but this bit at the beginning looks a bit ropey, to be honest. a) If there were nothing, it *would * be objectively true, and the need for a ‘trueseer’ would be an issue of the literalistic/pedantic b) the contradiction in 2 only exists because of this apparently arbitary definition.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mystic Banana,

I having trouble understanding the technical terminology. Please clarify the following …

‘Ropey’ … as in …
Strong by braiding multiple strands together … or
Getting tied in knots … or
Coming to the end of one’s (rope) … or…
Other _________________________

‘Trueseer’ … as in …
A actual ‘seer’ … or
A ‘speculator’ … or
A typo … or …
Other __________________________

I confess, some of the posts reminded me of Freshman year Philosophy … and that I got a student tattoo (right above ‘Mother’) that read: “I cram, therefore I am!”

God bless

There’s a lot of strength in this argument, but this bit at the beginning looks a bit ropey, to be honest. a) If there were nothing, it *would * be objectively true, and the need for a ‘trueseer’ would be an issue of the literalistic/pedantic b) the contradiction in 2 only exists because of this apparently arbitary definition.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

There’s a lot of strength in this argument, but this bit at the beginning looks a bit ropey, to be honest. a) If there were nothing, it *would * be objectively true, and the need for a ‘trueseer’ would be an issue of the literalistic/pedantic b) the contradiction in 2 only exists because of this apparently arbitary definition.

If objective truth is intrinsically an expression of reality, it cannot be an expression of nothing. If it cannot be an expression of nothing, then absolutely nothing cannot be true or real. This is the basis upon which the argument is stated.

Firstly, ontologically speaking, Nothingness does not exist as an object. It has no ontology or reality. It is a negation of an object; but it cannot be an object itself. Nothing means the absence of a possible contingent truth; it does not mean the existence of nothing. Any definition that goes beyond the negation of contingent possibilities, is meaningless.

Secondly, Objective truth by definition is true regardless of whether or not an observer is present to acknowledge that truth. Truth in its most fundamental sense is the fact of something having a reality or being real. It is existential truth. Truth is the reality of something (being) or is true because of the reality of something being ( * abstract truths, for example, such as 2+2 = 4, are true because reality or being is as such that this equation is true; it is not true by itself, or because of its self, or because of nothing*). There is no objective truth in absolutely nothing, for absolute nothingness is the absence of all objective truth; truth being the reality of something. To say that it is true that nothingness exists is to give it objectivity and thus reality. When you do that you are removing the intrinsic distinction between something and nothing. It is a contradiction to say that absolutely nothing (the absence of reality) is real. Absolutely nothing is the absence of all reality and thus all truth. In other words nothing doesn’t “exist”. Therefore absolutely nothing cannot exist. Therefore it is a contradiction to say that nothingness is true or could be true, just as much as it is a contradiction to say that a square is a triangle.

If a square triangle cannot exist as a truth, then neither can absolute nothingness exist as a truth. Truth and reality are two sides of the same coin, and in comparison to nothing in general they are the same thing. People have difficulty in this area because they take words such as reality, truth, and nothing for granted. When you have the nasty habit of objectifying nothing, its hard to see why it could not be true that absolutely nothing exists. But once you strictly adhere to the meaning and distinctions intrinsic to those terms and there ontological consequences, it becomes clear that unreality can never take place. There is always a necessary reality upon which contingent facts are based.

This is not semantics. I have merely demonstrated that once you exclude nothingness from the act of reality, it then follows necessarily that truth is either intrinsic to the act of reality or dependent upon it (as is in the case of contingent facts such as the existence of people or dinosaurs.)

 

[Shredderbeam]

Hi, Shedderbeam,

I really do not like using the word ‘quibble’ - it really sounds like a very minimizing term. So, let me try something else.

I do not want to sound silly about this … but, once we have established a First Cause … how can you dismiss it by saying, “…but nothing more…” There is no way to know from nature that God is love, that He loves us as individuals, that there are Three Persons in One God, and that the Son of God suffered and died for our sins. The only way we can know this is from the Grace of God’s Revelation. I suggest that you take the ‘risk’ - some have actually called it a … “Leap of Faith”…

I’m not dismissing Aquinas’s argument - I believe that it does prove the existence of a first cause - but this first cause is not necessarily the same thing as God. One might imagine a naturalistic, unintelligent first cause. (Note: I’m not claiming that the first cause was naturalistic/unintelligent, I’m just saying that it’s a possibility that Aquinas fails to exclude.) So, while I agree with his conclusion of a first cause, I disagree that he has proved the existence of what you and I consider “God”.

tqualey:

Look at it this way. When we die we will find out if there is a God or there isn’t Now, from nature we can deduce that there are patterns in all of the universe. These patterns give us a good indication that there is a Pattern Maker (First Cause or God if you will). So, when we take our last breath we will either find that there is or isn’t an eternal life as the Bible tells us. As far as I can tell, there are far better odds of having a happy forever by not only believing in God’s Word but in following what what He commanded. Now, if all of this universe just ‘came out of chaos’ and we will just cease to exist - well it really won’t make any difference will it?

God bless

This is, I think a combination of Pascal’s Wager and the teleological argument (correct me if I’m wrong).

Pascal’s Wager doesn’t prove the existence of God - it’s merely an argument designed to show that believing in God is the rational choice. I’m interested in what’s actually true (it’s the scientist in me ).

Patterns in the universe don’t necessarily indicate a pattern maker. Snowflakes, for example, form neat patterns based on a few simple rules - they don’t require an intelligent designer to hand-craft them.

 

[Bobber90]

Forgive me settng up my ‘Straw Man’ to do battle with Hawking’s and your ‘Straw Man’… I couldn’t resist! But, let’s see what we can take out of this by going back to my previous posts. My argument was about patterns.

I’m honored that you think my views are as weak as Stephen Hawking’s physics, don’t apologise!

Yes, one could say that replicating patters and evidence of truth - but, I fear this is premature and risks going off on a tangent. The section I enboldened below shows what appears to simply be a tangent moving off topic. There really are only two realities to be considered - order and chaos. Order can be represented by things like repeating patterns that allow for study, analysis, identification. Chaos admits for no recognized order - every thing is different from what it was before, there is no predictability so that study, analysis and identification can take place. There is only one place where all is chaos - and that is Hell.

I would appreciate you addressing patterns. I submit that the plain evidence of patterns means that there is a Pattern Maker. We are not looking at chaos - but, genuine order that replicates at predictable intervals. What we are seeing is real order - and not in the sense of cookies being ‘ordered’ out of a dough mix via a cookie cutter, so that each cookie is identical. Just like there are no two snowflakes alike, there are no two iris patterns alike - even in the eyes of the same person (the right and left iris pattern differ in everyone! There really are small variations in each flower - even in a 'host of golden daffodils…" bartleby.com/106/253.html

Now, it isn’t that there is a pattern here or one there - it is that patterns are everywhere!

[and you continue]

I haven’t addressed the existence of patterns because I didn’t think they bore a relationship with the concept of truth- i argue the opposite: we can still have truth in a universe with no order, providing we have a thinker.

It may be that you are convinced that this universe is ordered and you cannot see how this would have arisen without God, but consider another universe. In a largely disordered and chaotic universe, couldn’t there still be thinkers, statements, and true statements?

 

[Bobber90]

I got a student tattoo (right above ‘Mother’) that read: “I cram, therefore I am!”

Haha!

 

[Bobber90]

The problem lies in your minor premise: “…and a statement requires a stater…”

I just started to give you the link - but, truly this is so singularly beautiful, that I think it needs to be reapeted:
**
1 In the beginning* was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.a
2He was in the beginning with God.3* All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be 4through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race; 5* the light shines in the darkness,and the darkness has not overcome it.**

It is good that you’ve brought in a Bible passage that could agree with the idea that everything has to be observed by God to exist, or be thought true in order to be true even when humans do not think it. Perhaps there are other interpretations of the passage above, where Word means something more like ‘law’. It could be like the Logos of Greek philosophy, though, and so encompass rationality and true accounts.

However, the crucial thing is whether there is any evidence to believe that if something is not held to be true by someone, it is not real or there in reality. If there was reason to believe this, it could entail something like a god. But are we really compelled to think this? As per my agnosticism, I think that is something which cannot be known. In addition, there is a plausible account of truth which describes it as simply the correspondence between the contents of a statement and the reality it refers to. In that case, there does need to be a stater for there to be truth.

 

[Bobber90]

**(1)**If objective truth is intrinsically an expression of reality, it cannot be an expression of nothing. (2) If it cannot be an expression of nothing, then absolutely nothing cannot be true or real. This is the basis upon which the argument is stated.

I think both of the points I have numbered in the quote are wrong.

(1) If truth is the property of accurate correspondence between the meaning of a sentence and reality, then it could be stated that (in some way, theoretically) there was nothing. As long as we can talk about a concept of something that is real, however imprecisely, we can talk about reality to some extent truly. Things can be an expression of nothing, though clearly this is a difficult philosophical area. We can say nothing is the opposite of being, and if there was ever a scenario of nothingness, we can refer truly to that scenario.

(2) Even if we could not refer accurately to such a nothing, it does not follow that the objective reality of nothing cannot have existed (excuse the language).

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I think both of the points I have numbered in the quote are wrong.

(1) If truth is the property of accurate correspondence between the meaning of a sentence and reality, then it could be stated that (in some way, theoretically) there was nothing

I am confused as to why you think this is a cogent rebuttal of what i have stated. You are speaking about our ability to understand the truth and use symbols in-order to describe what we experience - what we discover as true. Note that we are describing true experiences in terms of what is ontologically real. Now you are asserting that the concept of nothing can in fact refer directly to the actual existence of an ontological objective property. But if nothing has an objective property then it is not truly nothing. Besides being a blind assertion, you are blatantly ignoring the fact that the word itself, in respect of its meaning, is referring not to an ontological reality or property, but rather it is purely symbolic of the absence of some possible or impossible reality. Its purely conceptual. Its function as a word is purely negative and its relation to reality and truth is only meaningful in so far as it symbolizes what is not present in reality. At no point do we ever speak about the actual existence of an objective nothing when we utter the word nothing. We speak only of something not being in “reality”. For example, there is no bike in room A. Room A has no bike in it. The bike is nothing. There is nothing in room A. Notice that i am speaking of nothing not in reference to a real thing, but rather i am merely describing the negation of a bike. The negation of the bike does not amount to the actual presence of a being or reality called “no-bike” or nothing. Nothing is not actually present in the reality of the room. There is simply the reality of the room. Absolutely nothing has no reality and thus cannot be real. Because it cannot be real, it cannot therefore be a true reality.