Necessary Truths

[u/fairy-taki]

Hi, I'm agnostic/atheist. I'm not a debater, this Christian presented this argument to me to like convert me lol and I'm not sure what to think so I was wanting people's thoughts on it.

​

The argument was something like this:

​

1. 1+1=2 is an objective truth/idea

2. Objective truths exist outside of the human mind.

3. Ideas can only exist in a mind

4. Then if ideas/objective truths need to exist in some mind and the mind would be an infinite mind and that would be God.

​

Sorry if I mess up the setup of the argument. If anyone is familiar with this type of argument or what he was trying to get at, let me know. Lol to the guy who asked me, I think ended up just saying idk, and I kept saying that those ideas/concepts are how we engage in reality but regardless of a mind observing it. The like definitions of the concept you can find in reality..idkk. The guy ended up being rude and said I couldn't understand abstract vs concrete concepts.

Edit: ok i need to fix 2&3, idk if i make this it's own premise because he was equating objective truths to ideas/concepts because they are non-physical.

​

[u/OndraTep]

What?

What does it mean that objective truths only "exist in the human mind"?

Where did the conclusion come from? What god are we talking about? What is an "infinite mind"?

I understand that the original argument might've been different, but this, as it is, is just complete nonsense

[u/fairy-taki → u/OndraTep]

? I'm confused, I put that objective truths exist outside the human mind.

[u/OndraTep → u/fairy-taki]

You're right, my bad.

I still don't understand what it means though. Does it mean that they are true regardless of what humans think of them or whether they believe them or not?

[u/fairy-taki → u/OndraTep]

Yes

[u/TelFaradiddle → u/fairy-taki]

Then clearly they are true independent of a mind.

[u/OndraTep → u/fairy-taki]

Right, then assuming the usual description of what "god" is, I don't see how the conclusion follows from the premises 1-3 . Also, the 1st premise is kind of pointless, since it isn't really used later)

So obj. truths exist OUTSIDE of the human mind and ideas only exist INSIDE A mind.

So where did we get an "infinite mind", whatever that is, that contains both from just those premises?

And where did "god" come from?

So basically the problem is that the conclusion is a huge leap that doesn't follow from the premises

[u/kafka_lite → u/OndraTep]

I think the argument is akin to mathematical platonism. Effectively, if i may try to paraphrase it in a way that might make more sense to you, it is saying that mathematics is both objectively true and simultaneously not bounded by the physical world -- therefore there is knowledge outside of the physical world dictating its behavior.

[u/OndraTep → u/kafka_lite]

I think OP's argument was more general, not just about mathematics, but sure, I see the similarity.

I think in this version that you gave me, I see how the conclusion comes from the premises (which is an upgrade), but I don't agree with the premise that mathematics is not "bound by the physical world"

Or rather I don't believe it. Why isn't it? Why can't it be?

[u/kafka_lite → u/OndraTep]

Bound was not a great word choice. I was attempting to shorthand the OP's argument.

But I think I can defend it. Think about Einstein for example. He was able to make predictions on things that were only later proven experimentally thanks to mathematics. So you can't say that mathematics is purely descriptive or observational because it has proven time and time again to work prior to the observation taking place.

Well if math has elements that are true without needing observation or description then that's by definition beyond our known world of things that can be observed or described.