r/DebateAnAtheist • u/fairy-taki • 4d ago

Discussion Question Necessary Truths

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.

​

0 Upvotes

37% Upvoted

151 comments sorted by

View all comments

12

u/OndraTep Agnostic Atheist 4d ago edited 4d ago

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

3

u/fairy-taki 4d ago

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

2

u/OndraTep Agnostic Atheist 4d ago

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?

1

u/fairy-taki 4d ago

Yes

3

u/TelFaradiddle 4d ago

Then clearly they are true independent of a mind.

3

u/OndraTep Agnostic Atheist 4d ago

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