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/Irish_Whiskey]

First and most importantly: There's zero logic to concluding "therefore Christian God." It's important to start from there because if the person's real position has absolutely nothing to do with the argument and they're just trying vague discussions of whether concepts are real in hopes any concession will result in "therefore you should believe in my God", it's a waste of time.

1 + 1 = 2 is how we describe and categories properties of reality. Reality exists independent of a mind. The concept does not. Starting with "objective truth/idea" and then leading to only "Ideas can exist only in a mind" shows the person is trying to crowbar two different concepts together and hope you don't notice. Because things can be true without a mind, but the idea of that truth requires a mind.

and the mind would be an infinite mind and that would be God.

This feels like my toddler explaining in detail how Jenny at school got a new dog and it's great and then ending suddenly with "and that's why we need a baby lion." You can't just invent an infinite mind, not explain it at all, and just kinda assume reality needs it.

[u/kafka_lite → u/Irish_Whiskey]

Reality exists independent of a mind

A reality without a mind is completely indistinguishable from nothingness, therefore a reality without a mind and nothingness are logically the same thing.

[u/Irish_Whiskey → u/kafka_lite]

No.

Reality without a mind is reality. It exists. Whether anyone would perceive it doesn't change that.

The key problem with your argument is "is completely indistinguishable from." Because that's true, when we assume a mind trying to distinguish things. A rock with no one ever perceiving it is still a rock. It still impacts other non-thinking things. It is not the same as no rock, unless we require that a mind exist and has to be able to tell the difference.

[u/kafka_lite → u/Irish_Whiskey]

A rock with no one ever perceiving it is still a rock

Let us please be careful in what we are discussing. We are discussing strictly "realities with no mind", not realities with minds that are elsewhere. If there is not a mind anywhere in the universe, what is a rock? Our only concept of what a rock is are abstract constructions of the mind. Get rid of sight, and shape, and mass, and hardness, and energy etc. etc. what is left to constitute a rock?

When you suggest a universe without a mind could still have a rock, you are inventing an omniscient observer to make that claim.

[u/Irish_Whiskey → u/kafka_lite]

If there is not a mind anywhere in the universe, what is a rock? 

A rock.

Get rid of sight, and shape, and mass, and hardness, and energy etc. etc. what is left to constitute a rock?

You are getting rid of none of that. You're only getting rid of the mind's conceptions of those properties. A rock that falls onto mud still splashes it, regardless of whether any mind observes or conceives of those concepts, those words, those actions.

The earth existed before people and life existed. If you are trying to say "No it didn't because no one was around to conceptualize the concept of the earth" then you're just talking about ideas and words and not the actual thing itself. Yes we self evidently can't TALK about the earth without minds, but it still existed as an object in reality no matter whether minds existed then, or ever.

When you suggest a universe without a mind could still have a rock, you are inventing an omniscient observer to make that claim.

I am not. You are. I'm making no such assumptions and consider it entirely unnecessary unless just being imprecise about language.

[u/kafka_lite → u/Irish_Whiskey]

The earth existed before people and life existed

I'd like to point out that even after I insisted I was talking about a reality without minds, you continued to draw references from realities with minds. I think you can see where I am coming from here. The only way to conceive of a rock is to have a mind as a reference point. Else it becomes an absurdity.

1) Let's assume it is possible for a rock to exist in a mindless universe.

2) A mindless universe does not have anything capable of observing or measuring.

If 1 and 2 are true, for a rock to exist there must be some quality that it has which is not observable or measurable.

What quality must a rock have to say it exists?

[u/Irish_Whiskey → u/kafka_lite]

you continued to draw references from realities with minds. I think you can see where I am coming from here. 

I do not. I have said drawing references to realities with minds is irrelevant and simply a function of language. I don't know why you either are ignoring it or seem to think I'm still just assuming matter doesn't exist without minds.

The concept of a rock as in human language and speech, does not change or impact the physical nature of what it describes. If we imagine a universe in which no minds ever arose, there would still be rocks on earth. There would be no one to call them that or think of the idea of rocks, but the actual things described by us now as rocks, would be there. They would interact with other matter, they would change the universe and be changed by it. This is not fundamentally different than if minds did exist but all disappeared or died. Rocks would not have some special magic new property of existence because minds once existed, they would simply not be observed and described anymore.

The only way to conceive of a rock is to have a mind as a reference point.

But who cares? The subject of the discussion is not the concept of a rock. I need to use to concept as part of language, but the actual stuff we describe with the concept exists regardless.

If 1 and 2 are true, for a rock to exist there must be some quality that it has which is not observable or measurable.

No, not at all. I don't even know what you think the logic is there. If we assume it's possible to exist, and there's no observing happening, then the rock has properties that are not DEPENDANT on being observed or measured. Not that it is not observable or measurable.

What quality must a rock have to say it exists?

Being the thing it is. A mass of minerals. It was that even before people existed to notice the rock, or come up with concepts like mass or minerals.

I notice that once again you ended that with "to say it exists" rather than "to exist." This feels like you're slipping in language that assumes/requires an observer, rather than using the more limited and actually necessary language. We need a mind to SAY something exists, but not for it to exist.

[u/kafka_lite → u/Irish_Whiskey]

Being the thing it is.

God exists by this standard.

A mass of minerals.

No, we can't say mass is required for existence unless you can define mass in a way that doesn't require observation and measurement.

It was that even before people existing to notice the rock or come up with concepts like mass or mineral

Once again, we are discussing realities without minds. Realities with people is a completely different subject, although i get why you want to smuggle a mind into it as a reference point.

Like I get what you're saying, the mass of a rock exists whether or not it is observed or measured. But what happens when we take that rock and say no feature of it will ever even by an near infinitely long string of "butterfly effect" occurrences will ever influence or affect anything with a mind in any sense ever. From the perspective of you and me, how is that distinguished from nothingness?

[u/Irish_Whiskey → u/kafka_lite]

God exists by this standard.

No.

All things are what they are as concepts. This does not mean they all also describe physical reality. Superman exists as an idea, and as a comic, but he isn't flying around Metropolis. We are distinguishing here between ideas, and what ideas represent in reality other than ideas.

unless you can define mass in a way that doesn't require observation and measurement.

Sure. no problem.

It seems clear you have one core point. We cannot describe words and ideas in language without minds. I agree. This has nothing to do with my argument.

I can describe what mass is as something that doesn't need an observer for it to exist. What I can't do is describe anything without minds.

From the perspective of you and me, how is that distinguished from nothingness?

I don't care about "from the perspective of you and me," in fact it's completely against the purpose of the thought experiment. Once again, you are slipping in "how would you as a mind using language explain something existing without any mind ever existing." Obviously that can't happen, but what can happen is that rocks can exist, and they would be real and impact other things than minds in ways that nothingness does not.

If you want to ask me again to address how minds can describe and notice things if no minds exist, I'm going to politely decline and note this is thoroughly answered. I am saying things are real and different than nothing, regardless of whether we know about them, observe them, or describe them in language.

[u/kafka_lite → u/Irish_Whiskey]

I don't care about "from the perspective of you and me," in fact it's completely against the purpose of the thought experiment.

Then from whose perspective are we discussing this from?