How do materialists define the property "truth"? It can't be defined by perception, because that would be idealism. And so one else gave an example before about if no one ever existed and a zombie wrote a book to describe things it could be true, but the zombie would just be writing scribbles and gibberish in that case. So do materialists basically define truth as "that which is material"?
>>771902
Depends on the theory of truth they hold.
We pray to the Lord Materios to impart His Divine Wisdom by gnostic revelation.
>>771924
Could you give some examples?
>>771902
We had this thread yesterday you fuckwit.
>>771925
If you're a Marxist or a capitalist or a consumerist, maybe.
How do idealist define the property "Truth"?
>>771938
"That thing I really like and everyone should also like it"
>>771938
I believe they define it by perception.
>>771928
Correspondence, coherence, deflationary theories, pragmatic theories, perspectivalism, etc.
>>771966
correspondence theory is mainly concerned with truth as a statement rather than a property, but if you are a materialist, is effectively "that which is true is that which is material" anyway
Coherent theory is effectively idealism, just with a precondition of coherence
deflationary theory doesn't really address this because it's just concerned with the truth of statements, not truth as a property of something beyond a statement
Pragmatic theory doesn't define truth
Perspectivism is really a form of idealism, since truth is defined by perspective rather than anything beyond perspective
"That which corresponds to reality"
>>772000
And you define reality as "that which is material," correct?
>>772110
What's wrong with that?
Also I would define truth as "that which is not false."
>>772114
Therefore truth is that which is material? This isn't about a statement's property, but the property of what is described by the statement.
>>772122
Sure. What's wrong with that?
>>771902
Why would you expect materialists to be in any sort of position to define anything immaterial? They live like animals, by their five senses.
>>772134
>They live like animals, by their five senses.
Everyone is. Some people just pretend that they wuz manifestations of higher power.
>>772122
>truth is that which is material
'Snow is white' is true. A heap of snow is neither true nor false.
>>772127
So God, for instance, being non-material, is untrue by definition?
>>772141
I would say God, for instance, being non-existent (or at least presenting no reason to believe in his existence), is untrue by definition.
>>772139
No, snow can be true or false. If you are hallucinating it, then it is false snow. If it is very snow, then it is true snow. You can also see a reflection of it, which would neither be very snow nor false snow, but an icon of snow.
>>772151
Well if you define the true as "that which is material", then it would be impossible to give a reason to believe God is true, unless he were literally a sky wizard.
>>772158
That's fine. There is no reason to believe there exists anything but the material. Why should I believe in a God who has no material influence?
>>772197
It's not that I'm saying you have reason to believe it, I just think using a definition of truth which inherently precludes God, is somewhat flawed, since it would mean even if God exists, he would be still untrue by definition.
>>772234
If God existed, he would by nature be material.
>>772261
Do you mind explaining your logic here?
>>772261
Watch him say something like "but he can't be material but he might still be there"
>>772264
It's as simple as thought, to exist, he would have to be material, because all that exists is by definition material. To exist otherwise is to be a fiction of the mind, and entirely a product of subjectivity.
>>772273
Can you explain why abstracts can't exist?
>>772280
It's not that they can't exist, per say, it's that there's no reason to believe they exist outside of the human mind.
>>772286
But when you say
>he would have to be material
You're saying a lot more than, "There's no reason to assume"
Probably how a pragmatist would.
>>772136
"All animals are blind", said the mole.
>>772303
It certainly talks about truth.
>>772308
We're talking about the materialist definition of truth
>>772408
Is there such a thing?
>>772293
Tu quoque
>truth is a property and not a comportment toward the things
>>771902
A materialist is not someone that believes idealism doesn't exist, just that it's not as important as the material.
Although there are models that allow you to ground a great of deal things in materail. Truth can be described as a psychological state which all have their basis in the material brain. Although personally I think this is a poor model since the brain is not understood very well right now.
>>772482
There is if truth is important to materialists.
>>772261
All which is material exists inside God.
>>772832
God has no interior or exterior, so it would be more accurate to say all that is material is permeated by God.
>>771902
A mental model of the world that has a high correlation to experiments is true to a moral certainty. Claiming 100% certainty about something in the world is absurd.
Why is that a problem or not obvious?
>>772859
We're talking about truth as a property, not truth as a statement.
>>772868
Wtf does that mean. Something untrue is nonexistant, or it is an untrue statement. How can something that exists be untrue? The fuck are you even
>>772868
Statement and truth are two very different things.
And the person you replied to did not confuse them like you did right now.
>>772840
Well show me your God, mine is beyond matter - there are some ideas and explanations about my God in the gospels, you can check them yourself. Yours can be w/e you want him to be I guess.
But I bet your God doesn't communicate with you and isn't alive right now.
>>772840
Permeated in what way?
>>772937
The person was talking about mental models, whereas I'm talking about truth as something that doesn't need to us to see it to be so.
>>772994
How does he sustain existence?
By what means does he do it?
Also if he is immanent then he is pervading.
And if he is pervading then he is also apparent.
In what objective way is he apparent?
>>773020
The mechanics of how he does it is a mystery.
He is spiritually pervading. Which is apparent properly, but sin is an illusion of a veil that prevents us from seeing and feeling his pervasiveness. The more sin is displaced, the more clear is his presence.
>>772971
Then there is no snow. What you see is basicly your statement that there is snow, and it is false. There is, in fact, no snow. Its not that there is "false snow". There is not an ammount of snow with the attribute "untrue" present anywhere. There just is no snow.
>>773026
This crossed into "how are you real if your eyes aren't real" territory. Its a mystery = you have by admission said nothing that you understand anything about, or that you could argue for as factually real on any basis.
>>771902
Truth is a value we attribute to statements whose description of existence(Whether notional or material) corresponds exactly to such existence.
I don't get how this is an issue of whether its just one or the other when its an obvious case of both.
Intra-mental objects exist by the virtue of us just being able to refer to them.
Extra-mental objects exist by the virtue of us being able to see, hear, touch, smell and taste them.
>>773026
>The more sin is displaced, the more clear is his presence.
How do you know this?
>>773035
It's a mystery = truth is not just whatever we see and understand. If you don't think some truth is a mystery, you are an idealist.
>>773056
Through working to displace sin and seeing the results correspond to others who did the same.
>>772289
He would have to be material by our current understanding of the universe, as nothing immaterial has been observed to exist.
>>773207
Because observation is defined materially.
>>773068
Its a mystery = you have by admission said nothing that you understand anything about, or that you could argue for as factually real on any basis.
I am saying you have admitted you're talking shit.
>>772994
It's a mystery for me how atheists proceed to explain God.
>>773650
It's not hard, just think about some other gods that you don't believe in, maybe Thor or Set or Vishnu.
Now apply that to YHWH.
>>773564
I can know it exists, that doesn't mean I know how it works. Just like you can watch TV without knowing how it works.
>>773710
So what you are saying is that no one can ever know how a TV works.
>>773716
They do because a human being designed TV's. Talking about the mechanics of God is infinitely beyond that, because instead of talks about sustaining a set picture and sound, we're talking about sustaining a whole reality with different agencies in it.
>>773710
if noone can see the TV and you can't explain anything about it and just say "i know its there, its mysterious!", how do you tell that from a delusion?
>>773710
You could know something exists.
You can also know that something happens and not know the cause.
So where is the proof of God's existence?
>>773732
What even does "sustaining" reality mean?
Why do you think that it needs "sustaining"? Maybe it just exists without it.
