Rob Hughes

An ultimate ontological standard must originate from a mind infinite in knowledge. For example, could you serve as the ultimate moral standard declaring “always right” or “always wrong” if you lacked such knowledge? No, for if you do not know all things, how can you set the bar?

@elonmusk I use Grok every day… and it blows my mind… everyday 🤯

Grok gives great advice

Thanks, chap, appreciate the continued engagement. No shift intended. I’m simply showing that the very tools we’re using (proof, logic, truth) presuppose a foundation that only the God of Scripture can provide. When you say logic is “abstract and self-subsisting” and needs no purpose, that’s the key question: why would such logic exist at all if it can never be appealed to, known, or expressed by minds? Brute facts don’t explain its universality or knowability. The Christian worldview doesn’t just fill a gap — it makes sense of the very conditions for any coherent argument. It’s not my place to say you must concede your argument… all I am doing is asking you to explore whether your own position can account for the tools it uses. Happy to keep the conversation going if you are, mate 😉 * apologies for the late reply, I work silly hours and my work day is always mad busy 😂

You’ve shifted from ‘demonstrate it’ to ‘prove me wrong or concede.’ That’s an argument from ignorance your inability to account for truth without God doesn’t establish that God accounts for it. Also, asking what the purpose of mind-independent truth would be assumes truth needs a purpose. It doesn’t. Logic being abstract and self-subsisting requires no teleology. And you’ve still never closed the gap between ‘a mind’ and specifically the God of Scripture. That gap is doing enormous unacknowledged work in your argument

There is no explanation for the existence of the universe outside of God. To pretend that there is an alternative is to engage in foolishness.

Effectively, what I am saying is this: it is 𝐧𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 to suggest that truth would exist if there isn’t even a mind to act upon it, i.e., appeal 𝑡𝑜 𝑖𝑡, and express it. It’s like a perfectly written book that exists forever in a locked library no mind can ever enter or read. What’s the purpose of the book existing at all if it can never be appealed to or expressed?

Appreciate the distinction — yes, truth claims clearly require minds; they’re intentional acts of representation. But here’s the deeper issue: if truth itself can “float free” of minds, meaning it exists but isn’t appealed to, or expressed in the form of truth claims, what is the purpose of it existing at all? What is the purpose of truth existing, why would it exist… if it cannot even be appealed to, and expressed in the form of a truth claim? The very concept of proof presupposes logic and ultimately truth itself. So if you can “prove” to me that logic and truth can be accounted for without the God of Scripture — the only mind that grounds both their existence and their knowability — I’ll gladly concede the point. Until then, the Christian worldview remains the only coherent foundation for the very tools we’re using right now. I’ve appreciated the back and forth, mate. Hopefully we can keep this going 😉

@graves_aar85283 @OOZukerkandl @Truth_matters20 What is a claim? What does “making a claim” actually entail? Well, the very nature of a claim presupposes intentionality. It presupposes representation. And only minds “represent”. Only minds “assert.” A truth claim is not merely some brute fact floating in abstract space.

@AlienRob76 @OOZukerkandl @Truth_matters20 Here’s how want to respond. I don’t concede all truth claims must come from a mind. That’s exactly what I’m asking you to establish. You haven’t. Once you do then you need to establish that it comes from YOUR version of God. You haven’t done that either.

No, incorrect. Those are my words. But more important than that, you have, sadly, not followed the logic of what I shared with you. If all truth claims must come from a mind, and a law of logic is a truth claim (which of course it is, because laws of logic are propositional truth), then it follows that the laws of logic themselves must also come from a mind. The logic is irrefutable 😉

@AlienRob76 @OOZukerkandl @Truth_matters20 I asked you “Show that the laws of logic require a mind , specifically your God , without just assuming it. I’ll wait.” And the you had chat gpt write all of that which didn’t address my question. You should have just said “no”

The issue of the burden of proof is often misconstrued. If we are arguing over something whose existence or nonexistence has no bearing on the intelligibility of our experience and reasoning (e.g., unicorns), then understandably the burden of proof rests on those who affirm its existence; without evidence, we would dismiss such things as figments of our imagination. But the existence of God is not on this order. God’s existence has a tremendous bearing on the possibility of man knowing anything at all, having self-conscious intelligence, properly interpreting his experiences, or making his reasoning intelligible—even making sense out of what we call “imagination.” In this special case, the burden of proof in the argument shifts to the person denying God's existence, since the possibility and intelligibility of the debate itself is directly affected by the position taken. Does your position account for truth, logic, the uniformity of nature, etc? Because if it does not, and yet you presuppose these things in order to argue for your position, the burden of proof is squarely on you, for by not accounting for these things, what you have posited is ultimately arbitrary.

@AlienRob76 @OOZukerkandl @Truth_matters20 You claim there's a god, the burden is on you.

“Logic is the art of using our reasoning well, in our enquiries after truth.”— A classic, textbook definition for truth, which captures well the realisation that logic itself presupposes truth. And so if logic presupposes truth, and truth must come from a mind (which is what I argue for below), well, that’s the whole argument right there 😉 You see, all truth claims are grounded in God, especially the laws of logic, since the laws of logic are propositional truths, and a proposition is either true or false. But to understand why truth must come from a mind, and specifically the mind of God, consider the following: Nothing can be known to be true without somebody making the claim that it is true. That seems self-evident, wouldn’t you agree? For truth cannot do its job without a person, because truth is meaningless if there isn’t a mind to make truth claims. We know there is truth in this world precisely because people make truth claims — and that tells us truth itself cannot function without a mind. Let’s say I tell you that I had porridge for breakfast. If I am making that claim, I am making a truth claim; I am telling you it is true that I had porridge for breakfast. But who says it is true? Am I the final arbiter of truth concerning the claim I am making? In other words, is it true simply because I say it is true? Can I confidently say, with absolute certainty, that nothing in the entire universe could contradict my claim? Am I absolutely convinced that there is no knowledge anywhere that would say otherwise? Well, do I know everything? No, I do not. And so, as silly as it might sound, I cannot say it is true simply because I say it is true. When you or I say something is true, we are not saying it is true because we say it is true. We are not the final arbiters of truth. Yes, we are using our minds, yet our minds are finite; we do not know all things. How then are we able to make truth claims at all? The only conceivable option, which follows logically, is that we make truth claims based on an appeal to the One who does know all things — that is, we are appealing to the mind of truth itself. And we all do this, because there is no other way to make a truth claim. The Bible tells us that God’s Word is truth (John 17:17). It also says, “The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever” (Psalm 119:160). It’s interesting that the verse does not say God’s Word is true; it says God’s Word is truth. So according to Scripture, truth is that which conforms to the mind of God. If something is true, it is true because God says it is true. And this makes perfect sense, for we have already seen that truth must come from a mind — and not just any mind, but a mind infinite in knowledge, for everything that truth says is true — absolutely true. Scripture reveals to us a God who is all-knowing and absolute in all that He says and does. And so, because of the Bible, we can account for truth. Of course, this poses a serious question for those who would deny the God of the Bible. Put simply: where do you get truth from without God? I would assert that apart from the God of the Bible, there is no answer. Truth is that which conforms to the mind of God, because truth comes from God; apart from God we simply cannot account for truth.

@AlienRob76 @OOZukerkandl @Truth_matters20 Then demonstrate it. Show that the laws of logic require a mind , specifically your God , without just assuming it. I’ll wait.

The very concept of proof presupposes logic… and ultimately truth itself. So if you can “prove” to me that logic and truth can be accounted for without the God of Scripture, I’ll gladly concede the point!

@AlienRob76 @OOZukerkandl @Truth_matters20 Prove it?

@graves_aar85283 @OOZukerkandl @Truth_matters20 Although… your skepticism is logically incoherent 😉 God created us to think His thoughts after Him… Skepticism presupposes logic, and the laws of logic, which cannot be accounted for without God. So you are using logic to conclude that the very source of logic does not exist.

@AlienRob76 @OOZukerkandl @Truth_matters20 Nah I ain’t asking a god who would make my brain to crave logic and then put his wrath on me for being skeptical

Amen! ☺️

@jk_rowling Wow… huge praise indeed, from J.K.R. no less! Brilliant! 😀

If you're the mother who was reading Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone aloud to your child on the LNER train from London to Edinburgh yesterday, one of my grown up children was listening and says you did the voices brilliantly❤️🥹

The question is somewhat ambiguous 😉 What I mean is this: there is a “reluctant acknowledgment of God” that everyone already has, and then there is a surrendered faith that comes only when we are born again by the Spirit. The reluctant acknowledgment is reluctant because of the rebellious human heart. It lacks full revelation because (prior to regeneration) we suppress the truth we already know: that God exists (Romans 1:18-21). Yet it is still a measure of awareness nonetheless. So faith in God may be perceived as a crutch. But in reality it never is. It is either partial and reluctant, or it is a surrendered, living faith.

Is faith in God a "crutch"?

Why is an infinite mind necesssary for any ultimate, ontological standard? Because finite minds can only borrow standards; only the infinite mind can ground them.

When someone says ‘morality is just personal preference,’ they’ve already smuggled in an absolute standard they can’t account for. Only the God of the Bible gives us real moral absolutes. Without Him, right and wrong become nothing more than power plays dressed up as opinion.

Might I put it a different way… it is especially because of that which is so clearly perceived and has been shown to you, that you are without excuse. His wrath remains on you, because of your suppression of the truth. Repent, and turn to Christ. He is gracious to save!

@Truth_matters20 God is not an explanation, God is a lazy excuse.

@michaeljknowles I believe the Bible. Mary miraculously conceived, through the power of the Holy Spirit, and gave birth to Jesus. She later had further children, but in the normal way (Mark 6:3). So… uh… what “perpetual virginity” are we even talking about?

When it comes to the perpetual virginity of Mary, do you agree with the Catholic view or with the view of Protestant reformers Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, and John Wesley?

@Glinner Lofty language… intellectually sounding… almost as if it gives credence to their words… except, it doesn’t.

This blows my fucking mind. You'd think they were talking about Albert Speer