Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Does Materialism Destroy Rationality?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    If you believe in cause and effect then it was the physical processes that cause you to believe A. If you were determined to believe that A is true, you would believe it to be true - whether it is true or not.
    That is correct in the sense that everything I believe is determined, and not everything I believe is true.

    But at the same time, if I was not typing on a Chromebook right now, odds are that I would not be determined to believe that I was typing on a Chromebook. IOW, what is true plays a major part in determining what I believe.

    Content is not the driving force. At bottom what drives this are forces that do not consider or aim for truisms - they are in fact completely blind to such things.
    True, the photons that travel from an object to my eyes do not care whether they help to cause me to believe the object is there. But it doesn't seem like they would have to.

    Do you believe that a computer cobbled together by the non-rational forces of nature could ever function correctly or predict anything?
    Sure, if it was a biological computer that evolved in an environment where making accurate predictions made it more likely to survive and reproduce.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      If the actual laws of logic don't exist then we should easily be able to violate them. Take the law of non-contradiction, that says that contradictory propositions cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. Example: A cannot be A and NOT-A at the same time and in the same manner.

      So it should be child's play for you to provide numerous examples of such violations.
      And yet it seems that one example should be enough.

      The view that at least one sentence exists that is both true and false is called dialetheism.

      One example that is commonly given is: This sentence is false.

      Now, you may not agree with the dialetheists, but their position is generally considered to be coherent by other philosophers, which doesn't seem like it would be the case if the law of non-contradiction were as inviolable as you seem to think it is.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Stoic View Post
        That is correct in the sense that everything I believe is determined, and not everything I believe is true.

        But at the same time, if I was not typing on a Chromebook right now, odds are that I would not be determined to believe that I was typing on a Chromebook. IOW, what is true plays a major part in determining what I believe.
        But truth is not a material thing. And again, the cause of you believing A is true was do to the physical 'encoding' as you said. There may be correlation as I said-a computer can spit out a true statement, 'the sun is hot' - but only because it was coded to say that. The truth content of that statement is irrelevant to the cause. You are getting very close to a mind body dualism.





        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Stoic View Post

          One example that is commonly given is: This sentence is false.

          Now, you may not agree with the dialetheists, but their position is generally considered to be coherent by other philosophers, which doesn't seem like it would be the case if the law of non-contradiction were as inviolable as you seem to think it is.
          Word games, a true contradiction in nature would make your case...
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Stoic View Post

            And yet it seems that one example should be enough.

            The view that at least one sentence exists that is both true and false is called dialetheism.

            One example that is commonly given is: This sentence is false.

            Now, you may not agree with the dialetheists, but their position is generally considered to be coherent by other philosophers, which doesn't seem like it would be the case if the law of non-contradiction were as inviolable as you seem to think it is.
            That doesn't violate the law of non-contradiction. It isn't true and false in at the same time in the same manner. And just posting a nonsense sentence doesn't violate the law of non-contradiction. Stop trying to play semantic games. Show me a real contradiction in the real material world, not some immaterial imaginary mental exercise nonsense.

            Show me a red object that is also not red in the same way at the same time. Show me a dog that is also not a dog in the same way at the same time. The reason we have such "laws" is because they describe something real.


            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by seer View Post
              But truth is not a material thing. And again, the cause of you believing A is true was do to the physical 'encoding' as you said. There may be correlation as I said-a computer can spit out a true statement, 'the sun is hot' - but only because it was coded to say that. The truth content of that statement is irrelevant to the cause. You are getting very close to a mind body dualism.
              You keep trying to separate what was determined from why it was determined, as if they can really be considered separately. Cause and effect is the only thing that connects our beliefs to reality.

              As for mind body dualism, I don't see any reason to take it seriously.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                You keep trying to separate what was determined from why it was determined, as if they can really be considered separately. Cause and effect is the only thing that connects our beliefs to reality.
                And why would the physical forces that determined or encoded our brain functions aim for truisms, reality, or logic when said forces care not for or aim for any of these? There is no why...


                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                  That doesn't violate the law of non-contradiction. It isn't true and false in at the same time in the same manner. And just posting a nonsense sentence doesn't violate the law of non-contradiction. Stop trying to play semantic games. Show me a real contradiction in the real material world, not some immaterial imaginary mental exercise nonsense.

                  Show me a red object that is also not red in the same way at the same time. Show me a dog that is also not a dog in the same way at the same time.
                  If we found an object that was red and not red, we would invent a new color, so that we wouldn't have to say the object was red and not red.

                  If we found a dog that was not a dog, we would either redefine "dog" or invent a new species, so that it would be either a dog or not a dog, but not both. (Similar to how we decided that mammals can lay eggs so we wouldn't have to say the platypus is a mammal and not a mammal.)

                  If we found a subatomic particle to be at point X and not at point X at the same time, we would talk about "uncertainty" or "superposition" rather than admit a contradiction.

                  But all of these things say more about how we think than they do about the way the universe works.


                  The reason we have such "laws" is because they describe something real.
                  More likely, the reason we have such "laws" is because they describe our conventions, or because they describe the way we think. It isn't that difficult to imagine an intelligent alien species that would be as willing to throw out the law of non-contradiction as we are to throw out the law of the excluded middle whenever it's convenient.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    And why would the physical forces that determined or encoded our brain functions aim for truisms, reality, or logic when said forces care not for or aim for any of these? There is no why...
                    I like the idea that reality causes my beliefs, because without that link, there would be no reason to think that my beliefs are at all related to reality. You might as well not have any beliefs if you don't think they are caused, since they would be completely arbitrary.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Stoic View Post
                      If we found an object that was red and not red, we would invent a new color, so that we wouldn't have to say the object was red and not red.

                      If we found a dog that was not a dog, we would either redefine "dog" or invent a new species, so that it would be either a dog or not a dog, but not both. (Similar to how we decided that mammals can lay eggs so we wouldn't have to say the platypus is a mammal and not a mammal.)

                      If we found a subatomic particle to be at point X and not at point X at the same time, we would talk about "uncertainty" or "superposition" rather than admit a contradiction.

                      But all of these things say more about how we think than they do about the way the universe works.



                      More likely, the reason we have such "laws" is because they describe our conventions, or because they describe the way we think. It isn't that difficult to imagine an intelligent alien species that would be as willing to throw out the law of non-contradiction as we are to throw out the law of the excluded middle whenever it's convenient.
                      Completely wrong on all counts. That's quite a feat. It seems that arguing with you about anything is a waste of time. You merely pontificate nonsense and then think that answers me. It doesn't. Again you are merely handwaving away any inconvenient facts.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                        I like the idea that reality causes my beliefs, because without that link, there would be no reason to think that my beliefs are at all related to reality. You might as well not have any beliefs if you don't think they are caused, since they would be completely arbitrary.
                        If reality causes your belief then why are you wrong all the time?

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                          Completely wrong on all counts. That's quite a feat. It seems that arguing with you about anything is a waste of time. You merely pontificate nonsense and then think that answers me. It doesn't. Again you are merely handwaving away any inconvenient facts.
                          If you think you can prove that the laws of logic are non-physical, abstract objects, then have at it.

                          I'll wait.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                            If you think you can prove that the laws of logic are non-physical, abstract objects, then have at it.

                            I'll wait.

                            Until you can prove your claims or prove me wrong, the laws of logic stand. Also, you would need to use logic to make any sort of coherent argument which would prove your argument wrong, you putz.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post


                              Until you can prove your claims or prove me wrong, the laws of logic stand. Also, you would need to use logic to make any sort of coherent argument which would prove your argument wrong, you putz.
                              The laws of logic stand. The question is whether they are concrete or abstract (as claimed in the OP).

                              If you could prove that they are abstract, you would be instantly famous (in philosophical circles), just as I would be instantly famous if I could prove they are not abstract.

                              I think your problem is that you think there has to be a "winner" in every discussion. In this particular discussion, the probability of anyone being a winner is vanishingly small. That doesn't mean it can't be an interesting discussion.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                                The laws of logic stand. The question is whether they are concrete or abstract (as claimed in the OP).

                                If you could prove that they are abstract, you would be instantly famous (in philosophical circles), just as I would be instantly famous if I could prove they are not abstract.

                                I think your problem is that you think there has to be a "winner" in every discussion. In this particular discussion, the probability of anyone being a winner is vanishingly small. That doesn't mean it can't be an interesting discussion.
                                You are using abstract reasoning in your attempt to claim the laws of logic do not exist.

                                By the way "abstract" has nothing to do with what we are discussing. We are discussing material vs non-material.

                                All you seem to do is pontificate on things you can't support, and when I ask you to support them, you wiggle out of it. Then when I say something, you cry "prove it" - it's a two-way street, bub. If you merely want to toss out your opinion and contradict what anyone else says while not supporting yourself, then you "lose" by default. And you are wasting everyone's time.


                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                33 responses
                                113 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                421 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X