The Argument From Reason...

[Stoic]

So you assume that we are not living in a simulation (even though that seems more and more fashionable among physicists) but that the universe we experience is reality.

I don't know how you got that from what I wrote.

The universe we experience is our reality, even if there is some underlying reality that we aren't, and can never be, aware of.

[Stoic]

Well given your last post you must believe in one of two options. The universe came into being with out a cause, or that matter/energy are past eternal. With no evidence for either.

Only if one believes that nothing other than matter/energy can exist.

The real two options that I must choose between are: There was originally nothing and now there is something, or there has always been something.

And I think it is obvious that at least one of these has to be true, even if I can't be sure which one it is.

[seer]

I think it should be obvious to everyone here (though it obviously isn't) that atheists can logically justify human reasoning just as well as theists.

But my own opinion is that neither logical justification really works, because both are circular.

So you assume that we are not living in a simulation (even though that seems more and more fashionable among physicists) but that the universe we experience is reality.

[seer]

Only if one believes, without argument or evidence, that such a rational Creator exists.

Well given your last post you must believe in one of two options. The universe came into being with out a cause, or that matter/energy are past eternal. With no evidence for either.

[seer]

No matter how plausible consciousness reproducing consciousness may be, consciousness "just always existing" is a darn sight less plausible than consciousness slowly coming into existence because of a large number of small, not so improbable steps.

Why is consciousness always existing less plausible than matter and energy always existing? And it is not just the millions of happy accidents that you need to get there, it is these that forces would create something completely opposite to their nature.

[Stoic]

This is the bottom line, a rational Creator offers a firm foundation and source for human reasoning.

Only if one believes, without argument or evidence, that such a rational Creator exists.

[Stoic]

Well consciousness reproducing consciousness is a darn sight more plausible than non-consciousness creating something that is foreign to its nature, in fact something opposite to its nature.

No matter how plausible consciousness reproducing consciousness may be, consciousness "just always existing" is a darn sight less plausible than consciousness slowly coming into existence because of a large number of small, not so improbable steps.

[Stoic]

So the atheist position is that both arguments are circular and that neither can be logically justified. That was my question yesterday. Please confirm.



The argument was about whether it could be logically justified, not whether there is a need to.

I think it should be obvious to everyone here (though it obviously isn't) that atheists can logically justify human reasoning just as well as theists.

But my own opinion is that neither logical justification really works, because both are circular.

[seer]

The historicity of ANY alleged historical occurrence, such as Caesar and the Gallic Wars, is determined via scientific methodology (carbon-dating, examining artifacts etc.) and critical thinking skills in order to process information from the past.

That is silly Tass, we knew about the Gallic Wars long before anything close to the scientific method came around. These are historical questions, You can not prove scientifically that Caesar wrote Gallic Wars.

The other things can be determined scientifically in principle. My cup of tea is a physical act which is open to observation. And love for family members and social milieu is an evolved behavioral mechanism to enable a social species such as Homo sapiens to live cooperatively in groups to enhance survival.

Not all people love their families, you can not demonstrate scientifically that you actually do love your mother, nor can you prove scientifically that you had a cup of tea a few mornings ago.

[Machinist]

Well, my position is that both are circular, and thus not cogent.

So the atheist position is that both arguments are circular and that neither can be logically justified. That was my question yesterday. Please confirm.

I also still hold that there is no need to "logically justify" our cognitive reliability, since we have no real alternative but to assume it.

The argument was about whether it could be logically justified, not whether there is a need to.

[seer]

Obviously, anyone who disagrees with the premises will not be persuaded by the argument.

If you have an argument where atheists will disagree with the premises, one wonders just who you are trying to persuade.

This is the bottom line, a rational Creator offers a firm foundation and source for human reasoning. On the other hand the atheist would have to assume that a thousand, or a million, happy little accidents just happened to cobble together the rational human mind.

[seer]

If you want exact details, I'm sorry but I can't provide them.

But then, I've never met a theist who could give exact details on where and how God imbued humans with consciousness. So I don't think I'm at much of a disadvantage.

Well consciousness reproducing consciousness is a darn sight more plausible than non-consciousness creating something that is foreign to its nature, in fact something opposite to its nature.

[Markus River]

But then, I've never met a theist who could give exact details on where and how God imbued humans with consciousness.

Or, without their inevitable special pleading; eternal / infinite / omni this and omni that etc. etc., how God became imbued with consciousness. . . or even existence.

[Stoic]

Nope, it only requires that one agrees with the premises. The theist will agree with the premise, the atheist does not. The syllogism itself remains deductive.

Obviously, anyone who disagrees with the premises will not be persuaded by the argument.

If you have an argument where atheists will disagree with the premises, one wonders just who you are trying to persuade.

[Tassman]

That is nonsense Tass, use scientific methodology to demonstrate that Julius Caesar fought in the Gallic Wars, or that you had a cup of tea yesterday morning, or that you love your mom. All these things are true without scientific justification.

The historicity of ANY alleged historical occurrence, such as Caesar and the Gallic Wars, is determined via scientific methodology (carbon-dating, examining artifacts etc.) and critical thinking skills in order to process information from the past.

The other things can be determined scientifically in principle. My cup of tea is a physical act which is open to observation. And love for family members and social milieu is an evolved behavioral mechanism to enable a social species such as Homo sapiens to live cooperatively in groups to enhance survival.