The Argument From Reason...

[Tassman]

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.

Premises in which it is agreed that the Earth is flat could well be a valid deductive argument; but it will not be a ‘sound’ argument because the premises cannot be shown to be true. A deductive argument is sound only if it is valid and the premises are demonstrably true.

[Stoic]

That tells us nothing, our rational abilities depend on consciousness - where and how did these forces create consciousness? Created something that is actually opposite to their nature.

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.

So forces that did not aim for our ability to survival or rationality or consciousness just happened to create them?

Those who are better at surviving, survive. They pass on whatever made them better at surviving to their descendants. This happens, even if the forces that everyone operates by care nothing about survival. It happens even if those who are better at surviving care nothing about survival. (Though it seems that caring about survival does tend to make one better able to survive.)

[seer]

No, what is being argued here is that our cognitive abilities are the result of natural selection.

That we are the result of evolution has been well documented by evolutionary biologists, paleontologists, etc.

That tells us nothing, our rational abilities depend on consciousness - where and how did these forces create consciousness? Created something that is actually opposite to their nature.

Nope.

So forces that did not aim for our ability to survival or rationality or consciousness just happened to create them?

[Stoic]

Isn't that begging the question since that is what is being argued here?

No, what is being argued here is that our cognitive abilities are the result of natural selection.

That we are the result of evolution has been well documented by evolutionary biologists, paleontologists, etc.

Do said non-rational forces of nature care about, or aim for, or intent our survival?

Nope.

[seer]

Given that we were created by natural selection, it seems reasonable to believe that our reasoning abilities were also.

Isn't that begging the question since that is what is being argued here?

Cognitive reliability is advantageous for survival.

Do said non-rational forces of nature care about, or aim for, or intent our survival?

[Stoic]

No, I have been saying that my position is more plausible before you presented your syllogism. Now we can compare the two.

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

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.

[seer]

You wanted a non-circular, logical justification.

Move the goalposts much?

No, I have been saying that my position is more plausible before you presented your syllogism. Now we can compare the two.

[Stoic]

Premise one is saying that non-rational, non-reasoning forces created our reasoning abilities.

Given that we were created by natural selection, it seems reasonable to believe that our reasoning abilities were also.

Premise two, why would would non-rational forces that care nothing for, or aim at, cognitive reliability do so?

Cognitive reliability is advantageous for survival.

[Stoic]

No, just explaining why mine is more plausible.

You wanted a non-circular, logical justification.

Move the goalposts much?

[seer]

NOW you want the premises to be supported?

No, just explaining why mine is more plausible.

[seer]

Because, because, because, we are theists. Yes. I keep forgetting that.

Here is quote you might like:

“If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents, the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for our thoughts. But if our thoughts are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? " C.S. Lewis

[Stoic]

Premise one is saying that non-rational, non-reasoning forces created our reasoning abilities.

Premise two, why would would non-rational forces that care nothing for, or aim at, cognitive reliability do so?

NOW you want the premises to be supported?

[Machinist]

I am a theist in the sense that ""rationality came from rationality" is more plausible to me than "rationality came from irrationality.""

[seer]

And hasn't it already been established that there is no evidence that reasoning abilities are the result of natural selection?

At the same time, there is no evidence for God, yet we assert him as the premise.

Except, in one case we have the rational creating the rational, in the other case we have the non-rational creating the rational. The other point is that these non-rational forces do not seek, care about, or aim at rationality. They are not intentional, where God would be.

[Machinist]

Because, because, because, we are theists. Yes. I keep forgetting that.