The Argument From Reason...

[seer]

You seem to think that unsupported premises are somehow superior to circularity. I disagree. And in this case, I think they are merely a devious way to avoid circularity.

I'm a theist for goodness sake - how is my belief devious? Sheesh!

If logical justification included justifying that our reasoning abilities are generally reliable, then nothing would ever be logically justified, for anyone.

Nonsense, I just did justify them by starting with God. I think starting with a rational Creator could logically justify many things, like human consciousness, an intelligible universe, universal laws of logic and mathematics, universal moral truths, consistency of natural laws, etc...

I accept that non-rational forces of nature creating human rationality is AS plausible as a rational Creator creating human rationality. You can accept whatever you want.

Why is it as plausible?

[Machinist]

You seem to think that unsupported premises are somehow superior to circularity. I disagree. And in this case, I think they are merely a devious way to avoid circularity. Stoic


No, I am just presenting a deductive argument to logically justify human reasoning.-Seer

Even though the assumption of a Rational God as a premise is just that, an assumption
It is still a formal deductive argument.

[Machinist]

No, I am just presenting a deductive argument to logically justify human reasoning.

Gotcha. I see what you're saying.

[Stoic]

No, we start with premises and move to the conclusion.

1. A rational trustworthy God exists.
2. He creates an intelligible cosmos/reality.
3. He creates rational beings with cognitive abilities that are generally reliable in grasping reality.
4. Therefore our perceptions of reality are generally reliable and true

That is a quick deductive argument for the reliability of human reasoning. It is non-circular, whether you agree with the premises or not. Could you offer the same for your position? And I'm not arguing for the existence of God, I made that clear.

You seem to think that unsupported premises are somehow superior to circularity. I disagree. And in this case, I think they are merely a devious way to avoid circularity.

Sure if you want to throw out logical justification.

If logical justification included justifying that our reasoning abilities are generally reliable, then nothing would ever be logically justified, for anyone.

Just a side note - why should I accept that the non-rational forces of nature creating human rationality is more plausible than a rational Creator creating human rationality?

I accept that non-rational forces of nature creating human rationality is AS plausible as a rational Creator creating human rationality. You can accept whatever you want.

[seer]

Could you offer the same for your position?

This should be a fun Sunday morning activity. Let me try:


1.)Because we have no alternative, we must assume that our reasoning abilities are generally reliable
2.)our assumptions are confirmed when we observe that our reasoning abilities are generally reliable
3.)This space is intentionally left blank
4. Therefore our perceptions of reality are generally reliable and true

I'll have to think about that one...

[seer]

And I'm not arguing for the existence of God, I made that clear.


You're arguing for something transcendent though, right?

No, I am just presenting a deductive argument to logically justify human reasoning.

[Machinist]

Could you offer the same for your position?

This should be a fun Sunday morning activity. Let me try:


1.)Because we have no alternative, we must assume that our reasoning abilities are generally reliable
2.)our assumptions are confirmed when we observe that our reasoning abilities are generally reliable
3.)This space is intentionally left blank
4. Therefore our perceptions of reality are generally reliable and true

[Machinist]

And I'm not arguing for the existence of God, I made that clear.


You're arguing for something transcendent though, right?

[seer]

WHAT is a non-scientific “path to truth”

Most of recorded human history. Most of your human history.

[seer]

You start with a God, a good, honest Deity. Since he is trustworthy, we can generally trust our reasoning.

Then, to argue for the existence of God, you use the Ontological Argument (or any other argument), which relies on us being able to generally trust our reasoning.

I really don't understand how you can fail to see the circularity of that.

No, we start with premises and move to the conclusion.

1. A rational trustworthy God exists.
2. He creates an intelligible cosmos/reality.
3. He creates rational beings with cognitive abilities that are generally reliable in grasping reality.
4. Therefore our perceptions of reality are generally reliable and true

That is a quick deductive argument for the reliability of human reasoning. It is non-circular, whether you agree with the premises or not. Could you offer the same for your position? And I'm not arguing for the existence of God, I made that clear.

I just consider invoking a Deity an extra, unnecessary step.

Sure if you want to throw out logical justification. Just a side note - why should I accept that the non-rational forces of nature creating human rationality is more plausible than a rational Creator creating human rationality?

[Machinist]

WHAT did you just say?

[Tassman]

Tass, that is one of the most silly things you have said. Most of the things we consider real or true have nothing to do with observation and experimentation. Science is not the only path to truth.

Suitably vague and non-committal. What is “real and true” and how do you know? WHAT is a non-scientific “path to truth” – unsubstantiated subjective feelings or unverifiable metaphysical speculations? How do you know someone’s subjective experience with Zeus, or Jesus or Brahma is really true or not?

[Stoic]

Where did I use a circular argument?

You start with a God, a good, honest Deity. Since he is trustworthy, we can generally trust our reasoning.

Then, to argue for the existence of God, you use the Ontological Argument (or any other argument), which relies on us being able to generally trust our reasoning.

I really don't understand how you can fail to see the circularity of that.

You are the one who did that. But the point is, you can not logically justify your position. We are speaking of logical justification.

You can't logically justify the trustworthiness of our perceptions and reasoning. You just have to assume it, whether you invoke a Deity or not.

I just consider invoking a Deity an extra, unnecessary step.

(As to justifying why we should generally trust our perceptions and reasoning, we don't have any alternative. Think of it as "the impossibility of the contrary". Start any argument or try to learn anything without being able to trust your own perceptions and reasoning, and see how far you get.)

[seer]

Subjective knowledge or experience may or may not be “real”. But unless it can be systematically studied via observation and experiment it cannot be shown to be real e.g., someone’s personal experience with Zeus.

Tass, that is one of the most silly things you have said. Most of the things we consider real or true have nothing to do with observation and experimentation. Science is not the only path to truth.

[seer]

You don't seem to get it. I haven't tried to demonstrate the trustworthiness of human reason.

I don't have to. None of us has any alternative to assuming the (general) trustworthiness of human reason.



We both agree that our reasoning abilities are generally reliable. But I merely assume it, while you use circular logic to try to justify it.

Where did I use a circular argument? You are the one who did that. But the point is, you can not logically justify your position. We are speaking of logical justification.