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

The Argument From Reason...

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

  • Originally posted by seer View Post

    But the simulation would not actually be real even though we believed it was.

    So in principle, it's not real. In reality, it's not real. Neither in principle nor in reality would the simulation be real if it were not real. It's difficult to stay focused on what "is" in this argument. I keep losing sight of it myself.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Machinist View Post
      Only Seer's view has an outside ontological component to it, that is, a component outside the circle, holding the circle. Of course that too would be a claim beginning with one's own reasoning, so it's easy to dismiss that view as being circular as well. It cannot be proven what's outside the circle.
      It cannot be demonstrated that there is a “circle”, or that it’s “being held”, let alone what, if anything, there might be outside of it doing the “holding”.

      The atheist will continue to demand physical evidence for what's outside.
      It would be nice if the faithful could demonstrate that there is an “outside”. Until you can manage that, all questions of what is in it are somewhat presumptuous.

      The only thing the theist can offer is a deductive argument that assumes an immutable God.
      If you’ve assumed your conclusion, “therefore immutable God”, it hardly qualifies as a deductive argument.

      But at least that's something, and we all can agree that there is at least a possibility for the existence of God.
      You can assume the possibility of God. A lot of unlikely things are possible. You cannot assume the existence, or even necessity, of God.
      When inventing a god, it is imperative to claim that it's; invisible, inaudible and imperceptible in every way. Otherwise - when it appears to no one, is silent and does nothing - intelligent people are liable to become sceptical.
      - Anonymous

      When asked why Omniscient and Omnipotent God, chose to burn alive the children of two Middle Eastern cities, came the reply;
      “His hands were tied.” - DaveTheApologist

      Comment


      • Originally posted by seer View Post

        Not the point, mine is a deductive justification. Your argument starts with human reason to justify human reason (circular).
        No, I simply start with human reason.

        Descartes was not trying to prove the existence of God, he was trying to find a non-circular way to justify the reliability of our senses and our reason. Concerning his argument for the existence of God you would have to look at his Ontological Argument.
        I don't need a non-circular way to justify the reliability of our senses and our reason, any more than you need a non-circular way to justify your belief in God.

        In order to use the Ontological Argument, you need to assume the reliability of our senses and reason, for which you need a God. Don't talk to me about circular reasoning.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by seer View Post
          But the simulation would not actually be real even though we believed it was. And that was Descartes point you can not show otherwise, therefore we take reality by faith.
          So what?

          Sure we all take by it faith that what we perceive corresponds to reality. The point is we can not deductively or empirically demonstrate that that is the case.
          If it looks like reality, waddles like reality and conforms to observable and testable rules of reality, then I’m happy to call it as such. You can call it what you like.

          Correct. And?
          And, in the face of possible infinite regression, simply use Occam’s razor to remove the unnecessary simulations, starting with the first.

          Except that assumption is a belief that can not be shown to be true.
          What part is an assumption that cannot be shown to be true? That testable natural forces govern the physical universe, or that anything you don’t know the answer to is evidence for God?
          When inventing a god, it is imperative to claim that it's; invisible, inaudible and imperceptible in every way. Otherwise - when it appears to no one, is silent and does nothing - intelligent people are liable to become sceptical.
          - Anonymous

          When asked why Omniscient and Omnipotent God, chose to burn alive the children of two Middle Eastern cities, came the reply;
          “His hands were tied.” - DaveTheApologist

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Markus River View Post

            It cannot be demonstrated that there is a “circle”, or that it’s “being held”, let alone what, if anything, there might be outside of it doing the “holding”.

            Holding, maintaining... I'm just groping for words, metaphors at this point.

            Human reasoning justifying human reasoning is what I am referring to by "circle". That much is clearly observable right?

            I'm not saying that's a bad thing either. It works for practical intents and purposes here in the physical world.

            Seer's argument at least has that additional component, even if it assumed. And to me, it makes the argument seem to have more weight.





            Comment


            • Originally posted by Markus River View Post

              If it looks like reality, waddles like reality and conforms to observable and testable rules of reality, then I’m happy to call it as such.
              You are perfectly free to do so, don't let it be said that I discounted any man's faith.



              And, in the face of possible infinite regression, simply use Occam’s razor to remove the unnecessary simulations, starting with the first.
              Why? Perhaps there is just one simulation. Your logic doesn't follow.


              What part is an assumption that cannot be shown to be true? That testable natural forces govern the physical universe, or that anything you don’t know the answer to is evidence for God?
              Yes an intelligible universe created by a rational Creator makes more sense to me than a rational universe created by non-rational forces. Why would I believe otherwise?

              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


              • Originally posted by Stoic View Post
                No, I simply start with human reason.
                Yes, you start with human reason to ultimately demonstrate the trustworthiness of human reason. Really Stoic, that is clearly circular - viciously circular at that.


                I don't need a non-circular way to justify the reliability of our senses and our reason, any more than you need a non-circular way to justify your belief in God.
                So you admit that your reasoning is circular.

                In order to use the Ontological Argument, you need to assume the reliability of our senses and reason, for which you need a God. Don't talk to me about circular reasoning.
                Again, not the point. We both agree that our reasoning abilities are generally reliable - starting with God offers a deductive way to justify it. Starting with human reason is irrational (circular). That's all, it is a modest point, but valid.

                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


                • Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Yes, you start with human reason to ultimately demonstrate the trustworthiness of human reason. Really Stoic, that is clearly circular - viciously circular at that.
                  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.

                  Again, not the point. We both agree that our reasoning abilities are generally reliable - starting with God offers a deductive way to justify it. Starting with human reason is irrational (circular). That's all, it is a modest point, but valid.
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seer View Post

                    Are you saying that subjective knowledge or experience can't be real? That something must be scientifically confirmed to be accepted?
                    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.
                    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Stoic View Post
                      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.
                      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


                      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

                        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.
                        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


                        • Originally posted by seer View Post
                          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.)

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by seer View Post

                            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?
                            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                            Comment


                            • WHAT did you just say?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Stoic View Post
                                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?
                                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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by seer, Yesterday, 01:10 PM
                                8 responses
                                32 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Markus River  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 01-09-2022, 05:51 AM
                                182 responses
                                797 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Seeker, 12-08-2021, 11:31 PM
                                474 responses
                                2,747 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Seeker
                                by Seeker
                                 
                                Started by seer, 10-11-2021, 07:32 PM
                                472 responses
                                3,038 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 10-06-2021, 06:21 PM
                                336 responses
                                2,055 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Tassman
                                by Tassman
                                 
                                Working...
                                X