The Argument From Reason...

[Stoic]

You position is still circular, you can't escape that. My position would be deductive.

How do you deduce that there is a good, honest Deity?

[seer]

No, you have to start with a brute fact somewhere.

I start with the brute fact that my senses and rational ability can generally be trusted.

You start with the brute fact that there is a good, honest Deity, and conclude that we can therefore generally trust out perceptions.

I think my way is simpler.

You position is still circular, you can't escape that. My position would be deductive.

[Stoic]

Because you have to use your rational abilities to confirm that they are trustworthy in the first place. Or you have to use your rational abilities to even make the statement that said abilities can be trusted. That is circular.

No, you have to start with a brute fact somewhere.

I start with the brute fact that my senses and rational ability can generally be trusted.

You start with the brute fact that there is a good, honest Deity, and conclude that we can therefore generally trust out perceptions.

I think my way is simpler.

[seer]

If our senses and rational abilities can generally be trusted, then we can be confident in the existence of the material world.

How is that circular?

Because you have to use your rational abilities to confirm that they are trustworthy in the first place. Or you have to use your rational abilities to even make the statement that said abilities can be trusted. That is circular.

[Stoic]

That would be a circular justification - wouldn't it?

If our senses and rational abilities can generally be trusted, then we can be confident in the existence of the material world.

How is that circular?

[seer]

We know that the material world exists and, whether simulated or not, it remains material. Science gives us the experimental means to examine the material world; it is the only methodology of providing objective repeatable results, eliminating subjective human opinion.

Conversely, your subjective world of spirits and souls and gods is an unsubstantiated article of faith and can only be accepted as such, i.e., merely something you choose to believe or not believe.

Tass a simulation is not the same as a strictly material world. And science only works in a simulation if those controlling it deem it so. They could undermine it all, or any part of it, at a whim. And I will remind you of your unsubstantiated article of faith - that natural forces created this universe.

[seer]

Another way around it is to invoke senses and rational abilities that can generally be trusted.

That would be a circular justification - wouldn't it?

[seer]

So it's sort of an ontological argument for truth in general?

I'm actually growing fond of ontological arguments. I've recently come across Alvin Platingas Modal argument for Dualism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOTn_wRwDE0

I can appreciate the objections to it, but something about it resonates. Just an idea i've been ruminating on lately.

I love Alvin Plantinga, I e-mail him a couple of times and he got back to me. I'm going to check out the link, thanks...

[Machinist]

Descartes' way around this was to invoke God, a good, honest Deity. That He created the material world and our rational abilities to grasp the world. And therefore since He is trustworthy we can generally trust our perceptions.

So it's sort of an ontological argument for truth in general?

I'm actually growing fond of ontological arguments. I've recently come across Alvin Platingas Modal argument for Dualism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOTn_wRwDE0

I can appreciate the objections to it, but something about it resonates. Just an idea i've been ruminating on lately.

[Tassman]

But then you can not demonstrate that the material world exists if it is likely a simulation.

We know that the material world exists and, whether simulated or not, it remains material. Science gives us the experimental means to examine the material world; it is the only methodology of providing objective repeatable results, eliminating subjective human opinion.

Conversely, your subjective world of spirits and souls and gods is an unsubstantiated article of faith and can only be accepted as such, i.e., merely something you choose to believe or not believe.

We just proved that the material world can not be substantiated, since it is likely that we live in a simulation.

See above.

[Stoic]

Descartes' way around this was to invoke God, a good, honest Deity. That He created the material world and our rational abilities to grasp the world. And therefore since He is trustworthy we can generally trust our perceptions.

Another way around it is to invoke senses and rational abilities that can generally be trusted.

[seer]

Even if it's not likely that we're living in a simulation, there is always the possibility that the world outside doesn't exist except in our own minds (some form of Idealism) . And if we're relying on our subjective minds to affirm the existence of the material world, then how could we even be sure in the truest possible sense?

Descartes' way around this was to invoke God, a good, honest Deity. That He created the material world and our rational abilities to grasp the world. And therefore since He is trustworthy we can generally trust our perceptions.

[Machinist]

Even if it's not likely that we're living in a simulation, there is always the possibility that the world outside doesn't exist except in our own minds (some form of Idealism) . And if we're relying on our subjective minds to affirm the existence of the material world, then how could we even be sure in the truest possible sense?

[seer]

Well, we CAN demonstrate that the material world exists, we’re living in it, we are a part of it - our very bodies are material.

Even if we are living in a simulated world as per Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom et al one has no option other than to treat it as real and actual as we do re the natural material world in which we now live.

But then you can not demonstrate that the material world exists if it is likely a simulation.

Yes, let’s speak of what can be substantiated and what cannot be substantiated. Your subjective world of spirits and souls and gods CANNOT be substantiated, merely believed or not believed. conversely, the objective material world in which we live CAN be demonstrated by the very keyboard at which you’re typing the thoughts emanating from your living physical brain.

We just proved that the material world can not be substantiated, since it is likely that we live in a simulation.

[Tassman]

First Tass, as we have discussed in the past you can not demonstrate that the material world exists, empirically or deductively. We have faith that it does.

Well, we CAN demonstrate that the material world exists, we’re living in it, we are a part of it - our very bodies are material.

Even you believe that we could be living in a simulation, and that it is more likely than not.

Even if we are living in a simulated world as per Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom et al one has no option other than to treat it as real and actual as we do re the natural material world in which we now live. .

So let's not speak of what can be substantiated or not when it suits you.

Yes, let’s speak of what can be substantiated and what cannot be substantiated. Your subjective world of spirits and souls and gods CANNOT be substantiated, merely believed or not believed. Conversely, the objective material world in which we live CAN be demonstrated by the very keyboard at which you’re typing the thoughts emanating from your living physical brain.