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

    No, just explaining why mine is more plausible.
    You wanted a non-circular, logical justification.

    Move the goalposts much?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by seer View Post
      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.


      Comment


      • Originally posted by Stoic View Post

        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.
        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

          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.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Stoic View Post
            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?

            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
              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.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Stoic View Post
                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?

                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
                  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.)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seer View Post

                    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.
                    “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 seer View Post

                      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.
                      “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 seer View Post

                        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.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Stoic View Post
                          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.
                          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 Stoic View Post
                            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.

                            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

                              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.
                              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

                                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.

                                Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                                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.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by tabibito, 05-12-2022, 10:42 PM
                                36 responses
                                168 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 05-10-2022, 06:04 PM
                                5 responses
                                55 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 05-02-2022, 09:53 AM
                                70 responses
                                380 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by lee_merrill, 04-24-2022, 06:02 PM
                                138 responses
                                763 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by shunyadragon, 04-20-2022, 12:01 PM
                                223 responses
                                1,309 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X