The Argument From Reason...

[Stoic]

No, just explaining why mine is more plausible.

You wanted a non-circular, logical justification.

Move the goalposts much?

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.)

[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.

[Tassman]

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.

[Stoic]

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.

[Markus River]

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.

[seer]

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.

[seer]

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.

[Machinist]

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.

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.