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 Machinist View Post



    Oh bother. I was thinking that a valid deductive argument is the very way out of the circle.

    I'm just going to use Stoic's example here:

    1) Our reasoning abilities are the result of natural selection. -(IF this premise is true)
    2) Reasoning abilities that are the result of natural selection are generally reliable. -(and IF this premise is true)
    3) Therefore, our reasoning abilities are generally reliable. -(THEN this conclusion must necessarily be true.)

    Is this not a deductive argument?
    Yes, it is a valid deductive argument, that is not circular. (Except in the same way that the theist's argument is circular. i.e. our reasoning abilities have to be generally reliable for us to understand it.)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Stoic View Post

      Thanks for providing a source to prove my point.

      "Strictly speaking, petitio principii or begging the question is a valid but fallacious argument."
      How is a fallacious argument valid? That is the question. Do you think a question begging argument is valid?

      Strictly speaking, petitio principii or begging the question is a valid but fallacious argument. The argument is defined as fallacious since the conclusion does not logically follow from a premise whose truth has been previously established. Thus, the argument does not prove anything that was already not already known.

      David Sanford points out if “the primary purpose of argument is to increase the degree of reasonable confidence which one has in the truth of the conclusion … every question-begging argument fails this purpose.”[3] Thus, even though petitio principii arguments do not founder logically, they do so epistemologically.
      Last edited by seer; 01-21-2022, 10:50 AM.
      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

        How is a fallacious argument valid? That is the question. Do you think a question begging argument is valid?
        Yes, an argument can be valid even when fallacious.

        Again, from your own source:

        "Since some instances of petitio principii can be reformulated as as a syllogism where the conclusion follows from one premise and the other premise is superfluous,[4] the argument is logically valid but does not prove the truth of the conclusion since that statement has already been assumed as a premise."

        A circular argument is unpersuasive, but that does not mean that it is not valid.

        Similarly, any argument to prove that human reasoning is generally reliable is unpersuasive, since one has to accept the general reliability of human reasoning in order to be persuaded by any argument. But if one already accepts the general reliability of human reasoning, then one isn't really being persuaded.

        Comment


        • So I propose the categories of Valid Deductive Circular (VDC) and Valid Deductive Non-Circular VDNC)

          I'm thinking Ted Talks....

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Machinist View Post
            I'm thinking Ted Talks....
            I can see it!

            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 Machinist View Post
              And this shows that the theist argument is not circular. The conclusion "therefore human reasoning can be generally trusted" has no equivalent in the premises.

              It does however in the atheists. "Therefore human reasoning can generally be trusted", may just as well be the first premise.
              Plantinga doesn't think so. See his Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                Plantinga doesn't think so. See his Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism.
                Doesn't think what?
                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

                  Doesn't think what?
                  He doesn't think that "Our reasoning abilities are the result of natural selection" implies that "our reasoning abilities are generally reliable."

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                    He doesn't think that "Our reasoning abilities are the result of natural selection" implies that "our reasoning abilities are generally reliable."
                    No he believes that they are generally reliable, but that it is unlikely that naturalism could produce that reliability.
                    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 he believes that they are generally reliable, but that it is unlikely that naturalism could produce that reliability.
                      Exactly. So, contrary to Machinist's claim, my syllogism was not circular.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                        Exactly. So, contrary to Machinist's claim, my syllogism was not circular.
                        As he said: "Therefore human reasoning can generally be trusted." Could have been the first premise without the therefore.
                        Last edited by seer; 01-21-2022, 06:48 PM.
                        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

                          As he said: "Therefore human reasoning can generally be trusted." Could have been the first premise without the therefore.
                          The first premise was "Our reasoning abilities are the result of natural selection."

                          That is very different from "Human reasoning can generally be trusted."

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by seer View Post

                            Again, that was not the point, which is that consciousness is not material.
                            Consciousness is an emergent property of the material activity of the living brain. There is NO substantive reason for thinking that consciousness has an independent identity that survives the death of the brain.
                            “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

                              But that is not scientific methodology. That is historical.
                              It was the precursor of the scientific method. Thucydides was considered the "father of scientific history" - Wiki. The historical method refers to the collection of techniques and guidelines that historians use to research and write histories of the past and dates back to the Classical era.

                              You can not scientifically show that you love your mother. Yet that would be as true as any fact discovered by science.
                              Subjective experiences are NOT as true as any objective fact discovered by science – they are not verifiable and may only be true for the individual experiencing it.

                              And subjective experience can also be as factual and true as anything discovered by science. Like your love for your mother. My cup of tea yesterday morning.
                              See above.
                              “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


                              • "Our reasoning abilities are the result of natural selection."

                                Is this the official assumption for the atheist's Non-Circular Valid Deductive Argument?

                                And the theist's?

                                How about " One Eternal Rational Being exists." (Eternality and Rationality together Absolutely encompasses existence.)


                                The theist's assumption is more solid ground because all ground comes from this Being that is being assumed. It all starts and ends with this One rational and eternal Being. And that is the very assumption that the theist makes. It's not just "God"....it's God and All Gods properties and everything the existence of God would entail.

                                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