The Argument From Reason...

[Machinist]

Ah. Perhaps for entertainment?

[Machinist]

Naturalism claims that natural selection produced the Ideal of Truth. Just sharing a thought I had this morning. Why would the physicalist processes of this natural world care about Ideals? What is Ultimately True should not matter in the genetic struggle for survival and reproduction.

[seer]

The point being made is NOT that the historical-critical method is science, but that it was a precursor of science in that it practices objective research and the accumulation of verifiable facts - just as does scientific methodology.

Good, when I said there were other ways to discover truth besides the scientific method, you balked. So now you agree...

Your cup of tea is NOT ‘as true as any "verifiable" scientific discovery’ if it is not objectively verifiable. The psychiatric hospitals are full of people who subjectively believe they have experienced what that they have not. The same applies to the community at large.

Please tell me how my having morning tea is less of a fact or less true than anything discovered by science? Who says something has to be 'objectively verifiable' to be true?

[tabibito]

Indeed. but that's not the topic. I was responding to the erroneous claim that: subjective experiences are "as true as any verifiable scientific discovery". They're demonstrably not.

True insofar as it goes, but it can be (and often is) taken too far.

[Tassman]

It is a non-verifiable fact, in common with many facts, which demonstrates the truth that not all facts are verifiable using the scientific method.

Indeed. but that's not the topic. I was responding to the erroneous claim that: subjective experiences are "as true as any verifiable scientific discovery". They're demonstrably not.

[tabibito]

[FONT=Calibri][FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black]Your cup of tea is NOT ‘as true as any "verifiable" scientific discovery’ if it is not objectively verifiable.

It is a non-verifiable fact, in common with many facts, which demonstrates the truth that not all facts are verifiable using the scientific method.

A rock from a cliff is lying close to a railway track that runs past the cliff. Did it arrive at its location by falling, or by human intervention?
The possibility that human intervention was a cause is in all probability not scientifically verifiable.

According to naturalist application of logic:
Because it could have arrived there by falling, the possibility that a human put it there is denied.
Because it could have fallen from the cliff through natural causes, the possibility that it may have been dislodged by human intervention is denied.

[Tassman]

That again is nonsense, you can not observe Caesar writing the Gallic Wars, nor can you repeat the experiment. It is not the scientific method, period.

The point being made is NOT that the historical-critical method is science, but that it was a precursor of science in that it practices objective research and the accumulation of verifiable facts - just as does scientific methodology.

The fact that I had a cup of tea this AM is as true as any "verifiable" scientific discovery. No one else had to witness it, no one else had to confirm it to make it true.

Your cup of tea is NOT ‘as true as any "verifiable" scientific discovery’ if it is not objectively verifiable. The psychiatric hospitals are full of people who subjectively believe they have experienced what that they have not. The same applies to the community at large.

[Machinist]

"Our reasoning abilities are the result of natural selection."
It is consistently observable that these reasoning abilities are generally reliable
Therefore, they are generally reliable.

Is this an accurate representation? Re-word it if you'd like.

[seer]

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.

That again is nonsense, you can not observe Caesar writing the Gallic Wars, nor can you repeat the experiment. It is not the scientific method, period.

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.

That is the point block head! The fact that I had a cup of tea this AM is as true as any "verifiable" scientific discovery. No one else had to witness it, no one else had to confirm it to make it true.

[Machinist]

"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.

[Tassman]

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.

[Tassman]

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.

[Stoic]

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."

[seer]

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.

[Stoic]

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.