The Argument From Reason...

[Stoic]

God is not contingent. I think we can all agree on that. Whether you believe God exists or not, the concept of God carries with it the idea of non-contingency. Take a leap here Stoic and Markus...you know what i'm talking about. You understand at least the theoretical notion that God is self existent and immutable.

That's the assumption that the theist begins with. And I believe that the theist has creative license to do so as long as his conclusions follow from that premise, regardless of how persuasive it might be to others.

That's just it. It might be incredibly persuasive to other theists. Perfect for preaching to the choir.

So the theist begins with the assumption of non-contingency.

As far as I can tell, the atheist also has the freedom to say that natural selection is non-contingent, or aims at rationality, etc.

Different atheists might have different answers. I don't really see anything as non-contingent.

The question is: is natural selection contingent?

If yes, then any deductive argument presented by the atheist, will be what I am calling contingent deductive.

The theist's argument would be non-contingent deductive.

Contingent and Non-contingent Deductive. That my thing. Ima be famous.

I'd say that's right up there in terms of significance with seer's Deductive Argument for the Reliability of Human Reason.

[Stoic]

Well no, you just admitted that my syllogism was deductive.

I'm not sure what you think "deductive" means in that context.

[seer]

Contingent and Non-contingent Deductive. That my thing. Ima be famous.

The Philosophy departments are going to have their hands full!

[Machinist]

God is not contingent. I think we can all agree on that. Whether you believe God exists or not, the concept of God carries with it the idea of non-contingency. Take a leap here Stoic and Markus...you know what i'm talking about. You understand at least the theoretical notion that God is self existent and immutable.

That's the assumption that the theist begins with. And I believe that the theist has creative license to do so as long as his conclusions follow from that premise, regardless of how persuasive it might be to others.

So the theist begins with the assumption of non-contingency.

As far as I can tell, the atheist also has the freedom to say that natural selection is non-contingent, or aims at rationality, etc.

The question is: is natural selection contingent?

If yes, then any deductive argument presented by the atheist, will be what I am calling contingent deductive.

The theist's argument would be non-contingent deductive.

Contingent and Non-contingent Deductive. That my thing. Ima be famous.

[seer]

Once again, we reach the point where we'll have to agree to disagree. What is more plausible to you is obviously not more plausible to me.

Of course you are an atheist.

[seer]

Except when they just used the concept of God to explain human rationality. Then they realize that it would be circular reasoning.

Well no, you just admitted that my syllogism was deductive.

[Stoic]

No, my point was that my position is more plausible. And the wild card is a rational, supremely powerful, Creator, nothing would prevent Him from creating. In your case you are sill left with non-rational, non-intelligent, non-conscious forces creating things that are completely foreign to and opposite of their nature. These forces have no intention, direction, or teleology. Where a God would have.

Once again, we reach the point where we'll have to agree to disagree. What is more plausible to you is obviously not more plausible to me.

[Stoic]

Of course Christians defend the concept of God.

Except when they just used the concept of God to explain human rationality. Then they realize that it would be circular reasoning.

[seer]

In my case, it's a matter of using the reasoning ability that we have to explain what we experience.

Your claim is that the rational could not have come from the non-rational, so the rational must always have existed, which is akin to saying that matter could not have come from non-matter, so matter must always have existed.

No, my point was that my position is more plausible. And the wild card is a rational, supremely powerful, Creator, nothing would prevent Him from creating. In your case you are sill left with non-rational, non-intelligent, non-conscious forces creating things that are completely foreign to and opposite of their nature. These forces have no intention, direction, or teleology. Where a God would have.

[seer]

What is needed is a persuasive argument. And for that the premises must either be obvious, or defended.

Of course Christians defend the concept of God. There are many good arguments.


https://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-m...-existence.htm

[Stoic]

But no, in my case again, you have the rational producing the rational, in your case you still have to hold that the non-rational, non-conscious forces of nature produced both - producing again, something completely opposite to their nature.

In my case, it's a matter of using the reasoning ability that we have to explain what we experience.

Your claim is that the rational could not have come from the non-rational, so the rational must always have existed, which is akin to saying that matter could not have come from non-matter, so matter must always have existed.

[Stoic]

But it doesn't matter if you've known redheads are not. It doesn't matter how crazy I get with my initial assumption. All that matters, from within the scope of inside the argument itself, is that it meets the criteria of being a deductive argument.

I'm working on something here.

I think what you are working on is just how unimportant it is that a deductive argument can be made for a specific claim.

What is needed is a persuasive argument. And for that the premises must either be obvious, or defended.

[seer]

But it doesn't matter if you've known redheads are not. It doesn't matter how crazy I get with my initial assumption. All that matters, from within the scope of inside the argument itself, is that it meets the criteria of being a deductive argument.

I'm working on something here.

Your syllogism works if you say all red heads...

[seer]

Perhaps a neurobiologist can explain the how. Why it came about, is because a conscious mind conferred an evolutionary advantage over an unconscious / less conscious mind. And it came about, like all evolutionary traits, by means of natural selection.

There is good reason to think they can't explain it. Consciousness is not necessary for the survival of the vast majority of creatures. https://www.samharris.org/blog/the-m...-consciousness

I’ve offered my opinion. Conceptual thought is an emergent property of the more complex brain. You though, aren’t inclined to accept any explanation that doesn’t have the word “God” somewhere prominently in it. And since I have no more belief in your “God” than any other, and until evidence to the contrary is presented, I’ll maintain my opinion that naturalistic processes are the best explanation for the existence of the conscious mind.

Your position is that consciousness is physical. That is clearly a non-starter since there is no physical evidence in the brain of consciousness.

[Markus River]

Saying that the brain can encompass consciousness tells us nothing about how or why it does or came about.

Perhaps a neurobiologist can explain the how. Why it came about, is because a conscious mind conferred an evolutionary advantage over an unconscious / less conscious mind. And it came about, like all evolutionary traits, by means of natural selection.

Or how brain chemicals come to know conceptual truths or rational inference. You are begging the question.

I’ve offered my opinion. Conceptual thought is an emergent property of the more complex brain. You though, aren’t inclined to accept any explanation that doesn’t have the word “God” somewhere prominently in it. And since I have no more belief in your “God” than any other, and until evidence to the contrary is presented, I’ll maintain my opinion that naturalistic processes are the best explanation for the existence of the conscious mind.