Originally posted by seer
View Post
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
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
-
-
Originally posted by Machinist View PostOnly Seer's view has an outside ontological component to it, that is, a component outside the circle, holding the circle. Of course that too would be a claim beginning with one's own reasoning, so it's easy to dismiss that view as being circular as well. It cannot be proven what's outside the circle.
The atheist will continue to demand physical evidence for what's outside.
The only thing the theist can offer is a deductive argument that assumes an immutable God.
But at least that's something, and we all can agree that there is at least a possibility for the existence of God.
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
- 2 likes
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View Post
Not the point, mine is a deductive justification. Your argument starts with human reason to justify human reason (circular).
Descartes was not trying to prove the existence of God, he was trying to find a non-circular way to justify the reliability of our senses and our reason. Concerning his argument for the existence of God you would have to look at his Ontological Argument.
In order to use the Ontological Argument, you need to assume the reliability of our senses and reason, for which you need a God. Don't talk to me about circular reasoning.
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostBut the simulation would not actually be real even though we believed it was. And that was Descartes point you can not show otherwise, therefore we take reality by faith.
Sure we all take by it faith that what we perceive corresponds to reality. The point is we can not deductively or empirically demonstrate that that is the case.
Correct. And?
Except that assumption is a belief that can not be shown to be true.
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
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by Markus River View Post
It cannot be demonstrated that there is a “circle”, or that it’s “being held”, let alone what, if anything, there might be outside of it doing the “holding”.
Human reasoning justifying human reasoning is what I am referring to by "circle". That much is clearly observable right?
I'm not saying that's a bad thing either. It works for practical intents and purposes here in the physical world.
Seer's argument at least has that additional component, even if it assumed. And to me, it makes the argument seem to have more weight.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Markus River View Post
If it looks like reality, waddles like reality and conforms to observable and testable rules of reality, then I’m happy to call it as such.
And, in the face of possible infinite regression, simply use Occam’s razor to remove the unnecessary simulations, starting with the first.
What part is an assumption that cannot be shown to be true? That testable natural forces govern the physical universe, or that anything you don’t know the answer to is evidence for God?
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 PostNo, I simply start with human reason.
I don't need a non-circular way to justify the reliability of our senses and our reason, any more than you need a non-circular way to justify your belief in God.
In order to use the Ontological Argument, you need to assume the reliability of our senses and reason, for which you need a God. Don't talk to me about circular reasoning.
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 PostYes, you start with human reason to ultimately demonstrate the trustworthiness of human reason. Really Stoic, that is clearly circular - viciously circular at that.
I don't have to. None of us has any alternative to assuming the (general) trustworthiness of human reason.
Again, not the point. We both agree that our reasoning abilities are generally reliable - starting with God offers a deductive way to justify it. Starting with human reason is irrational (circular). That's all, it is a modest point, but valid.
- 2 likes
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View Post
Are you saying that subjective knowledge or experience can't be real? That something must be scientifically confirmed to be accepted?
“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.
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by Stoic View PostYou don't seem to get it. I haven't tried to demonstrate the trustworthiness of human reason.
I don't have to. None of us has any alternative to assuming the (general) trustworthiness of human reason.
We both agree that our reasoning abilities are generally reliable. But I merely assume it, while you use circular logic to try to justify 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 Tassman View Post
Subjective knowledge or experience may or may not be “real”. But unless it can be systematically studied via observation and experiment it cannot be shown to be real e.g., someone’s personal experience with Zeus.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 PostWhere did I use a circular argument?
Then, to argue for the existence of God, you use the Ontological Argument (or any other argument), which relies on us being able to generally trust our reasoning.
I really don't understand how you can fail to see the circularity of that.
You are the one who did that. But the point is, you can not logically justify your position. We are speaking of logical justification.
I just consider invoking a Deity an extra, unnecessary step.
(As to justifying why we should generally trust our perceptions and reasoning, we don't have any alternative. Think of it as "the impossibility of the contrary". Start any argument or try to learn anything without being able to trust your own perceptions and reasoning, and see how far you get.)
- 3 likes
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View Post
Tass, that is one of the most silly things you have said. Most of the things we consider real or true have nothing to do with observation and experimentation. Science is not the only path to truth.
“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 Stoic View PostYou start with a God, a good, honest Deity. Since he is trustworthy, we can generally trust our reasoning.
Then, to argue for the existence of God, you use the Ontological Argument (or any other argument), which relies on us being able to generally trust our reasoning.
I really don't understand how you can fail to see the circularity of that.
1. A rational trustworthy God exists.
2. He creates an intelligible cosmos/reality.
3. He creates rational beings with cognitive abilities that are generally reliable in grasping reality.
4. Therefore our perceptions of reality are generally reliable and true
That is a quick deductive argument for the reliability of human reasoning. It is non-circular, whether you agree with the premises or not. Could you offer the same for your position? And I'm not arguing for the existence of God, I made that clear.
I just consider invoking a Deity an extra, unnecessary step.
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
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 04-22-2024, 06:28 PM
|
17 responses
79 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Yesterday, 01:46 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
55 responses
266 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 06:02 AM | ||
Started by Neptune7, 04-15-2024, 06:54 AM
|
25 responses
158 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cerebrum123
04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
103 responses
569 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
04-18-2024, 11:43 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-07-2024, 10:17 AM
|
39 responses
251 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
04-12-2024, 02:58 PM
|
Comment