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 Tassman View Post

    WHAT is a non-scientific “path to truth”
    Most of recorded human history. Most of your human history.
    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


    • And I'm not arguing for the existence of God, I made that clear.


      You're arguing for something transcendent though, right?

      Comment


      • Could you offer the same for your position?

        This should be a fun Sunday morning activity. Let me try:


        1.)Because we have no alternative, we must assume that our reasoning abilities are generally reliable
        2.)our assumptions are confirmed when we observe that our reasoning abilities are generally reliable
        3.)This space is intentionally left blank
        4. Therefore our perceptions of reality are generally reliable and true


        Comment


        • Originally posted by Machinist View Post
          And I'm not arguing for the existence of God, I made that clear.


          You're arguing for something transcendent though, right?
          No, I am just presenting a deductive argument to logically justify human 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 Machinist View Post
            Could you offer the same for your position?

            This should be a fun Sunday morning activity. Let me try:


            1.)Because we have no alternative, we must assume that our reasoning abilities are generally reliable
            2.)our assumptions are confirmed when we observe that our reasoning abilities are generally reliable
            3.)This space is intentionally left blank
            4. Therefore our perceptions of reality are generally reliable and true

            I'll have to think about that one...
            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, we start with premises and move to the conclusion.

              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.
              You seem to think that unsupported premises are somehow superior to circularity. I disagree. And in this case, I think they are merely a devious way to avoid circularity.

              Sure if you want to throw out logical justification.
              If logical justification included justifying that our reasoning abilities are generally reliable, then nothing would ever be logically justified, for anyone.

              Just a side note - why should I accept that the non-rational forces of nature creating human rationality is more plausible than a rational Creator creating human rationality?
              I accept that non-rational forces of nature creating human rationality is AS plausible as a rational Creator creating human rationality. You can accept whatever you want.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by seer View Post

                No, I am just presenting a deductive argument to logically justify human reasoning.
                Gotcha. I see what you're saying.

                Comment


                • You seem to think that unsupported premises are somehow superior to circularity. I disagree. And in this case, I think they are merely a devious way to avoid circularity. Stoic


                  No, I am just presenting a deductive argument to logically justify human reasoning.-Seer

                  Even though the assumption of a Rational God as a premise is just that, an assumption
                  It is still a formal deductive argument.


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Stoic View Post
                    You seem to think that unsupported premises are somehow superior to circularity. I disagree. And in this case, I think they are merely a devious way to avoid circularity.
                    I'm a theist for goodness sake - how is my belief devious? Sheesh!


                    If logical justification included justifying that our reasoning abilities are generally reliable, then nothing would ever be logically justified, for anyone.
                    Nonsense, I just did justify them by starting with God. I think starting with a rational Creator could logically justify many things, like human consciousness, an intelligible universe, universal laws of logic and mathematics, universal moral truths, consistency of natural laws, etc...

                    I accept that non-rational forces of nature creating human rationality is AS plausible as a rational Creator creating human rationality. You can accept whatever you want.
                    Why is it as plausible?

                    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
                      I'm a theist for goodness sake - how is my belief devious? Sheesh!
                      No one has claimed that your belief is devious. Just your argument.

                      Nonsense, I just did justify them by starting with God. I think starting with a rational Creator could logically justify many things, like human consciousness, an intelligible universe, universal laws of logic and mathematics, universal moral truths, consistency of natural laws, etc...
                      Even though you thought you avoided circularity, you actually didn't.

                      In order to get from your premises to your conclusion, you have to assume that your reasoning abilities are generally reliable. Otherwise, your argument could be fallacious, and you wouldn't know it. So you still have reason to doubt whether your conclusion is true, and thus whether your reasoning abilities are reliable.

                      The fact that you thought you were avoiding circularity, when you weren't, should give you more reason to doubt whether your reasoning abilities are reliable.

                      Why is it as plausible?
                      If you're trying to explain how human rationality came about, then explaining how the Creator's rationality came about is just as big an issue.

                      If the answer you accept is "it just happened", then the same answer with regard to how the non-rational forces of nature created human rationality should be acceptable.

                      Comment


                      • dogdetective.jpg

                        It's still deductive.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Stoic View Post
                          No one has claimed that your belief is devious. Just your argument.

                          Goodness, it is not devious, it is pretty straight forward.

                          Even though you thought you avoided circularity, you actually didn't.

                          In order to get from your premises to your conclusion, you have to assume that your reasoning abilities are generally reliable. Otherwise, your argument could be fallacious, and you wouldn't know it. So you still have reason to doubt whether your conclusion is true, and thus whether your reasoning abilities are reliable.
                          Good grief. This is not about assuming whether our rational abilities are reliable or not, it about whether we can offer a logical justification. The theist can.


                          If you're trying to explain how human rationality came about, then explaining how the Creator's rationality came about is just as big an issue.

                          If the answer you accept is "it just happened", then the same answer with regard to how the non-rational forces of nature created human rationality should be acceptable.
                          Well no, God rational mind would be eternal and non contingent, so it didn't just happen - where in your view our rational abilities are contingent on non-rational forces.
                          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
                            dogdetective.jpg

                            It's still deductive.
                            A deductive argument with unsupported premises isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by seer View Post
                              This is not about assuming whether our rational abilities are reliable or not, it about whether we can offer a logical justification. The theist can.
                              You can provide a "logical justification" for anything that way.

                              You want to justify X? Just make up a Y, such that Y->X.

                              1) Y
                              2) Y->X
                              3) Therefore, X.

                              Now you have a non-circular, deductive argument for X. Without any effort whatsoever.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by seer View Post

                                Most of recorded human history. Most of your human history.
                                Human history is not necessarily a “path to truth” given the social and religious diversity over the millennia. Social values and perceived “truth” have varied enormously. Only scientific methodology can provide empirical, repeatable results and eliminate subjectivity.
                                “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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                1 response
                                24 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                61 responses
                                290 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                299 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by shunyadragon, 02-15-2024, 11:52 AM
                                74 responses
                                319 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 02-06-2024, 12:46 PM
                                60 responses
                                337 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Working...
                                X