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 seer View Post


    This is the bottom line, a rational Creator offers a firm foundation and source for human reasoning.
    The concept of “a rational Creator” is unsubstantiated metaphysical speculation.

    On the other hand the atheist would have to assume that a thousand, or a million, happy little accidents just happened to cobble together the rational human mind.
    No “assumption”. There were many “little accidents” which resulted in rational thinking among the higher animals. This has been established by evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines, including paleontology, geology, genetics and developmental biology.
    “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
      This is the bottom line, a rational Creator offers a firm foundation and source for human reasoning.
      Your argument always beaks at the same failure point. Unless you can demonstrate the existence of your rational creator, other than as a necessary (but unsubstantiated) premise for your argument, your firm foundation can only ever stand on insubstantial faith. You have it, we (the non-believers) don’t and are fully justified in rejecting it.

      On the other hand the atheist would have to assume that a thousand, or a million, happy little accidents just happened to cobble together the rational human mind.
      The “little accidents” occur every day, in every cell that divides. Some few are “happy”, some few are decidedly “unhappy” and most are simply neutral. If the happy (beneficial) changes increase an individual’s chances of reproduction within their environment, the chances are that they will pass on their acquired change to future generations.

      And whist it’s easy to raise an incredulous eyebrow, remember that all these changes are occurring, continuously over entire species populations. When you factor in population size, relative propensity to cell mutation and time, that “a million, happy little accidents” can lead to profound changes, should surprise nobody. It led, via natural selection, to a brain that is sufficiently capable to encompass self-awareness and conscious thought.
      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

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Markus River View Post

        The “little accidents” occur every day, in every cell that divides. Some few are “happy”, some few are decidedly “unhappy” and most are simply neutral. If the happy (beneficial) changes increase an individual’s chances of reproduction within their environment, the chances are that they will pass on their acquired change to future generations.

        And whist it’s easy to raise an incredulous eyebrow, remember that all these changes are occurring, continuously over entire species populations. When you factor in population size, relative propensity to cell mutation and time, that “a million, happy little accidents” can lead to profound changes, should surprise nobody. It led, via natural selection, to a brain that is sufficiently capable to encompass self-awareness and conscious thought.

        I have no idea what you mean. Saying that the brain can encompass consciousness tells us nothing about how or why it does or came about. Or how brain chemicals come to know conceptual truths or rational inference. You are begging the question.
        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 Post

          If you just want to assert God as a brute fact, then you aren't arguing in a circle. That would be roughly equivalent to me asserting the reliability of human reason as a brute fact.
          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.

          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


          • OK cool. What Markus just said.



            Remember, all we're concerned with here is can we construct a deductive argument to logically justify human reasoning. Just a simple little deductive argument.

            Comment


            • To construct a deductive argument, it's not necessary for premise 1 to be true is it?

              If I set forth this argument:

              1.) Red heads are aliens
              2.)Kim is a red head
              3.)Therefore Kim is an alien

              That is a deductive argument, correct? It's obviously silly, but that fits the definition of a deductive argument, does it not?

              The only requirement is that the conclusion follow from the premise.

              Please confirm.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

                The Gallic Wars, as with all historical events, is confirmed by ‘historical critical thinking’ which is linked to a scientific attitude of mind. Namely, systematic observation, research and accumulation of verifiable facts.
                That is just silly Tass, these truths are discovered by historical methods and not scientific methods. We only have any idea that you love your mother because you tell us. A subjective truth (if correct) that is as true as water boiling at 212 °F.
                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
                  To construct a deductive argument, it's not necessary for premise 1 to be true is it?

                  If I set forth this argument:

                  1.) Red heads are aliens
                  2.)Kim is a red head
                  3.)Therefore Kim is an alien

                  That is a deductive argument, correct? It's obviously silly, but that fits the definition of a deductive argument, does it not?

                  The only requirement is that the conclusion follow from the premise.

                  Please confirm.
                  I think to make it tighter the first premise would be "All red heads are aliens." Which isn't so far fetched - I have known so red heads.
                  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 think to make it tighter the first premise would be "All red heads are aliens." Which isn't so far fetched - I have known so red heads.
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by seer View Post
                      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.
                      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

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Markus River View Post

                        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.

                        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

                          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...
                          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

                            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.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by seer View Post

                              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.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                                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
                                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, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                14 responses
                                43 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                411 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X