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

    The Philosophy departments are going to have their hands full!

    I'm sure i'd be a thorn in somebody's side.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Machinist View Post
      The theist began with human reason to even make the assumptions that form his 1st premise, therefore his argument is circular.

      That does seem circular. I suspect there is a rule here that we do not know about (if you do know, please share), that states when the clock starts (so to speak). Does it really matter just how you got there? The "How you got there part" is not part of the deductive argument. Shouldn't only the contents of the deductive argument be what matters for it to be a Valid Deductive Argument?

      It seems intuitive to me that there is a rule somewhere that says that only what is inside the argument matters when it's validity is being questioned.
      I don't buy the circular objection. My argument is not that our reasoning ability is not generally reliable, but why is it generally reliable, what makes more sense. Have you ever looked into Alvin Plantinga Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism?






      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


      • My argument is not that our reasoning ability is not generally reliable, but why is it generally reliable, what makes more sense.

        I'll keep that mind. It's a nuance that's easy to lose sight of.

        Comment


        • That was an insightful video. Thanks. I'll watch it again.

          I don't think Atheists are too concerned about the why part. It seems like "why" implies a Mind.


          His distinction between atheism and naturalism was very interesting.
          Last edited by Machinist; 01-20-2022, 07:54 AM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Machinist View Post
            My argument is not that our reasoning ability is not generally reliable, but why is it generally reliable, what makes more sense.

            I'll keep that mind. It's a nuance that's easy to lose sight of.
            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
              It seems intuitive to me that there is a rule somewhere that says that only what is inside the argument matters when it's validity is being questioned.
              You are absolutely right. Even a circular argument can be valid, as long as the conclusion must be true if the premises are true.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by seer View Post

                I said nothing about anything beyond death, the point is consciousness is not material. And you can hold to your science of the gaps view...
                The “point is” that there is no coherent energy medium for the functioning of consciousness beyond the material activity of the living brain.
                “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

                  That again, is just stupid Tass. Historical critical thinking is not a scientific method.
                  “Historical critical thinking’ practices objective research and the accumulation of verifiable facts just as does scientific methodology.

                  And again, we had accurate history long, long before the scientific method came about.
                  Indeed, beginning with Socrates – prefiguring scientific methodology by nearly 3,000 years.

                  You are just being disingenuous because you, holding to scientism, need to filter all truths and facts through science. And it can't be done.
                  One does not “filter facts through science”, one uncovers and substantiates facts through science.

                  That is false, I have known men that did not love their mothers, in essence, hated them. One was a life long friend. So prove scientifically that you actually love your mother.
                  Some mothers mistreat their children and some people hate their mothers but this is not the norm. Despite the outliers Homo sapiens, as a social species, have evolved via natural selection to instinctively love and be loyal to their families and community. This is the norm as verified scientifically.

                  By experience; drinking your cup of tea the other morning is as much of a fact as the known distance between the earth and the moon. Even is no one else witnessed your drinking it.
                  Subjective experience is not necessarily correct, it can be deceptive, e.g. I may NOT have had my usual cup of morning tea but thought I remembered having it. Or, more dramatically, I have doubts that the sun actually careened towards Earth during the 1917 “Miracle of Fatima” despite thousands of witnesses believing it did. In short, subjective experience is not always factually reliable.

                  Last edited by Tassman; 01-20-2022, 11:48 PM.
                  “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 Post

                    You are absolutely right. Even a circular argument can be valid, as long as the conclusion must be true if the premises are true.


                    Oh bother. I was thinking that a valid deductive argument is the very way out of the circle.

                    I'm just going to use Stoic's example here:

                    1) Our reasoning abilities are the result of natural selection. -(IF this premise is true)
                    2) Reasoning abilities that are the result of natural selection are generally reliable. -(and IF this premise is true)
                    3) Therefore, our reasoning abilities are generally reliable. -(THEN this conclusion must necessarily be true.)

                    Is this not a deductive argument?



                    What i'm trying to do here is construct a valid deductive argument for the atheist that logically justifies the reliability of human reason.


                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

                      The “point is” that there is no coherent energy medium for the functioning of consciousness beyond the material activity of the living brain.
                      Again, that was not the point, which is that consciousness is not material.
                      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

                        “Historical critical thinking’ practices objective research and the accumulation of verifiable facts just as does scientific methodology.
                        But that is not scientific methodology. That is historical.



                        Indeed, beginning with Socrates – prefiguring scientific methodology by nearly 3,000 years.
                        Was he applying that to history?


                        Some mothers mistreat their children and some people hate their mothers but this is not the norm. Despite the outliers Homo sapiens, as a social species, have evolved via natural selection to instinctively love and be loyal to their families and community. This is the norm as verified scientifically.
                        Sheesh, that is not the point! You can not scientifically show that you love your mother. Yet that would be as true as any fact discovered by science.



                        Subjective experience is not necessarily correct, it can be deceptive, e.g. I may NOT have had my usual cup of morning tea but thought I remembered having it. Or, more dramatically, I have doubts that the sun actually careened towards Earth during the 1917 “Miracle of Fatima” despite thousands of witnesses believing it did. In short, subjective experience is not always factually reliable.
                        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.

                        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

                          You are absolutely right. Even a circular argument can be valid, as long as the conclusion must be true if the premises are true.
                          Petitio Principii

                          (Begging the Question or Circular Argument)


                          Abstract: Petitio principii is a logical fallacy where the conclusion of an argument is claimed to be proved by an equivalent statement in the premises. Furthermore, one of the premises is logically dependent on the conclusion of the argument. Circular arguments are epistemic variations of the fallacy, whereas the begging the question fallacies are dialectical failures. The varieties of petitio principii (including begging the question and circular argument) are explained with illustrative examples and links to self-check quizzes.
                          1. Petitio Principii (begging the question or circular argument) is the fallacy of assuming in the premise(s) of an argument a statement which equivalent the conclusion of the argument. Thus, what is to be proved has already been assumed in the premises.
                          https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/circular.html
                          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 this shows that the theist argument is not circular. The conclusion "therefore human reasoning can be generally trusted" has no equivalent in the premises.

                            It does however in the atheists. "Therefore human reasoning can generally be trusted", may just as well be the first premise.

                            If you were to play both of these arguments, only the atheist's argument would continually loop.



                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Machinist View Post
                              And this shows that the theist argument is not circular. The conclusion "therefore human reasoning can be generally trusted" has no equivalent in the premises.

                              It does however in the atheists. "Therefore human reasoning can generally be trusted", may just as well be the first premise.

                              If you were to play both of these arguments, only the atheist's argument would continually loop.


                              Good point!
                              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

                                Petitio Principii

                                (Begging the Question or Circular Argument)


                                Abstract: Petitio principii is a logical fallacy where the conclusion of an argument is claimed to be proved by an equivalent statement in the premises. Furthermore, one of the premises is logically dependent on the conclusion of the argument. Circular arguments are epistemic variations of the fallacy, whereas the begging the question fallacies are dialectical failures. The varieties of petitio principii (including begging the question and circular argument) are explained with illustrative examples and links to self-check quizzes.
                                1. Petitio Principii (begging the question or circular argument) is the fallacy of assuming in the premise(s) of an argument a statement which equivalent the conclusion of the argument. Thus, what is to be proved has already been assumed in the premises.
                                https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/circular.html
                                Thanks for providing a source to prove my point.

                                "Strictly speaking, petitio principii or begging the question is a valid but fallacious argument."

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                155 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                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
                                80 responses
                                426 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