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 Stoic View Post
No, you have to start with a brute fact somewhere.
I start with the brute fact that my senses and rational ability can generally be trusted.
You start with the brute fact that there is a good, honest Deity, and conclude that we can therefore generally trust out perceptions.
I think my way is simpler.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by seer View Post
Because you have to use your rational abilities to confirm that they are trustworthy in the first place. Or you have to use your rational abilities to even make the statement that said abilities can be trusted. That is circular.
I start with the brute fact that my senses and rational ability can generally be trusted.
You start with the brute fact that there is a good, honest Deity, and conclude that we can therefore generally trust out perceptions.
I think my way is simpler.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Stoic View Post
If our senses and rational abilities can generally be trusted, then we can be confident in the existence of the material world.
How is that circular?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Tassman View Post
We know that the material world exists and, whether simulated or not, it remains material. Science gives us the experimental means to examine the material world; it is the only methodology of providing objective repeatable results, eliminating subjective human opinion.
Conversely, your subjective world of spirits and souls and gods is an unsubstantiated article of faith and can only be accepted as such, i.e., merely something you choose to believe or not believe.
Last edited by seer; 01-13-2022, 07:12 AM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Machinist View Post
So it's sort of an ontological argument for truth in general?
I'm actually growing fond of ontological arguments. I've recently come across Alvin Platingas Modal argument for Dualism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOTn_wRwDE0
I can appreciate the objections to it, but something about it resonates. Just an idea i've been ruminating on lately.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by seer View Post
Descartes' way around this was to invoke God, a good, honest Deity. That He created the material world and our rational abilities to grasp the world. And therefore since He is trustworthy we can generally trust our perceptions.
I'm actually growing fond of ontological arguments. I've recently come across Alvin Platingas Modal argument for Dualism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOTn_wRwDE0
I can appreciate the objections to it, but something about it resonates. Just an idea i've been ruminating on lately.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by seer View Post
But then you can not demonstrate that the material world exists if it is likely a simulation.
Conversely, your subjective world of spirits and souls and gods is an unsubstantiated article of faith and can only be accepted as such, i.e., merely something you choose to believe or not believe.
We just proved that the material world can not be substantiated, since it is likely that we live in a simulation.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by seer View PostDescartes' way around this was to invoke God, a good, honest Deity. That He created the material world and our rational abilities to grasp the world. And therefore since He is trustworthy we can generally trust our perceptions.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Machinist View PostEven if it's not likely that we're living in a simulation, there is always the possibility that the world outside doesn't exist except in our own minds (some form of Idealism) . And if we're relying on our subjective minds to affirm the existence of the material world, then how could we even be sure in the truest possible sense?
Leave a comment:
-
Even if it's not likely that we're living in a simulation, there is always the possibility that the world outside doesn't exist except in our own minds (some form of Idealism) . And if we're relying on our subjective minds to affirm the existence of the material world, then how could we even be sure in the truest possible sense?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Tassman View Post
Well, we CAN demonstrate that the material world exists, we’re living in it, we are a part of it - our very bodies are material.
Even if we are living in a simulated world as per Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom et al one has no option other than to treat it as real and actual as we do re the natural material world in which we now live.
Yes, let’s speak of what can be substantiated and what cannot be substantiated. Your subjective world of spirits and souls and gods CANNOT be substantiated, merely believed or not believed. conversely, the objective material world in which we live CAN be demonstrated by the very keyboard at which you’re typing the thoughts emanating from your living physical brain.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by seer View Post
First Tass, as we have discussed in the past you can not demonstrate that the material world exists, empirically or deductively. We have faith that it does.
Even you believe that we could be living in a simulation, and that it is more likely than not.
So let's not speak of what can be substantiated or not when it suits you.
- 2 likes
Leave a comment:
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 04-22-2024, 06:28 PM
|
17 responses
104 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
04-23-2024, 01:46 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
70 responses
405 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 04-26-2024, 05:47 AM | ||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
317 responses
1,410 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Today, 07:19 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 02-04-2024, 05:06 AM
|
228 responses
1,119 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Today, 08:04 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 01-18-2024, 01:35 PM
|
49 responses
370 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
05-15-2024, 02:53 PM
|
Leave a comment: