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

  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Stoic View Post

    Since electronics can produce propositional content or logical inference, it doesn't seem so hard to believe that chemicals can.
    But they don't, electrons do no such thing. We do, they only spit out what we programmed in. So computers are not really making rational inferences.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stoic
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post

    Claiming incredulity tell us nothing about how chemicals can, even in theory, produce propositional content or logical inference.
    Since electronics can produce propositional content or logical inference, it doesn't seem so hard to believe that chemicals can.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Stoic View Post

    Yes, in response to your incredulity about the non-rational producing the rational.
    Claiming incredulity tell us nothing about how chemicals can, even in theory, produce propositional content or logical inference.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stoic
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Well you brought him up...
    Yes, in response to your incredulity about the non-rational producing the rational.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Stoic View Post

    Fortunately, I don't need his statement to tell me how to decide.
    Well you brought him up...

    Leave a comment:


  • Stoic
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post

    According to his statement I don't see how you could determine which was which...
    Fortunately, I don't need his statement to tell me how to decide.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Stoic View Post

    Some convictions are more questionable than others.
    According to his statement I don't see how you could determine which was which...

    Leave a comment:


  • Stoic
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post

    He is questioning all convictions. Not just the one about the universe...
    Some convictions are more questionable than others.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Stoic View Post

    I prefer a more complete version of Darwin's quote:

    "Nevertheless you have expressed my inward conviction, though far more vividly and clearly than I could have done that the Universe is not the result of chance. But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" (emphasis mine)

    It's pretty obvious that what Darwin was doubting was his conviction that the universe is not the result of chance.
    He is questioning all convictions. Not just the one about the universe...

    Leave a comment:


  • Stoic
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post


    “But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?
    [To William Graham 3 July 1881]”
    Charles Darwin

    And if you think science is any closer to explaining human consciousness than it was 150 years ago you are fooling yourself. It is actually getting worse.
    I prefer a more complete version of Darwin's quote:

    "Nevertheless you have expressed my inward conviction, though far more vividly and clearly than I could have done that the Universe is not the result of chance. But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" (emphasis mine)

    It's pretty obvious that what Darwin was doubting was his conviction that the universe is not the result of chance.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Stoic View Post

    Your argument would have been much more convincing before Darwin came along.

    I expect that's why there were so many deists back then.

    “But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?
    [To William Graham 3 July 1881]”
    Charles Darwin

    And if you think science is any closer to explaining human consciousness than it was 150 years ago you are fooling yourself. It is actually getting worse.
    Last edited by seer; 10-11-2021, 12:32 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stoic
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post

    No you find meaningless electrical impulses. Just like our meaningless electro-chemical impulses. Until they are translated, made rational. What translated for the computer? What translates for the human mind? And I would remind you that computers are only rational because they are an extension of our rationality. Rationality produced rationality. In the case of materialism you are still left with the non-rational producing the rational. I think your point works in favor of my position.
    Your argument would have been much more convincing before Darwin came along.

    I expect that's why there were so many deists back then.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Stoic View Post

    If you put a hard drive under a microscope, do you find videos, songs, and photographs?

    What's obvious to you isn't necessarily correct.
    No you find meaningless electrical impulses. Just like our meaningless electro-chemical impulses. Until they are translated, made rational. What translated for the computer? What translates for the human mind? And I would remind you that computers are only rational because they are an extension of our rationality. Rationality produced rationality. In the case of materialism you are still left with the non-rational producing the rational. I think your point works in favor of my position.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stoic
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post

    If you put brain chemicals under a microscope do you find logical inference, propositions, ideals, consciousness? Will you ever? Pointing to incredulity solves nothing. I think it is obvious that some from of dualism where the immaterial mental states supervene on or direct physical actions, like in my OP must be the case.
    If you put a hard drive under a microscope, do you find videos, songs, and photographs?

    What's obvious to you isn't necessarily correct.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Stoic View Post

    Sorry, I don't share your incredulity.
    If you put brain chemicals under a microscope do you find logical inference, propositions, ideals, consciousness? Will you ever? Pointing to incredulity solves nothing. I think it is obvious that some from of dualism where the immaterial mental states supervene on or direct physical actions, like in my OP must be the case.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
39 responses
204 views
0 likes
Last Post whag
by whag
 
Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
21 responses
132 views
0 likes
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
80 responses
428 views
0 likes
Last Post tabibito  
Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
45 responses
305 views
1 like
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
406 responses
2,518 views
2 likes
Last Post tabibito  
Working...
X