Can Atheism Account For Rationality

[seer]

ooo. Darfius is here. I might stick around for a bit...

So I'm not cute enough for you anymore?

[carpedm9587]

Because the laws of logic reflect God's rational and trustworthy nature. I thought I made that clear.

Assumption. You have not shown this to be true.

So how do you know gods nature?

(and no - you did not make it clear. The last answer started with "the bible.")


ETA: I'm going out to work in my gardens. I'll check in later.

[Sparko]

So I'm not cute enough for you anymore?

Just not interesting enough. I have read your and carp's arguments ad nauseum. Get some new material!

[seer]

Assumption. You have not shown this to be true.

So how do you know gods nature?

(and no - you did not make it clear. The last answer started with "the bible.")


ETA: I'm going out to work in my gardens. I'll check in later.

Right, it is a faith position in the veracity of Scripture, and my personal experience of God. And you have no problem with leaps of faith or unprovable assumptions, since you have been using them right along.

[seer]

Even if I accepted your "the mind is not a blank slate" argument and "prima facie" is not possible (which I don't, for the reasons I have no cited multiple times, so I'll let those posts stand), all you would have successfully done is again affirm that proving these principles is not possible without getting caught in a circle. Essentially, Seer, that is what "prima facie" means to me - I accept their truth despite recognizing I can frame no argument without getting caught in a circle.

Carp, we first gain knowledge through perceptual beliefs, not a priori beliefs. You reason from perceptual beliefs to your prima facie truths. Which makes it circular, just agree that you accept circular reasoning as a valid way of understanding self-evident truths. Just as you accept circularity when believing that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality.

[carpedm9587]

Right, it is a faith position in the veracity of Scripture, and my personal experience of God. And you have no problem with leaps of faith or unprovable assumptions, since you have been using them right along.

So basically, you are assuming it to be true, without a rational argument.

The difference, Seer, is I am accepting the basic tenets of logic recognizing we cannot build a logical proof without circularity, which we all do. You are then jumping on that reality to claim that you are then justified to accept essentially any proposition you wish without proof. You happen to have chosen "the bible" and "Christianity." If you came from the Middle East, you'd probably choose the Quran and Islam. There is no rational boundary to what you will or will not accept "without proof."

This is what I mean when I say that theists leap into gaps in our knowing and plug them with god. And I would be willing to bet, if we examined your "experiences of god" they would be so vague as to be potentially anything - and generally explainable many other ways.

I limit what I will accept prima facie to those things about which I have essentially no choice. For the rest, if it is not necessary to assume the truth, I say "I don't know." I find it a bit more honest.

[Darfius]

And the reason for this, in your opinion, is?

My reason for why physical determinism cannot account for rationality is because rationality is the free will choosing of that which is correct over the incorrect. Physical determinism inherently negates free will.

My reason for why one cannot be an atheist and pursue and subscribe to truth is because atheists avoid the truth I mentioned in my previous two sentences, among others. That the universe requires an explanation for its existence, for example. Or the circumstances surrounding Jesus' resurrection. Or objective morality.

[carpedm9587]

Carp, we first gain knowledge through perceptual beliefs, not a priori beliefs. You reason from perceptual beliefs to your prima facie truths.

I accept the reality of my perceptions.

Which makes it circular, just agree that you accept circular reasoning as a valid way of understanding self-evident truths. Just as you accept circularity when believing that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality.

You keep coming back to circularity. You apparently missed the dozen+ posts in which I have repeatedly said, "these principles cannot be logically defended without engaging in circularity." Which part of that is confusing to you?

[carpedm9587]

My reason for why physical determinism cannot account for rationality is because rationality is the free will choosing of that which is correct over the incorrect. Physical determinism inherently negates free will.

Darfius - have you ever written a computer program? I can quickly write a program that will make a decision based on the truth value of a proposition. And I don't think too many people would suggest that a computer has free will. There is something badly off about your argument.

My reason for why one cannot be an atheist and pursue and subscribe to truth is because atheists avoid the truth I mentioned in my previous two sentences, among others.

You are confusing "avoid the truth" with "disagree with Darfius on what the truth is."

That the universe requires an explanation for its existence, for example.

Why?

Or the circumstances surrounding Jesus' resurrection.

What circumstances would those be?

Or objective morality.

Oh no... not THAT again...

[Darfius]

Darfius - have you ever written a computer program? I can quickly write a program that will make a decision based on the truth value of a proposition. And I don't think too many people would suggest that a computer has free will. There is something badly off about your argument.

And that computer program would be no more rational than a tree falling. The only thing off is your understanding of common terms.

You are confusing "avoid the truth" with "disagree with Darfius on what the truth is."

That rationality can only exist alongside free will is plain to see for anyone who spends a minute considering the matter. But as I mentioned, atheists spend very little time considering truth unless it benefits them somehow.

Why?

You would not accept "because" as an explanation for anything else, so why the universe? Moreover, logic demands that anything which begins to exist have a cause. The universe began to exist and so requires a cause.

What circumstances would those be?

Attestation by men willing to torture and die to affirm their testimony, admission by enemies that the body was gone, living witnesses (at the time of Paul's writing) who had seen and would testify to having seen the risen Christ--again under pain of torture and death. Unique in history.

[carpedm9587]

And that computer program would be no more rational than a tree falling. The only thing off is your understanding of common terms.

Your terms: "rationality is the free will choosing of that which is correct over the incorrect."

Choosing what is correct vs. incorrect does not require free will. And I'm afraid a computer program conforming to the basic principles of reason is indeed acting/choosing "rationally." It simply is not doing so consciously or on the basis of free will.

That rationality can only exist alongside free will is plain to see for anyone who spends a minute considering the matter. But as I mentioned, atheists spend very little time considering truth unless it benefits them somehow.

So you've asserted this several times now. Can you make a logical case for the position?

You would not accept "because" as an explanation for anything else, so why the universe? Moreover, logic demands that anything which begins to exist have a cause. The universe began to exist and so requires a cause.

I don't accept "because" for this either. I do accept, "we don't know." The fact is, we do not know how the universe arose. We know there was a singularity, but we do not know how the singularity came to be. And the argument you just outlined is an oldie and goodie. So first you have to make the case that the universe "began to exist" and then you have to make the case that only a god can be the cause.

Attestation by men willing to torture and die to affirm their testimony, admission by enemies that the body was gone, living witnesses (at the time of Paul's writing) who had seen and would testify to having seen the risen Christ--again under pain of torture and death. Unique in history.

Yeah... maybe.

To be honest, Darfius, these arguments have gone round and round for a long time now, and I have to admit that I have largely lost interest in them. It's why I don't frequent Apologetics. anymore. I was curious to know if you had something different and original to contribute, but that does not seem to be the case. The discussion on logic applies to the subject of the thread, and I'd follow up on that. The rest I think I will leave to you.

[Darfius]

Your terms: "rationality is the free will choosing of that which is correct over the incorrect."

Choosing what is correct vs. incorrect does not require free will. And I'm afraid a computer program conforming to the basic principles of reason is indeed acting/choosing "rationally." It simply is not doing so consciously or on the basis of free will.

A computer program is an extension of our free will rationality. There's no acting or choosing involved. It is a complex machine.

So you've asserted this several times now. Can you make a logical case for the position?

You mentioned consciousness. To be self-aware, one must be aware of both one's self and other objects. Once these parameters exist, free will exists.

I don't accept "because" for this either. I do accept, "we don't know." The fact is, we do not know how the universe arose. We know there was a singularity, but we do not know how the singularity came to be. And the argument you just outlined is an oldie and goodie. So first you have to make the case that the universe "began to exist" and then you have to make the case that only a god can be the cause.

Singularity is a fancy term for nothing. "Infinite density" is nonsense. Infinite regression is an absurdity, so the universe began to exist. It's very simple, to those who don't have a vested interest in making it complicated. And only an infinite, timeless, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being could have created time and space with sufficient motivation to do so. Feel free to call Him God.

Yeah... maybe.

Your response to a man rising from the dead is "yeah, maybe" and you fancy yourself an honest person? Hint: you're not.

To be honest, Darfius, these arguments have gone round and round for a long time now, and I have to admit that I have largely lost interest in them. It's why I don't frequent Apologetics. anymore. I was curious to know if you had something different and original to contribute, but that does not seem to be the case. The discussion on logic applies to the subject of the thread, and I'd follow up on that. The rest I think I will leave to you.

"the truth bores me"...haha, ok, bruh. As I said, atheists don't care about the truth. And since part of the truth is the well being of all, atheists are a menace to the human race.

[seer]

Your terms: "rationality is the free will choosing of that which is correct over the incorrect."

Choosing what is correct vs. incorrect does not require free will. And I'm afraid a computer program conforming to the basic principles of reason is indeed acting/choosing "rationally." It simply is not doing so consciously or on the basis of free will.

Yes it does, the computer only chooses the correct answer because it was programmed by a free will intelligence to do so. The point is, even if the computer could choose the right answer it does not do so because it is the right answer but only because it was programmed to do so. Rightness or wrongness never enter in, only the determination of what has been programmed.

[carpedm9587]

A computer program is an extension of our free will rationality. There's no acting or choosing involved. It is a complex machine.

That's basically the point. No free will involved - yet it can distinguish between "correct" and "incorrect." That doesn't seem to fit your definition.

You mentioned consciousness. To be self-aware, one must be aware of both one's self and other objects. Once these parameters exist, free will exists.

Well, at least the impression/illusion of free will exists. Personally, I think I have a free ability to choose form the possible. But I have no clue how it arises anymore than I can explain how consciousness arises. These are mysteries we have not yet penetrated. Hopefully we will someday.

Singularity is a fancy term for nothing. "Infinite density" is nonsense. Infinite regression is an absurdity, so the universe began to exist. It's very simple, to those who don't have a vested interest in making it complicated. And only an infinite, timeless, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being could have created time and space with sufficient motivation to do so. Feel free to call Him God.

As I said, I'm not very interested in Apologetics anymore. Most of these things have been hashed and rehashed to death.

Your response to a man rising from the dead is "yeah, maybe" and you fancy yourself an honest person? Hint: you're not.

That was a fast assessment...

"the truth bores me"...haha, ok, bruh. As I said, atheists don't care about the truth. And since part of the truth is the well being of all, atheists are a menace to the human race.

OK, Darf. Nice chatting with you.

[carpedm9587]

Yes it does, the computer only chooses the correct answer because it was programmed by a free will intelligence to do so. The point is, even if the computer could choose the right answer it does not do so because it is the right answer but only because it was programmed to do so. Rightness or wrongness never enter in, only the determination of what has been programmed.

Yes, many computer programs do nothing more than act on their initial instructions. But now we have computers augmenting their own programming, and creating outputs essentially impossible to envision by the programmers. And we have systems that can learn and adjust to changing parameters. Are they self aware? I sincerely doubt it. The most complex computer today has a fraction of the neural capacity of the human brain. But that boundary is coming ever closer as more and more of the characteristics of sentience begin to be exhibited.

We see the same thing in the animal and even plant kingdoms. We have long though of sentience as some kind of binary condition: humans have it - other animals don't. Now we know that sentience is more a continuum than a "switch." The more complex the organism, the more characteristics of sentience manifest. It's why many scientists describe sentience as an "emergent property."