Can Atheism Account For Rationality

[carpedm9587]

Wait, so it is only "mind reading" when I get it wrong?

No - that's not what I said either. Let me see if I can give you some examples:

Person A: I think what you are saying means "X"
Person B: That's correct, that's what I meant when I spoke/wrote.

No mind reading. Simple validation,

Person A: I think what you are saying means "X"
Person B: That's incorrect, what I meant when I spoke/wrote was "Y."
Person A: Got it!

No mind reading. Simple validation.

Person A: I think what you are saying means "X"
Person B: That's incorrect, what I meant when I spoke/wrote was "Y."
Person A: I don't believe you. I think you meant to say "X"

Mind reading.

Person A: I think you are feeling (or motivated by) "X"
Person B: That's incorrect, what I am feeling (or motivated by) "Y."
Person A: Got it

No mind reading. Simple validation

Person A: I think you are feeling (or motivated by) "X"
Person B: That's incorrect, what I am feeling (or motivated by) is "Y."
Person A: I don't believe you. You are actually feeling (or motivated by) "X"

Mind reading.

See the difference?

[seer]

Again - asserted/assumed. Not shown.

You mean like your assumptions about rationality?

[Sparko]

No - that's not what I said either. Let me see if I can give you some examples:

Person A: I think what you are saying means "X"
Person B: That's correct, that's what I meant when I spoke/wrote.

No mind reading. Simple validation,

Person A: I think what you are saying means "X"
Person B: That's incorrect, what I meant when I spoke/wrote was "Y."
Person A: Got it!

No mind reading. Simple validation.

Person A: I think what you are saying means "X"
Person B: That's incorrect, what I meant when I spoke/wrote was "Y."
Person A: I don't believe you. I think you meant to say "X"

Mind reading.

Person A: I think you are feeling (or motivated by) "X"
Person B: That's incorrect, what I am feeling (or motivated by) "Y."
Person A: Got it

No mind reading. Simple validation

Person A: I think you are feeling (or motivated by) "X"
Person B: That's incorrect, what I am feeling (or motivated by) is "Y."
Person A: I don't believe you. You are actually feeling (or motivated by) "X"

Mind reading.

See the difference?

So if I think you are lying, THEN it is "mind reading" - Got it.


...Or you could be lying.

[carpedm9587]

So if I think you are lying, THEN it is "mind reading" - Got it.


...Or you could be lying.

If you insist you know what is in my mind, then you are mind reading. It's not that difficult. Lying requires intent, so it gets you into the person's mind. Is that valid? If the person can be shown to have said something that is false, and to have been provided with the evidence it is false, and they still perpetuate the false statement - I have no problem saying "you are lying." Trump lies regularly and I know it on that basis.

I was going to write more, but my "you're getting defensive" radar just went off. So I'll leave it at that.

[Sparko]

If you insist you know what is in my mind, then you are mind reading. It's not that difficult.

I am just pulling your leg carp.

But you DO often complain about mind reading before correcting what you actually meant, and when asked you just say "I already answered that"

[seer]

I am accepting it as true prima facie until someone shows me it isn't (which is what prima facie means). Any attempt to explain WHY I accept it as true will necessarily involve circularity. That is a problem we ALL have. You asked me why I accept it as true, so I tried to answer your question. But I am under no illusion that this does not involve circularity.

I'm not asking you to explain, I'm saying you have reasons for why you accept something as self-evident, and that these reasons must preceded the choice of what you accept as self-evident. Which makes your choice circular. If you had no reason or standard for deciding what is or is not self-evident your choice could and would include everything and anything.

[carpedm9587]

You mean like your assumptions about rationality?

Those are necessary. Yours are not. I can use and apply the principles of rationality without knowing their source. There is no need for me to accept your claims about the source of logical universals/absolutes prima facie. I can get along quite well with "we can't know that."

[carpedm9587]

I am just pulling your leg carp.

But you DO often complain about mind reading before correcting what you actually meant, and when asked you just say "I already answered that"

I'll keep an eye out for it.

[carpedm9587]

I'm not asking you to explain, I'm saying you have reasons for why you accept something as self-evident, and that these reasons must preceded the choice of what you accept as self-evident.

And every one of those reasons will be circular. And you actually HAVE been asking me to explain the basis for accepting these as true prima facie.

Which makes your choice circular.

Yes it does. Just exactly how many times do I have to agree that any attempt to explain why the logical absolutes/universals are true is necessarily circular?

If you had no reason or standard for deciding what is or is not self-evident your choice could and would include everything and anything.

I include only those things where I have no choice but to do so.

[seer]

Those are necessary. Yours are not. I can use and apply the principles of rationality without knowing their source. There is no need for me to accept your claims about the source of logical universals/absolutes prima facie. I can get along quite well with "we can't know that."

How do you know my assumption of a rational, universal God is not necessary?

[carpedm9587]

How do you know my assumption of a rational, universal God is not necessary?

Because I can use the principles of logic quite successfully without knowing the truth of that proposition. I cannot use logic successfully without knowing those principles are true. I cannot prove they are true, so it is assumed. By all of us.

So, Seer, let's try another question and see if we can get an answer in fewer than dozens of posts this time.

On what basis do you accept that the basic principles of logic are true?

[seer]

And every one of those reasons will be circular. And you actually HAVE been asking me to explain the basis for accepting these as true prima facie.



Yes it does. Just exactly how many times do I have to agree that any attempt to explain why the logical absolutes/universals are true is necessarily circular?



I include only those things where I have no choice but to do so.

The point Carp, is that prima facie is not so prima facie - it takes reasons and standards to even accept or discover a prima facie truth. Which means your acceptance of any prima facie truth is based on circular reasoning. And that you accept that result as valid.

[seer]

On what basis do you accept that the basic principles of logic are true?

The Bible, in the beginning was the Word i.e. the logos, the logic, reason...

[carpedm9587]

The point Carp, is that prima facie is not so prima facie - it takes reasons and standards to even accept or discover a prima facie truth. Which mean your acceptance of any prima facie truth is based on circular reasoning. And that you accept that result as valid.

No. The truth of the propositions is not BASED on the circular reasoning. Such a claim would be absurd and (as noted multiple times now) circular. The principles of logic are not true BECAUSE of the list of reasons I gave you. Those reasons do not CAUSE the truth of the principles.

P1 If a person likes pizza, they should have it for lunch.
P2 I like pizza
C) I should have pizza for lunch

The truth value of the conclusion depends on the truth value of the premises. One can say that the truth of the premises causes the truth of the conclusion. No such argument is possible for the basic rules of logic themselves. They are not true BECAUSE my mind cannot grasp otherwise. They are not true BECAUSE they work.

We accept them as true as a pure assumption. We don't know what causes them - why they exist - how they came to be - and we cannot even prove they are absolute/universal. We simply accept that they are true and that this truth is absolute/universal - and we work from there. We essentially have no choice in making this assumption. If we do not - then there is nothing we can say at all.

We ALL do - including you. But that also means that any attempt you make to use these principles to make statements about these principals involves you in a logical loop and logical loops say nothing.

[carpedm9587]

The Bible, in the beginning was the Word i.e. the logos, the logic, reason...

And how do you know the premises and conclusions put forward in the bible are true?

(This is a unique dynamic in our exchanges. I'm not used to you actually answering questions! )