Evidence? Screw that!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-07-2014, 10:42 AM
RE: Evidence? Screw that!
(22-07-2014 10:38 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(22-07-2014 10:35 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  .... and, uh, even if I were to grant that we can't entirely trust our noodles (and I do grant that, to a degree, just not to the degree you seem to take it)... what does that have to do with atheism? Doesn't that cut against theism JUST as strongly, if not more strongly? If anything, basing conclusions on external evidence and withholding belief until such evidence is discovered reduces our reliance upon our fallible minds and somewhat diminishes the problem. If we can't trust our minds when they conclude that the existence of deities is not to be credited, why should we suddenly start trusting our minds if we reached the conclusion that a deity did exist? The problem of soft solipsism has nothing to do with theism/atheism. Nothing at all. It's like pointing to the difference between blue and green and arguing that this is proof of God. Totally irrelevant red herring.

If you believe our minds can't be trusted, you don't.

That binary rendering is a straw-man of what I said on the subject.

Which was... very little, and is ultimately a quibble compared to the point I was making, one you utterly ignored.

WHAT DOES THE RELIABILITY OF OUR MINDS, WHATEVER THE DEGREE OF THAT RELIABILITY MIGHT BE, HAVE TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT SOME GOD EXISTS?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2014, 10:44 AM
RE: Evidence? Screw that!
(22-07-2014 10:41 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  I see you've finally resorted to ad homenims. Pity, you were doing so well. I actually thought you might be able to help me. Hobo

No one can help you if you don't help yourself.

PS. What ad hominems?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2014, 10:45 AM
RE: Evidence? Screw that!
(22-07-2014 10:42 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(22-07-2014 10:38 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  If you believe our minds can't be trusted, you don't.

That binary rendering is a straw-man of what I said on the subject.

Which was... very little, and is ultimately a quibble compared to the point I was making, one you utterly ignored.

WHAT DOES THE RELIABILITY OF OUR MINDS, WHATEVER THE DEGREE OF THAT RELIABILITY MIGHT BE, HAVE TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT SOME GOD EXISTS?

Only the very method we use to ascertain the truth. The problem here is, naturalism is self-contradictory. God is necessary for anything to make sense.

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2014, 10:47 AM
RE: Evidence? Screw that!
(22-07-2014 10:44 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  No one can help you if you don't help yourself.

That would require circular reasoning.

(22-07-2014 10:44 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  PS. What ad hominems?

Accusing me of being a "troll"

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2014, 10:52 AM
RE: Evidence? Screw that!
(22-07-2014 10:45 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(22-07-2014 10:42 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  WHAT DOES THE RELIABILITY OF OUR MINDS, WHATEVER THE DEGREE OF THAT RELIABILITY MIGHT BE, HAVE TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT SOME GOD EXISTS?

Only the very method we use to ascertain the truth. The problem here is, naturalism is self-contradictory. God is necessary for anything to make sense.

What does naturalism have to do with the reliability of our minds?

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2014, 10:53 AM
RE: Evidence? Screw that!
(22-07-2014 10:52 AM)Dom Wrote:  
(22-07-2014 10:45 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  Only the very method we use to ascertain the truth. The problem here is, naturalism is self-contradictory. God is necessary for anything to make sense.

What does naturalism have to do with the reliability of our minds?

Goodness, you're slow. If naturalism is true, our minds are nothing more than soup, and we have no basis for trusting ANYTHING that comes out of them.

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2014, 10:55 AM
RE: Evidence? Screw that!
(22-07-2014 10:45 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(22-07-2014 10:42 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  That binary rendering is a straw-man of what I said on the subject.

Which was... very little, and is ultimately a quibble compared to the point I was making, one you utterly ignored.

WHAT DOES THE RELIABILITY OF OUR MINDS, WHATEVER THE DEGREE OF THAT RELIABILITY MIGHT BE, HAVE TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT SOME GOD EXISTS?

Only the very method we use to ascertain the truth. The problem here is, naturalism is self-contradictory. God is necessary for anything to make sense.

Still a non-sequitur. Even if I were to grant you your starting premises... which I don't... that wouldn't demonstrate the existence of a god. That would simply establish solipsism in the absence of a knowable god. It would be like falling from thousands of feet in the air without a parachute, and saying, "This is proof that God exists, because otherwise, I'm doomed to go splat!" You would first need to show that you're not going to go splat, and then MAYBE that would be evidence of divine intervention. Or perhaps some natural, previously-uncatalogued phenomena, but that's beside the point. The point is that simply stating what you perceive to be the consequences of a god's non-existence and identifying them as undesirable, doesn't prove that this god exists.

In other words, even if I were to believe your argument that God is necessary for anything to make sense... which I don't... that wouldn't mean that God actually exists. Not unless you first prove that the universe makes sense.

Sure, we can get into the rest of the argument. But without the fallacy of "undesirable consequence of not-A implies A", it's completely irrelevant to the question of whether some god exists.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
22-07-2014, 10:57 AM
RE: Evidence? Screw that!
(22-07-2014 10:55 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(22-07-2014 10:45 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  Only the very method we use to ascertain the truth. The problem here is, naturalism is self-contradictory. God is necessary for anything to make sense.

Still a non-sequitur. Even if I were to grant you your starting premises... which I don't... that wouldn't demonstrate the existence of a god. That would simply establish solipsism in the absence of a knowable god. It would be like falling from thousands of feet in the air without a parachute, and saying, "This is proof that God exists, because otherwise, I'm doomed to go splat!" You would first need to show that you're not going to go splat, and then MAYBE that would be evidence of divine intervention. Or perhaps some natural, previously-uncatalogued phenomena, but that's beside the point. The point is that simply stating what you perceive to be the consequences of a god's non-existence and identifying them as undesirable, doesn't prove that this god exists.

In other words, even if I were to believe your argument that God is necessary for anything to make sense... which I don't... that wouldn't mean that God actually exists. Not unless you first prove that the universe makes sense.

Sure, we can get into the rest of the argument. But without the fallacy of "undesirable consequence of not-A implies A", it's completely irrelevant to the question of whether some god exists.

That entire argument relies on naturalism.

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2014, 11:00 AM
RE: Evidence? Screw that!
(22-07-2014 10:57 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(22-07-2014 10:55 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  Still a non-sequitur. Even if I were to grant you your starting premises... which I don't... that wouldn't demonstrate the existence of a god. That would simply establish solipsism in the absence of a knowable god. It would be like falling from thousands of feet in the air without a parachute, and saying, "This is proof that God exists, because otherwise, I'm doomed to go splat!" You would first need to show that you're not going to go splat, and then MAYBE that would be evidence of divine intervention. Or perhaps some natural, previously-uncatalogued phenomena, but that's beside the point. The point is that simply stating what you perceive to be the consequences of a god's non-existence and identifying them as undesirable, doesn't prove that this god exists.

In other words, even if I were to believe your argument that God is necessary for anything to make sense... which I don't... that wouldn't mean that God actually exists. Not unless you first prove that the universe makes sense.

Sure, we can get into the rest of the argument. But without the fallacy of "undesirable consequence of not-A implies A", it's completely irrelevant to the question of whether some god exists.

That entire argument relies on naturalism.

My COUNTERargument essentially boils down to "you claim the universe only makes sense if there's a God, therefore God, but your proof is incomplete unless you show that the universe makes sense." That's the basic structure of a syllogism. It needs a minor premise. (EDIT: Also, I don't think you've done a good job of establishing the major premise, but that wasn't what I was dwelling on earlier.) How is that reliant on naturalism?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
22-07-2014, 11:02 AM
RE: Evidence? Screw that!
(22-07-2014 10:53 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(22-07-2014 10:52 AM)Dom Wrote:  What does naturalism have to do with the reliability of our minds?

Goodness, you're slow. If naturalism is true, our minds are nothing more than soup, and we have no basis for trusting ANYTHING that comes out of them.

While it is entirely possible that our mind is a speck of awareness compared to what may or may not exist that we cannot perceive, I don't see how naturalism necessitates our brains to be soup.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: