Evidence? Screw that!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-07-2014, 11:03 AM
RE: Evidence? Screw that!
(22-07-2014 11:00 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(22-07-2014 10:57 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  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. How is that reliant on naturalism?

You haven't demonstrated that our minds can be trusted to reason properly.

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2014, 11:11 AM
RE: Evidence? Screw that!
(22-07-2014 11:03 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  You haven't demonstrated that our minds can be trusted to reason properly.

We don't have to.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2014, 11:12 AM
RE: Evidence? Screw that!
(22-07-2014 11:11 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(22-07-2014 11:03 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  You haven't demonstrated that our minds can be trusted to reason properly.

We don't have to.

You mean atheism doesn't require justification, while Christianity does? Gasp

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2014, 11:16 AM
RE: Evidence? Screw that!
(22-07-2014 11:03 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(22-07-2014 11:00 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  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. How is that reliant on naturalism?

You haven't demonstrated that our minds can be trusted to reason properly.

.... you need to stop using the word "naturalism". I don't think that word means what you think it means. My counterargument holds up just as well whether or not some supernatural non-deity (such as ghosts) were to exist. No presupposition of natural-elements-only is made. I ask again, how was that counterargument reliant upon naturalism?

And no, I haven't demonstrated that the mind is trustworthy. Not at all. Not in the slightest. You are correct that I have not demonstrated that. I have deliberately not addressed that, because it's a totally irrelevant red herring to the question of whether a god exists. What I'm asking, and what you won't answer, is how the fuck would the unreliability of the mind, if that were the case, demonstrate the existence of a god? Even if you could establish "it would be better/make more sense/correct this problem/whatever if this were so", that would not prove that it is so!

(22-07-2014 11:12 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(22-07-2014 11:11 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  We don't have to.

You mean atheism doesn't require justification, while Christianity does? Gasp

Atheism is essentially saying, "I'm not convinced (yet) of the existence of a god." That only requires justification in the face of overwhelming and clear evidence. Which has not been provided. Strong Atheists take a more strident position, with a positive claim that no gods exist. THAT would require justification. But vanilla atheism does not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2014, 11:18 AM
RE: Evidence? Screw that!
(22-07-2014 11:16 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(22-07-2014 11:03 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  You haven't demonstrated that our minds can be trusted to reason properly.

.... you need to stop using the word "naturalism". I don't think that word means what you think it means. My counterargument holds up just as well whether or not some supernatural non-deity (such as ghosts) were to exist. No presupposition of natural-elements-only is made. I ask again, how was that counterargument reliant upon naturalism?

And no, I haven't demonstrated that the mind is trustworthy. Not at all. Not in the slightest. You are correct that I have not demonstrated that. I have deliberately not addressed that, because it's a totally irrelevant red herring to the question of whether a god exists. What I'm asking, and what you won't answer, is how the fuck would the unreliability of the mind, if that were the case, demonstrate the existence of a god? Even if you could establish "it would be better/make more sense/correct this problem/whatever if this were so", that would not prove that it is so!

Your argument presupposes that our minds can be trusted.

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2014, 11:23 AM
RE: Evidence? Screw that!
(22-07-2014 11:18 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(22-07-2014 11:16 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  .... you need to stop using the word "naturalism". I don't think that word means what you think it means. My counterargument holds up just as well whether or not some supernatural non-deity (such as ghosts) were to exist. No presupposition of natural-elements-only is made. I ask again, how was that counterargument reliant upon naturalism?

And no, I haven't demonstrated that the mind is trustworthy. Not at all. Not in the slightest. You are correct that I have not demonstrated that. I have deliberately not addressed that, because it's a totally irrelevant red herring to the question of whether a god exists. What I'm asking, and what you won't answer, is how the fuck would the unreliability of the mind, if that were the case, demonstrate the existence of a god? Even if you could establish "it would be better/make more sense/correct this problem/whatever if this were so", that would not prove that it is so!

Your argument presupposes that our minds can be trusted.

So does yours.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
22-07-2014, 11:24 AM
RE: Evidence? Screw that!
(22-07-2014 11:12 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(22-07-2014 11:11 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  We don't have to.

You mean atheism doesn't require justification, while Christianity does? Gasp

This response is deliberately intellectually dishonest and is evidence of you trolling.

You said

(22-07-2014 11:03 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  You haven't demonstrated that our minds can be trusted to reason properly.

Your reply, which deliberately crops out what I was responding to, makes it look like you were saying that we haven't demonstrated that atheist minds can be trusted to reason properly.

0/10 Must troll harder.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mathilda's post
22-07-2014, 11:28 AM
RE: Evidence? Screw that!
(22-07-2014 11:16 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(22-07-2014 11:12 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  You mean atheism doesn't require justification, while Christianity does? Gasp

Atheism is essentially saying, "I'm not convinced (yet) of the existence of a god." That only requires justification in the face of overwhelming and clear evidence. Which has not been provided. Strong Atheists take a more strident position, with a positive claim that no gods exist. THAT would require justification. But vanilla atheism does not.

Not convinced, on the basis of what?

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2014, 11:33 AM (This post was last modified: 22-07-2014 11:39 AM by Reltzik.)
RE: Evidence? Screw that!
(22-07-2014 11:18 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(22-07-2014 11:16 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  .... you need to stop using the word "naturalism". I don't think that word means what you think it means. My counterargument holds up just as well whether or not some supernatural non-deity (such as ghosts) were to exist. No presupposition of natural-elements-only is made. I ask again, how was that counterargument reliant upon naturalism?

And no, I haven't demonstrated that the mind is trustworthy. Not at all. Not in the slightest. You are correct that I have not demonstrated that. I have deliberately not addressed that, because it's a totally irrelevant red herring to the question of whether a god exists. What I'm asking, and what you won't answer, is how the fuck would the unreliability of the mind, if that were the case, demonstrate the existence of a god? Even if you could establish "it would be better/make more sense/correct this problem/whatever if this were so", that would not prove that it is so!

Your argument presupposes that our minds can be trusted.

That's hardly a naturalism-only presupposition. But you know what? I don't need that presupposition. I'm advancing a counterargument. Its sole purpose is to demonstrate that your original argument is unreliable. If the only fault in that can be found with it is that arguments in general are unreliable because our minds are not trustworthy, then yes, you are advancing the proposition that my counterargument is unreliable. But you are also simultaneously and in equal measure advancing the proposition that YOUR argument is unreliable, for the same reason. If you could establish your proposition, and thus undermine my counterargument, you would also undermine your own original argument. Put another way:

Your claim that minds are not sufficiently trustworthy
: Implies, through itself, that your argument is unreliable.
The complimentary claim, that minds are sufficiently trustworthy: Allows my counterargument, showing your argument is unreliable.
Either way: Your original argument is unreliable, REGARDLESS of whether minds can be trusted. That question is utterly irrelevant to whether your original argument is a good one. It's a bad argument, full stop.

(22-07-2014 11:28 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(22-07-2014 11:16 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  Atheism is essentially saying, "I'm not convinced (yet) of the existence of a god." That only requires justification in the face of overwhelming and clear evidence. Which has not been provided. Strong Atheists take a more strident position, with a positive claim that no gods exist. THAT would require justification. But vanilla atheism does not.

Not convinced, on the basis of what?

On the basis of "I shouldn't automatically believe any wacky claim (or even unwacky claims) that is advanced to me, without a decent amount of persuasive evidence, good argumentation, or trust in the person advancing it". Without some burden of proof to be met before I'm convinced, I'd simultaneously believe that God DOES exist and that God does NOT exist, since both claims have been advanced to me. That's no way to establish whether something is true or false, and it WOULD make our minds totally unreliable. Not to mention batshit crazy.

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Reltzik's post
22-07-2014, 11:49 AM
RE: Evidence? Screw that!
(22-07-2014 11:23 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(22-07-2014 11:18 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  Your argument presupposes that our minds can be trusted.

So does yours.

Oh, he's a special little guy, ain't he?



... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: