*HELP* Addressing an argument (partially); Freethinking Argument Against Naturalism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-09-2015, 07:50 PM
RE: *HELP* Addressing an argument (partially); Freethinking Argument Against Naturalism
Quote:1- If naturalism is true, the immaterial human soul does not exist.

2- If the soul does not exist, libertarian free will does not exist.

Tell him to prove that "If the soul does not exist, libertarian free will does not exist."

He won't. He cannot.

He's done.

Thank you, that will be all.

Bowing

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2015, 08:30 PM
RE: *HELP* Addressing an argument (partially); Freethinking Argument Against Naturalism
(06-09-2015 07:07 PM)JoeC.Meadow Wrote:  Thanks for all the replies! Also, I apologize for the link on the first post I must have not read the rules as carefully as I thought I did. I'll be sure to bring up some of these objections the next time I speak to my friend.

Send him a link, we'll run him through the wringer. We can give a far more detailed analysis if he wishes. I wrote that while taking a dump. No metaphor intended.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes The Organic Chemist's post
06-09-2015, 09:03 PM
RE: *HELP* Addressing an argument (partially); Freethinking Argument Against Naturalism
I don't know... this math stuff just looks like the Chewbacca defense to me.

1. N → ¬ S
2. ¬ S → ¬ LFW
3. ¬ LFW → ¬ R & ¬ K
4. R & K
5. R & K → LFW
6. LFW → S
7. S → ¬ N

At any rate, Joe, I'm sure everyone else here can help you with your reply to your friend. This isn't really my area, but if you need help debunking Jesus or Christianity, I'm a halfway decent resource for that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2015, 09:17 PM (This post was last modified: 06-09-2015 09:41 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: *HELP* Addressing an argument (partially); Freethinking Argument Against Naturalism
Is a Master's degree from Biola equivalent to about a Sixth Grade education at a real school ?

What is their acceptance rate ? Like 95 % ? Facepalm

So I read about a paragraph. Don't they teach critical thinking and what the definition of a non-sequitur is ? His paper is extremely poorly written. A pile of presuppositions.
A 3rd grader could refute every sentence.
Tell your friend congratulations. He wasted a boatload of money on that dump.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
06-09-2015, 09:20 PM
RE: *HELP* Addressing an argument (partially); Freethinking Argument Against Naturalism
(06-09-2015 09:03 PM)Aliza Wrote:  I don't know... this math stuff just looks like the Chewbacca defense to me.

1. N → ¬ S
2. ¬ S → ¬ LFW
3. ¬ LFW → ¬ R & ¬ K
4. R & K
5. R & K → LFW
6. LFW → S
7. S → ¬ N

At any rate, Joe, I'm sure everyone else here can help you with your reply to your friend. This isn't really my area, but if you need help debunking Jesus or Christianity, I'm a halfway decent resource for that.

Fixed

1. I → ¬ D
2. ¬ O → ¬ N'T
3. ¬ UND → ¬ E & ¬ R
4. S & T
5. A & N → DNO
6. NBE → L
7. LI → ¬ EF

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
06-09-2015, 09:47 PM
RE: *HELP* Addressing an argument (partially); Freethinking Argument Against Naturalism
(06-09-2015 09:20 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(06-09-2015 09:03 PM)Aliza Wrote:  I don't know... this math stuff just looks like the Chewbacca defense to me.

1. N → ¬ S
2. ¬ S → ¬ LFW
3. ¬ LFW → ¬ R & ¬ K
4. R & K
5. R & K → LFW
6. LFW → S
7. S → ¬ N

At any rate, Joe, I'm sure everyone else here can help you with your reply to your friend. This isn't really my area, but if you need help debunking Jesus or Christianity, I'm a halfway decent resource for that.

Fixed

1. I → ¬ D
2. ¬ O → ¬ N'T
3. ¬ UND → ¬ E & ¬ R
4. S & T
5. A & N → DNO
6. NBE → L
7. LI → ¬ EF

[Image: 54736460.jpg]

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Full Circle's post
06-09-2015, 09:49 PM
RE: *HELP* Addressing an argument (partially); Freethinking Argument Against Naturalism
When I counted three logical fallacies I stopped reading. I'm sure there were more.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2015, 10:07 PM
RE: *HELP* Addressing an argument (partially); Freethinking Argument Against Naturalism
For the sake of completeness, let's get a full, point-by-point rebuttal here.

Premise one is fine.

Premise two is a non sequitur, ignoring the concept of compatibilist free will. That concept is also incoherent, but this premise is still fallacious.

Premise three is another complete non sequitur. Neither the concept of knowledge nor the concept of rationality require that free will exist. This premise is completely nonsensical.

Premise four is fine.

Premise five is invalid, due to the above noted objection to P3 and GirlyMan's noted failure to understand logical implication. Even discarding every other objection listed here, the argument collapses in on itself at this point.

Premises six through seven are unnecessary to respond to given the above points.

Premise eight is another non sequitur. Even assuming that the argument up until this point is both valid and sound - and it is neither of these things - the existence of souls is in no way evidence for the existence of a god.

And, in case your friend is unaware, the non sequitur is the most absolutely basic of logical fallacies.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
06-09-2015, 10:09 PM
RE: *HELP* Addressing an argument (partially); Freethinking Argument Against Naturalism
(06-09-2015 10:07 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  For the sake of completeness, let's get a full, point-by-point rebuttal here.

Premise one is fine.

Premise two is a non sequitur, ignoring the concept of compatibilist free will. That concept is also incoherent, but this premise is still fallacious.

Premise three is another complete non sequitur. Neither the concept of knowledge nor the concept of rationality require that free will exist. This premise is completely nonsensical.

Premise four is fine.

Premise five is invalid, due to the above noted objection to P3 and GirlyMan's noted failure to understand logical implication. Even discarding every other objection listed here, the argument collapses in on itself at this point.

Premises six through seven are unnecessary to respond to given the above points.

Premise eight is another non sequitur. Even assuming that the argument up until this point is both valid and sound - and it is neither of these things - the existence of souls is in no way evidence for the existence of a god.

And, in case your friend is unaware, the non sequitur is the most absolutely basic of logical fallacies.

How is premise one fine?

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-09-2015, 10:24 PM (This post was last modified: 06-09-2015 10:28 PM by Unbeliever.)
RE: *HELP* Addressing an argument (partially); Freethinking Argument Against Naturalism
(06-09-2015 10:09 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  How is premise one fine?

Most people consider the soul, by definition, to be supernatural. If it exists, it must be in some way "beyond the realm of science" or some such nonsense. Immeasurable, not subject to determinism, and so on. This often puts them into the realm of garage dragons, and my thoughts on them have been recorded numerous times elsewhere, but they are, at least, not compatible with naturalism.

There is an argument to be made that certain formulations of the soul concept could be compatible with naturalism, but I assume that none of those formulations are the ones in play here, given that the author of the argument is a Christian apologist. So, for the sake of not getting into a tangential side discussion about the precise nature of the soul and its interaction with naturalist philosophy, I am willing to accept the premise that souls are inherently supernatural.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: