*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, 11:23 PM
RE: *HELP* Addressing an argument (partially); Freethinking Argument Against Naturalism
Atheists love to label themselves as “freethinkers.”

To which atheists does he refer in his first sentence? I am sure some do. I am also some don't care.

However, if they happen to be right, about the non-existence of God, it follows that it’s highly implausible that the immaterial aspect of humanity called a “soul” exists.

So he agrees with us? There appears not to be a soul, therefore no god. Seems based in common sense.

This has led me to the conclusion that it is impossible for an atheist to really be a “free thinker!”

How does one come to this conclusion?

Sure, they can join the club and call themselves “freethinkers,” but if they happen to be right about the non-existence of God, atheists cannot freely think anything. No one could.

What on earth does this even mean? He is stating God must exist for anyone to be free? His proof?

This is because if God and soul do not exist, I don’t see how anyone could ever freely think about good evidence and argumentation and choose to think rationally to come to the most logical conclusions. Let me demonstrate this in an argument I crafted called, “Tim Stratton’s Freethinking Argument Against Naturalism” (FAAN):

Argument from ignorance/ Avatar/ Mad Max/ Donkey Kong?

1- If naturalism is true, the immaterial human soul does not exist.

What exactly is this immaterial human soul?

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

As far as I am aware, the only things truly "determined" are death and taxes.

3- If libertarian free will does not exist, rationality and knowledge do not exist.

Evidence of this supposed fact?

4- Rationality and knowledge exist.

Agreed. (Although perhaps not in this strange essay)

5- Therefore, libertarian free will exists.

Free will as an idea is in itself an apology for faults in scripture. The idea itself cannot encompass or excuse everything. For example, people do not get cancer via free will. They sometimes have a freedom of choice, but this is largely dependant on when and where they are born.

6- Therefore, the soul exists.

Please provide proof of this assertion.

7- Therefore, naturalism is false.

Please provide proof of this assertion.

8- The best explanation for the existence of the soul is God.

God of the gaps??? Please provide proof of both god or gods and the soul.

For my fellow logic geeks out there, here is my syllogism in symbolic form to demonstrate that the Freethinking Argument Against Naturalism is “mathematically” valid:

iPhone 6331. N → ¬ S

2. ¬ S → ¬ LFW

3. ¬ LFW → ¬ R & ¬ K

4. R & K

5. R & K → LFW

6. LFW → S

7. S → ¬ N


RLRL RLRL

LRLR LRLR

RRLL RRLL

LLRR LLRR

RLRR LRLL

My proof? Exercises 1 to 5 Stick Control. Author, George Lawrence Stone.

The rest of his argument is simply the author repeating his assertions while offering zero evidence.

I could go on in my light hearted way making fun of him, but life is too short.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Banjo's post
06-09-2015, 11:52 PM
RE: *HELP* Addressing an argument (partially); Freethinking Argument Against Naturalism
Reading through those excellent replies a thought occurs...

The Islamic god is supposed to be the same as the christian god.
Islam contains no freewill as everything (including disbelief) is by the will of Allah.
There is no freewill in Islam, it's fully deterministic.

If freewill then no god.

Cool.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
07-09-2015, 06:43 AM
RE: *HELP* Addressing an argument (partially); Freethinking Argument Against Naturalism
(06-09-2015 04:07 PM)JoeC.Meadow Wrote:  Salutations! I have recently sparked a conversation with a friend of mine who happens to be an apologist with an masters degree in apologetics from Biola University.

He has been doing research for 3 years on his thesis and has formulated a rather short argument against naturalism, which can be read here; http://freakengministries.com/freethinki...-oxymorons

I have objections to most of his premises and of course his conclusion, and I did post a brief comment about the first premise. I would like a second opinion on my objection and maybe a little insight to his responses to my objection and if I may be missing the point entirely or committing a fallacy.

The apologist is right, and you shouldn't be afraid to agree with him. There's no such as "free-thinking". All thoughts are fretted by the same things that effect all thoughts, and our minds are not particularly built for it, with an inescapable willingness to except falsehoods, and a series of impediments that make "free thinking" possible. Your thoughts are all products of the laws of physics, laws which we have no real control over, nor could we violate bar some miracle.

Why else does pretty much everyone refer to them self as a rational thinker? Even when they believe silly things.

There's no reason to believe we can "freely-think" anymore so than my dog, or iPad does. It's all just an illusion.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-09-2015, 06:50 AM
RE: *HELP* Addressing an argument (partially); Freethinking Argument Against Naturalism
(06-09-2015 10:24 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(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.

Right, but his premise only holds if there are 2 options which is false. There could be more. Premise 1 is a false dichotomy and therefore fallacious.

"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
07-09-2015, 06:59 AM
RE: *HELP* Addressing an argument (partially); Freethinking Argument Against Naturalism
(07-09-2015 06:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(06-09-2015 04:07 PM)JoeC.Meadow Wrote:  Salutations! I have recently sparked a conversation with a friend of mine who happens to be an apologist with an masters degree in apologetics from Biola University.

He has been doing research for 3 years on his thesis and has formulated a rather short argument against naturalism, which can be read here; http://freakengministries.com/freethinki...-oxymorons

I have objections to most of his premises and of course his conclusion, and I did post a brief comment about the first premise. I would like a second opinion on my objection and maybe a little insight to his responses to my objection and if I may be missing the point entirely or committing a fallacy.

The apologist is right, and you shouldn't be afraid to agree with him. There's no such as "free-thinking". All thoughts are fretted by the same things that effect all thoughts, and our minds are not particularly built for it, with an inescapable willingness to except falsehoods, and a series of impediments that make "free thinking" possible. Your thoughts are all products of the laws of physics, laws which we have no real control over, nor could we violate bar some miracle.

Why else does pretty much everyone refer to them self as a rational thinker? Even when they believe silly things.

There's no reason to believe we can "freely-think" anymore so than my dog, or iPad does. It's all just an illusion.

FYI, Tom is an ignorant troll who does not do any research and refuses to listen to others. His opinion on this is as useful as a football bat.

Example: http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...led?page=9

"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
07-09-2015, 07:03 AM
RE: *HELP* Addressing an argument (partially); Freethinking Argument Against Naturalism
(07-09-2015 06:59 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  FYI, Tom is an ignorant troll who does not do any research and refuses to listen to others. His opinion on this is as useful as a football bat.

Example: http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...led?page=9

I don't have a page 9. Tongue

And he's useful as an example. Wink

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
07-09-2015, 07:08 AM (This post was last modified: 07-09-2015 07:19 AM by epronovost.)
RE: *HELP* Addressing an argument (partially); Freethinking Argument Against Naturalism
Free thinker is a label atheists sometime use for the following reason. A free thinker, in that context, is an individual that doesn't hold a dogma. A dogma, in that specific context, is a principle or set of principle laid down by a superior authority that is completely true no matter the circumstances and that doesn't need to be demonstrated. Thus, the free thinker is person who isn't specifically religious, but not necessarily atheist, and isn't part of a congregation. In that context, his argument is a strawmen. Furthermore, I don't think the absence of God disprove the existence of souls neither the existence of God proves it. His greatest failure was not to address what was free thinking/free thinker, what was the soul, what was God and how all those thing are necessarily related. It's very easy to make a valid argument (he pretty much failed at that). It's another thing to make one that is both valid and sound.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes epronovost's post
07-09-2015, 07:26 AM
RE: *HELP* Addressing an argument (partially); Freethinking Argument Against Naturalism
(07-09-2015 06:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  ...
There's no such as "free-thinking".
...
There's no reason to believe we can "freely-think" anymore so than my dog, or iPad does. It's all just an illusion.

Free-thinker vs. thinking freely...

Oh! C'mon Tommy, you can do better than that.

Equivocation is unbecoming. You're stooping so low we can see your bum-crack.

Not a pretty sight.

No

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like DLJ's post
07-09-2015, 08:31 AM
RE: *HELP* Addressing an argument (partially); Freethinking Argument Against Naturalism
(07-09-2015 07:26 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(07-09-2015 06:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  ...
There's no such as "free-thinking".
...
There's no reason to believe we can "freely-think" anymore so than my dog, or iPad does. It's all just an illusion.

Free-thinker vs. thinking freely...

Oh! C'mon Tommy, you can do better than that.

Equivocation is unbecoming. You're stooping so low we can see your bum-crack.

Not a pretty sight.

No

I'm just fiddling around, trying to play the devil's advocate here to kill some time.

But what's the difference between "free-thinking" and "thinking-freely"?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-09-2015, 08:51 AM (This post was last modified: 07-09-2015 09:19 AM by Chas.)
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.

Steps 5, 6, and 7 are all incorrect. A → B says nothing about what B implies nor what ¬A implies.

A → B == ¬A V B (inclusive or)
If ¬A is true and/or B is true, then A → B is true.

So, N → ¬S says that ¬N V ¬S which implies that if N → ¬ S is true, then both ¬N V S and N V ¬S are true, so either N or ¬N can be True.
Code:
N  S  ¬S  N → ¬S
-  -  --  ------
T  T   F    F
T  F   T    T
F  T   F    T
F  F   T    T

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: