How would you deal with this argument?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-05-2014, 10:10 PM
RE: How would you deal with this argument?
(21-05-2014 10:05 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(21-05-2014 10:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, dildo, we have science. Science is the way to make sure we're not fooling ourselves.

Science is just as fallable and untrustworthy as your brain.

You don't understand science. It's a methodology that is inherently self-correcting.

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
[+] 7 users Like Chas's post
21-05-2014, 10:26 PM
RE: How would you deal with this argument?
(21-05-2014 09:59 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(21-05-2014 09:58 PM)sporehux Wrote:  Hobo who the fuck would trust their own brain, thats why we think things over. And go with the best options for the situation and always revising them, taking into account peer feedback.

Only some loony would trust their brain, its a menageree of evolutionary steps or the product of a retarded deity.

That argument you made comes from your brain. You've contradicted yourself.

No as I said we arrive at the best guess and filter it through the environmental situation and with peer review/feedback.
No decision you make should ever be considered absolutely correct its only ever a theory that its correct, and theorys are our best way to judge reality that we know of.
I don't know if there is a god, but I do know it fails as a theory.

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes sporehux's post
21-05-2014, 10:45 PM
RE: How would you deal with this argument?
(21-05-2014 09:46 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  Without God, I have no reason to think that my brain can be trusted at all. Therefore, I can't use thought to disprove God. (Sort of like Eric Hovind's "Without God, ya can't know anything". His wording is quite poor though, since it leaves several loopholes.)

This line of reasoning has been hashed and rehashed in philosophy for literally hundred of years. Descartes is famous "Meditations on First Philosophy" brings up this exact point. He makes the "dream argument", whereby he argues that if is possible that, while in the context of a dream, you can perceive a false reality as if it is real, then is it not possible that all reality can be false? He later goes on to point out that all of our senses can be deceived, ergo no sense can be trusted. The only justification that Descartes gives for existence is that he can think about his own existence, therefore he must exist in order to do such thinking. He famously said in defense of his writings "I think, therefore I am".

Interestingly Descartes was a theist and believed the existence of God was self evident. A brilliant philosopher though he was, he was still a 15th century man reasoning on a 15th century understanding of the world.

More modern philosophers, like Nietzsche, barely consider whether or not an objective reality exists, nonetheless whether it can be perceived of without error. For Nietzsche, trying to contemplate reality irrespective of the observer make no sense. Reality is subjective because we are all subjects with limited knowledge and imperfect and limited faculties by which to interpret that reality. Therefore reality doesn't exist except in the context of how it is perceived by the observer.

If you really want to bend your head, contemplate this; in the absence of God and by virtue of living in a universe that is strictly governed by predictable rules and behavior such that it can be explained with mathematics (this is an assumption of course, there is much was still cannot explain), that means our brains too must the products of these same rigid rules. We don't have free will or perception, merely the illusion of free will and perception caused by a complex interactions of circumstances, causes, and stimuli. Similar to the way that a computer can only appear intelligent, but no matter how intelligent it may be it is still the expression of a regular and fixed logical expression (aka 'code'). This would mean that every action and every thought we ever had in our life was in effect "pre decided", that it was inevitable and fixed from the moment of the creation of the universe, and that if there was some observer with infinite knowledge and the ability to calculate the causes and effects, that observer could predict our ever thought and action before it happened. Kind of like lining up a very complex set of dominos, with the creation of the universe being the first (or perhaps second) event leading to a chain reaction.

For my part, on a philosophical level I believe that what I perceive as reality is in fact not reality, but merely electrical impulses interpreted by my brain. In addition to that I believe that the universe is very likely completely deterministic and as such my free will is in a sense a delusion. On a practical level though, I don't lead my day to day life this way. It doesn't do much good to consider that all my decisions where fixed from my birth whenever I am confronted with some difficult problem and I need a resolution, and when I make a judgement based on my reasoning and my senses it isn't much helpful to second guess them because of the inherent fallibility of my organ brain. I live my life, almost under the conscience delusion, that my sense are entirely reliable (with some caveats of course), my reasoning sound and accurate, and that I do have free will and can conscious navigation through this world.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Michael_Tadlock's post
21-05-2014, 10:58 PM
RE: How would you deal with this argument?
(21-05-2014 09:46 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  Without God, I have no reason to think that my brain can be trusted at all. Therefore, I can't use thought to disprove God. (Sort of like Eric Hovind's "Without God, ya can't know anything". His wording is quite poor though, since it leaves several loopholes.)

I would deal with it by telling the fucking idiot who trolled it here to go fuck itself.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
21-05-2014, 11:02 PM
RE: How would you deal with this argument?
(21-05-2014 10:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-05-2014 10:05 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  Science is just as fallable and untrustworthy as your brain.

You don't understand science. It's a methodology that is inherently self-correcting.

DildoLaughat Science does not trust single brains, one brain proposes an idea and many other brains work very hard to disprove it. If an idea (or theory) cannot be proven false
it will be taken into consideration, then, maybe, after years of consideration it will be taken as fact. (until further EVIDENCE proves otherwise)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like pablo's post
21-05-2014, 11:02 PM
RE: How would you deal with this argument?
(21-05-2014 09:46 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  Without God, I have no reason to think that my brain can be trusted at all. Therefore, I can't use thought to disprove God. (Sort of like Eric Hovind's "Without God, ya can't know anything". His wording is quite poor though, since it leaves several loopholes.)

Well, you obviously have nothing else to go on then. So you suck it up and do the best you can. If that's not good enough, I don't know what to tell you.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes evenheathen's post
22-05-2014, 03:43 AM
RE: How would you deal with this argument?
(21-05-2014 09:46 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  Without God, I have no reason to think that my brain can be trusted at all. Therefore, I can't use thought to disprove God. (Sort of like Eric Hovind's "Without God, ya can't know anything". His wording is quite poor though, since it leaves several loopholes.)

How would I deal with that argument? Do you want to know my philosophical answer to that or what my real world applicable and honest answer to that is?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2014, 04:04 AM
RE: How would you deal with this argument?
(21-05-2014 09:46 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  Without God, I have no reason to think that my brain can be trusted at all. Therefore, I can't use thought to disprove God. (Sort of like Eric Hovind's "Without God, ya can't know anything". His wording is quite poor though, since it leaves several loopholes.)

Ok, the problem with this one is that it goes back to being circular, and you can't draw conclusions from circular arguments:

Without God, I have no reason to think that my brain can be trusted at all.

God (is a concept which) is a product of my brain.

Hence,

Without a product of my brain, I have no reason to think that my brain can be trusted at all.

If you don't have reasons to trust your brain to begin with, then a product of your brain cannot stitch the gap for you, since you don't have a reason to trust your brain.


Ultimate lesson to learn: You have to assume that you can trust your brain at least to some degree, unless you wish to deny everything.

Τί ἐστιν ἀλήθεια?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like John's post
22-05-2014, 04:09 AM (This post was last modified: 22-05-2014 08:46 AM by Mathilda.)
RE: How would you deal with this argument?
(21-05-2014 09:46 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  I have no reason to think that my brain can be trusted at all.

This argument relies on binary thinking which is so prevalent with Christian arguments. The world is not black and white. We can trust our brains most of the time. If we couldn't then we wouldn't be able to have this conversation on the internet right now.

Even the very concept of trust is ambiguous here. Trust our brains to do what exactly?


(21-05-2014 09:46 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  Without God, I have no reason to think that my brain can be trusted at all.

Adding the first two words in the sentence back in, why should we trust the concept of God when the only evidence we have is that it was created by humans?


(21-05-2014 09:46 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  Therefore, I can't use thought to disprove God.

Or anything else according to the argument. But we know that our brains can disprove things 100%. We have logical and mathematical proofs for that. And for everything else we have the scientific method for collecting evidence so that we know certain things have a negligible chance of being correct.

The argument is disingenuous because it is inserting "God" where you could insert anything else you choose. For example

Quote:Without leprechauns, I have no reason to think that my brain can be trusted at all. Therefore, I can't use thought to disprove the existence of leprechauns.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Mathilda's post
22-05-2014, 04:13 AM
RE: How would you deal with this argument?
dildo, I don't trust your brain.

A person very dear to me was badly hurt through a misunderstanding and miscommunication. For this, I am sorry, and he knows it. That said, any blaming me for malicious intent is for the birds. I will not wear some scarlet letter, I will not be anybody's whipping girl, and I will not lurk in silence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Charis's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: