Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-05-2015, 07:46 AM (This post was last modified: 19-05-2015 07:49 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
(18-05-2015 08:40 PM)OddGamer Wrote:  Soooo.... I have a video on YouTube I'm responding to. It's John Lennox basically saying that evolution cannot produce rationality you can trust. I countered that it would, and got this piece of epicness:.....

Have I missed something? Is my argument flawed? Is there anything I should add?


What do you mean by "it would"? That conscious, rational being such are ourselves as inevitable? That if we found another planet with life, that has been around at least as long as it has been on earth, we'd likely find rational, conscious being like ourselves?

If so, you'd likely be wrong. At best rational, conscious creatures like ourselves, are a one-off occurrence, likely not to be repeated. We're sort of a fluke.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2015, 08:06 AM
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
(18-05-2015 09:31 PM)OddGamer Wrote:  
(18-05-2015 09:13 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Rationality is the commitment to reason as one's only guide to knowledge and it rests on premises (the law of identity, the primacy of existence) which Christianity explicitly rejects. That's why rationality is a stolen concept for the Christian.

I understand how they're violating the primacy of existence (by suggesting that god created all of existence), but how are they against the law of identity?

According to the law of identity, A is A, and taken together with the primacy of existence this means that A is A independently of anyone's conscious activity. On the Christian world view, A is whatever the ruling consciousness deems it to be. So Water can be water one minute and wine the next, or you can say to the mountain move and it will move. Therefore nothing has a specific identity independent of conscious activity. So on the Christian worldview A is not A. Since the axioms of existence and identity are the same, to exist is to be something specific and to be something specific is to exist, then the Christian worldview also rejects the axiom of existence. This is why I laugh any time a Christian says that only his world view can account for reason and logic. Not without stealing these concepts when it is convenient and then throwing them away every time they claim that there God exists. Their fundamental premises are a literal reversal of what is true.

If you think about it, the Idea of God contradicts every fundamental principle that we know to be true. The axioms, the primacy of existence, the law of causality (God can make things act against their nature). Its a fallacyapallooza right from the first premise and this is why I am a strong Atheist. God is metaphysically impossible.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2015, 08:07 AM
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
(19-05-2015 07:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(18-05-2015 08:40 PM)OddGamer Wrote:  Soooo.... I have a video on YouTube I'm responding to. It's John Lennox basically saying that evolution cannot produce rationality you can trust. I countered that it would, and got this piece of epicness:.....

Have I missed something? Is my argument flawed? Is there anything I should add?


What do you mean by "it would"? That conscious, rational being such are ourselves as inevitable? That if we found another planet with life, that has been around at least as long as it has been on earth, we'd likely find rational, conscious being like ourselves?

If so, you'd likely be wrong. At best rational, conscious creatures like ourselves, are a one-off occurrence, likely not to be repeated. We're sort of a fluke.

How do you know this?

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
19-05-2015, 08:09 AM
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
(19-05-2015 07:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(18-05-2015 08:40 PM)OddGamer Wrote:  Soooo.... I have a video on YouTube I'm responding to. It's John Lennox basically saying that evolution cannot produce rationality you can trust. I countered that it would, and got this piece of epicness:.....

Have I missed something? Is my argument flawed? Is there anything I should add?


What do you mean by "it would"? That conscious, rational being such are ourselves as inevitable? That if we found another planet with life, that has been around at least as long as it has been on earth, we'd likely find rational, conscious being like ourselves?

If so, you'd likely be wrong. At best rational, conscious creatures like ourselves, are a one-off occurrence, likely not to be repeated. We're sort of a fluke.


1 - We're not rational by nature, we've evolved to be pattern seeking creatures that favor false-positive mistakes. There is millions of years of evolution behind our paranoia and our penchant for anthropocentrism (which is itself the basis for deification and god beliefs).

2 - If not us, there are plenty of other very intelligent species that may well have or would eventually take the mantle of dominant apex predator through use of intelligence. It all depends on the selective pressures in the environment, and how species adapt to those pressures.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
19-05-2015, 08:11 AM
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
(19-05-2015 08:06 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  So Water can be water one minute and wine the next, or you can say to the mountain move and it will move. .....
If you think about it, the Idea of God contradicts every fundamental principle that we know to be true.

So you're saying, if there were forces that could violate the laws of physics, or nature, this bring into question our capacities to be rational? That human rationality, and capacities to recognize what is true, are dependent on these laws being fixed?

I don't really get you argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2015, 08:12 AM (This post was last modified: 19-05-2015 08:26 AM by true scotsman.)
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
(19-05-2015 06:24 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(19-05-2015 04:45 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  I think Lennox is referring to the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism[1]

This argument basically goes like this:
1. If we evolved to our present state our reasoning should only be good enough to survive, and not infinitely good.
2. This would make me sad
Therefore, God.

2. This would make me sad Laughat
Bowing

Premise #2, or some variant of it, does seem to be at the core of most theistic arguments. God exists because they think it would be better if that were the case. I've just rarely, if ever, seen it put so succinctly.

I like your observation. Recently I've begun to ask people what the difference is between faith and believing something because you want it to be true. I can't find a difference.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
19-05-2015, 08:20 AM
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
(19-05-2015 08:09 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  If not us, there are plenty of other very intelligent species that may well have or would eventually take the mantle of dominant apex predator through use of intelligence. It all depends on the selective pressures in the environment, and how species adapt to those pressures.

You mean another species that already exists? Or another species would have came into existence, that would have had our same rational, and conscious abilities, to be aware of itself, with our creative and intellectual capacities, to decipher truth?

If our human conscious capacities, and ability to reason are product of selection pressures in the environment, those particular pressures would likely have been a fluke, unlikely to ever be repeated. If they weren't a fluke, we'd likely see some form of convergent evolution occurring, like the flying capacities, of insects, birds, and bats, but we don't.

The chances that if we were to find life on another planet, that has existed for at least as long as we have, to have developed creatures like ourselves, with our capacities to reason, is slim to none. This development as even Jerry Coyne points out, would be one-off, not inevitable in anyway.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2015, 08:23 AM
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
(19-05-2015 08:11 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-05-2015 08:06 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  So Water can be water one minute and wine the next, or you can say to the mountain move and it will move. .....
If you think about it, the Idea of God contradicts every fundamental principle that we know to be true.

So you're saying, if there were forces that could violate the laws of physics, or nature, this bring into question our capacities to be rational? That human rationality, and capacities to recognize what is true, are dependent on these laws being fixed?

I don't really get you argument.

Yes. Logic rests on the axioms (existence/identity, consciousness) and the primacy of existence, that existence exists independent of consciousness and consciousness is the faculty that perceives and identifies that which exists, not the faculty which creates or alters that which exists. The law of identity can not be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. That is the law of non-contradiction. Existence can not have primacy and not have primacy at the same time in the relationship between consciousness and existence. This relationship must be contextually fixed or the law of non-contradiction could not apply to reality and therefore there could be no logic. So the concept of the Christian God, contrary to being a necessary precondition of logic and reason, is its destroyer.

This problem is inescapable for the theist because the concepts involved are all axiomatic. They must be true even to deny their truth. There is no way out for the theist from this conundrum except to change the subject whenever it comes up. I'm glad these aren't my problems to deal with.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2015, 08:28 AM
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
(19-05-2015 08:23 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Yes. Logic rests on the axioms (existence/identity, consciousness) and the primacy of existence, that existence exists independent of consciousness and consciousness is the faculty that perceives and identifies that which exists, not the faculty which creates or alters that which exists. The law of identity can not be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. That is the law of non-contradiction. Existence can not have primacy and not have primacy at the same time in the relationship between consciousness and existence. This relationship must be contextually fixed or the law of non-contradiction could not apply to reality and therefore there could be no logic. So the concept of the Christian God, contrary to being a necessary precondition of logic and reason, is its destroyer.

This problem is inescapable for the theist because the concepts involved are all axiomatic. They must be true even to deny their truth. There is no way out for the theist from this conundrum except to change the subject whenever it comes up. I'm glad these aren't my problems to deal with.

That's horeshit. Logic is not dependent on ontological naturalism, or even the laws of physics to be immutable.

We could very well one day observe some phenomenon that violates these laws, and all it would mean is that our notion of these laws being immutable were wrong, rather than thinking oh dang we can't be rational anymore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2015, 08:31 AM
RE: Seeking more help vs Christian YouTuber
(19-05-2015 08:28 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-05-2015 08:23 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Yes. Logic rests on the axioms (existence/identity, consciousness) and the primacy of existence, that existence exists independent of consciousness and consciousness is the faculty that perceives and identifies that which exists, not the faculty which creates or alters that which exists. The law of identity can not be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. That is the law of non-contradiction. Existence can not have primacy and not have primacy at the same time in the relationship between consciousness and existence. This relationship must be contextually fixed or the law of non-contradiction could not apply to reality and therefore there could be no logic. So the concept of the Christian God, contrary to being a necessary precondition of logic and reason, is its destroyer.

This problem is inescapable for the theist because the concepts involved are all axiomatic. They must be true even to deny their truth. There is no way out for the theist from this conundrum except to change the subject whenever it comes up. I'm glad these aren't my problems to deal with.

That's horeshit. Logic is not dependent on ontological naturalism, or even the laws of physics to be immutable.

We could very well one day observe some phenomenon that violates these laws, and all it would mean is that our notion of these laws being immutable were wrong, rather than thinking oh dang we can't be rational anymore.

Logic is not dependent on an objective, non-contradictory reality? Is this true because you want it to be true or is it true regardless of anyone's likes, wishes, demands or preferences?

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: